News Regulate Internet: What Does it Mean & Why is it Important?

[Drakkith]

What exactly does it mean to "Regulate" the internet? Why is this important to achieve/avoid?

 

[Evo]

What exactly does it mean to "Regulate" the internet? Why is this important to achieve/avoid?

You'll have to be much more specific since the internet is not a "thing". It is tens of thousands of pieces of independently, privately, corporately and government owned portions of data networks around the world that tentatively *agree* to connect to each other. Pieces of the internet come and go and change constantly as people buy, sell, go bankrupt, etc...

Are you talking about *rules* that some governments are trying to impose on owners of the pieces, mostly the major backbone carriers (IXC's)?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

China regulates their piece of the internet by censoring.

 

[Evo]

China regulates their piece of the internet by censoring.

So wouldn't this belong in P&WA? It's not about computers, it's about law.

 

[Drakkith]

You'll have to be much more specific since the internet is not a "thing". It is tens of thousands of pieces of independently, privately, corporately and government owned portions of data networks around the world that tentatively *agree* to connect to each other. Pieces of the internet come and go and change constantly as people buy, sell, go bankrupt, etc...

Are you talking about *rules* that some governments are trying to impose on owners of the pieces, mostly the major backbone carriers (IXC's)?

What does "regulation" mean first of all?

I've heard arguments for and against regulating the internet, and I have no idea what the issues are beyond the usual ramblings of morons in online places like facebook. Why would regulation be bad for the net? Obviously this isn't a black or white situation, or else it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What does "regulation" mean first of all?

Control

I've heard arguments for and against regulating the internet, and I have no idea what the issues are beyond the usual ramblings of morons in online places like facebook. Why would regulation be bad for the net? Obviously this isn't a black or white situation, or else it wouldn't be an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

 

[Evo]

Control

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

That's the regulation of copyright infringement on the internet. So, that is one aspect.

 

[russ_watters]

Control

via law.

As opposed to the regulator on your gas line, which controls flow via pressure reduction...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I try to stay regular without any help from the govt thank you.

 

[Astronuc]

Regulation would not necessarily mean control as much as specifying and maintaining standards or rules of conduct or process, or establishing legal liabilities and sanctions.

From Wikipedia on regulation: "Regulation is the promulgation, monitoring and enforcement of rules. Regulation creates, limits, or constrains a right, creates or limits a duty, or allocates a responsibility."

One aspect of the internet is commerce. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce.

Another aspect of the internet is 'publication', and the federal government regulates copyrights.

The FCC regulates airwaves (radio & TV transmissions). Internet complicates that.

Regulations can be found in sets of documents such as the Code of Federal Regulations and US Code.

 

[Drakkith]

I see. Well, it appears to be quite a conundrum! What to regulate, how to regulate, if to regulate...I mean we can't go around stealing all this media forever without consequence.

 

[Evo]

I see. Well, it appears to be quite a conundrum! What to regulate, how to regulate, if to regulate...I mean we can't go around stealing all this media forever without consequence.

Exactly, stealing is stealing. The fact that the internet makes stealing easier does not make it right.

 

[Borek]

if to regulate...

If it ain't broken, fix it till it is.

I doubt it is possible to keep the current copyright regulations in place for much longer, but I am not going to open this can of worms writing what I think.

 

[CAC1001]

Regulation of the Internet, or attempts at it, must be undertaken very cautiously IMO. If you look at the history of new mediums for information and communication, they almost always start out very open and with lots of innovation, only to then become subject to monopoly or oligopoly and thus extremely restricted and tightly-controlled. This happened with radio, television, motion pictures, music, etc...the Internet is the newest form of such communication, and as of late is very open, but could fall prey to this same thing if we are not careful.

There have been some who have said for example that Google should be regulated as a utility since it essentially has a monopoly on search. Thing is, there is no way to know for sure that this dominance of search will remain into the future. When Apple was preparing to enter the mobile phone industry, many thought the company very foolish, and said that the industry was consolidating down to about two major players, only then for Apple to come and revolutionize the industry with the iPhone. MySpace was thought to be the dominant social network for awhile too, then came Facebook. Even Google itself came after Yahoo.

So while a company like Google may seem so dominant now, it could get displaced at some point in the future, but the thing is, if the government starts regulating it as a utility, that inadverdently will likely give Google a permanent monopoly on search.

 

[SixNein]

Exactly, stealing is stealing. The fact that the internet makes stealing easier does not make it right.

What constitutes stealing in the digital age?

 

[Drakkith]

What constitutes stealing in the digital age?

Is this a serious question?

 

[Galteeth]

What exactly does it mean to "Regulate" the internet? Why is this important to achieve/avoid?

As compared to practically every other sector of life, the internet is extremely unregulated. This is largely because of the way it was designed, as a decentralized form of informatiom sharing. There are those who believe that everything should be regulated, and the internet suffers from a dangerous lack of government supervision. While governments can target individuals based on their internet activity, it is extremely difficult to target a particular activity as a whole on the internet. The internet is also a medium in which information can be shared and organization can be done outside of centralized outlets, and this fundamentally threatens existing power structures. It is similar as to how the printing press threatened the authority of the church, as previously church scribes were the primary source of publishing.

 

[Galteeth]

Exactly, stealing is stealing. The fact that the internet makes stealing easier does not make it right.

Perhaps, but at a certain level of ease the point becomes moot. The traditional notions of intellectual copyright when it comes to creative works, and really information of all kinds, are rapidly being annihilated and there is no evidence that this trend will reverse in the foreseeable future. Of course there is no consensus that the transfer of information constitutes stealing.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Exactly, stealing is stealing. The fact that the internet makes stealing easier does not make it right.

Is this a serious question?

I'm not taking any side on this debate but it's worth pointing out that internet piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. The important difference is that theft requires property to be illegally taken from the owner by another person. What you get in internet piracy is usually the owner of a product illegally copying it and distributing the copies for free.

Where the rub comes is the ethics of copyright infringement in certain circumstances along with the practicality of it.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm not taking any side on this debate but it's worth pointing out that internet piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. The important difference is that theft requires property to be illegally taken from the owner by another person. What you get in internet piracy is usually the owner of a product illegally copying it and distributing the copies for free.

Where the rub comes is the ethics of copyright infringement in certain circumstances along with the practicality of it.

That actually makes things a lot clearer. I was not aware of this.

 

[SixNein]

Is this a serious question?

As a matter of fact, it's a very serious question.

In a digital world, what is stealing?

 

[SixNein]

I'm not taking any side on this debate but it's worth pointing out that internet piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. The important difference is that theft requires property to be illegally taken from the owner by another person. What you get in internet piracy is usually the owner of a product illegally copying it and distributing the copies for free.

Where the rub comes is the ethics of copyright infringement in certain circumstances along with the practicality of it.

You are correct sir.

Copyright infringement means to violate another person's government granted exclusive right over a work. Patent and trademark infringement are other examples of the same thing.

 

[Evo]

As a matter of fact, it's a very serious question.

In a digital world, what is stealing?

Copying and downloading anything that is legally for sale without paying for it.

 

[Evo]

I'm not taking any side on this debate but it's worth pointing out that internet piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. The important difference is that theft requires property to be illegally taken from the owner by another person. What you get in internet piracy is usually the owner of a product illegally copying it and distributing the copies for free.

Where the rub comes is the ethics of copyright infringement in certain circumstances along with the practicality of it.

It's theft. You are taking income away from the rightful owner. You're stealing money, removing income, by any name it's theft. When an employee "fixes" the books at work and moves "numbers" to other accounts, you think it's not theft? Authorities would disagree. I know you're going by what's being claimed online, I've seen the arguments, by the same authorities that claim doctoring numbers in a ledger is theft.

It's ridiculous to say because it's not physical it's not theft, and I know old laws are written that way. When a film is made, is it wrong to charge to see it? When music is recorded is it wrong to charge to hear it? When a book is written, is it wrong to charge to read it?

How else are artists to make their money? If everything they make is stolen, then we will have no more films, no more recordings, no more stories, because people can't make livings anymore.

Intellectual property is being stolen, and in this day and age, that can be worth much more than any piece of physical property.

 

[Andre]

It's theft. You are taking income away from the rightful owner.

Agree. Obviously it's not only the copier who is at fault, but even more so the person who made the article available for downloading.

Interesing question however is if the downloader would have bought it, had he had to pay for it and also if the larger illegal distribition could benefit the orginal producer a bit, gaining more popularity that way?

 

[Evo]

Agree. Obviously it's not only the copier who is at fault, but even more so the person who made the article available for downloading.

Interesing question however is if the downloader would have bought it, had he had to pay for it and also if the larger illegal distribition could benefit the orginal producer a bit, gaining more popularity that way?

Obviously not all would have paid for it, but probably a large number would have. If it's free, albeit illegally, I'd dare say more harm than good is done. Something we won't know. Even otherwise honest people will download something if it's "free", many not even realizing it's illegal.

I admit I like to watch or listen to things online, like on youtube. Some apparently violated copyright because they were later yanked. I, however, DO like to own copies and do buy most of what I watch or listen to online. I'm planning to buy several DVD's of shows this christmas that I could download illegally. Just call me honest.

I have nothing against people just watching or listening online as long as they don't download it.

 

[ImaLooser]

I'm not taking any side on this debate but it's worth pointing out that internet piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. The important difference is that theft requires property to be illegally taken from the owner by another person. What you get in internet piracy is usually the owner of a product illegally copying it and distributing the copies for free.

Where the rub comes is the ethics of copyright infringement in certain circumstances along with the practicality of it.

It's pretty strange. Today something has been published on the Web if and only if the search engines like Google can read and list it. So its "published" if and only if software can read it. Whether the public can read it doesn't matter. Weird, huh?

 

[Evo]

It's pretty strange. Today something has been published on the Web if and only if the search engines like Google can read and list it. So its "published" if and only if software can read it. Whether the public can read it doesn't matter. Weird, huh?

That's incorrect, search engines like google just help you find things, they have nothing to do with accessing it.

 

[Borek]

Copying and downloading anything that is legally for sale without paying for it.

Not exactly. If I will upload an interesting movie that I have (legally) to my website and I will let you download it (you personally, not everyone and his dog) for free, that will count as a fair use.

When a film is made, is it wrong to charge to see it? When music is recorded is it wrong to charge to hear it? When a book is written, is it wrong to charge to read it?

No, no and no.

But I wonder how much of the $13 Junior paid for the Kindle edition of Snow Crash I am reading now went to Stephenson. My bet is not a single cent, it is a pure profit of Bantam Spectra.

How else are artists to make their money?

© is abused by the publishers, and publishers care about artists about as much as they care about the public. All they care about is profit.

Basically it is a question of whether the model we have now - the one based on copyright law - is the only one possible. Logic says "no". There are other possible models, that will produce different markets, it just happened that we landed where we are now. Now publishers will do everything to save the market as it works now, because they already know it gives them profits. That includes telling everyone that the model we have is the only one possible and lobbying for that everywhere, plus lobbying for things like Copyright Term Extension Act.

 

[Evo]

Ah, but people don't even realize that old tv reruns on tv pay royalties to the actors. There is a lot that is not understood about how the original people get paid.

Sure making a copy for personal use is allowed. Sure you can loan a copy. The problem is when you upload it so that the entire population of Earth can get it for free and the people that made it get screwed.

Because of the internet, we need to rethink what is fair. Back in the old days when physical copies had to be made or used, it limited the amount of "free" use, guaranteeing some money to the legal owner.

You sell software, so obviously you would not be happy if everyone could get your product for free and put you out of business.

 

[cobalt124]

It's theft...

Agree...

Agree too. It is theft. But call the companies to account too. Publishers, ISPs and the rest place profit before punishing theft, and also do not give a tinkers cuss when it comes to publishing artists creative work as widely as possible, also a consequence of punishing theft would be to create "haves" and "have nots" when it comes to buying films, music or whatever. We need a better model.

 

[Evo]

Agree too. It is theft. But call the companies to account too. Publishers, ISPs and the rest place profit before punishing theft, and also do not give a tinkers cuss when it comes to publishing artists creative work as widely as possible, also a consequence of punishing theft would be to create "haves" and "have nots" when it comes to buying films, music or whatever. We need a better model.

Yes, something needs to be done because the internet has completely turned the tables, but I don't see how anything can be done that's reasonable. You know what they say "if downloading music is criminal, only criminals will have music".

 

[Galteeth]

Yes, something needs to be done because the internet has completely turned the tables, but I don't see how anything can be done that's reasonable. You know what they say "if downloading music is criminal, only criminals will have music".

They also say "If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."

 

[AlephZero]

Yes, something needs to be done because the internet has completely turned the tables, but I don't see how anything can be done that's reasonable.

It seems to me the problem is a temporary disconnect between the notions of "stealing" and "illegal possession of physical objects".

Given the ever decreasing cost of technology, I think it's only a matter of time before ALL access to information can be tracked to individuals. Years ago, there were "high tech" hardware devices issued to people to control access to high security computer networks Now, similar devices are cheap enough to be given "free" to all customers of online banks. I saw a recent news item that Mastercard was about to issue credit cards with similar technology built in.

How long before every iternet access account with an ISP or phone company comes with a "free" access control device - and doesn't work unless you use it? Once that has happened, companies of the size of youtube will be in a position to enforce that ALL uploaded data is "controlled", whether from big corporations or individuals.

And the onus would be on anybody operating an uncontrolled information sharing site to prove that what they were doing was legal, rather than the other way round.

None of the above would prevent people giving unlimited access to their own data, if they want to. The current issue is mainly about people giving unlimited access to somebody else's data.

How long to get to that sort of scenario? I would guess maybe 10 years from now...

 

[SixNein]

Copying and downloading anything that is legally for sale without paying for it.

So would you disagree with fair use?

On a side note, have you ran down every single line of code your computer uses and ensured you have paid all patent licenses?

 

[Evo]

So would you disagree with fair use?

On a side note, have you ran down every single line of code your computer uses and ensured you have paid all patent licenses?

Please go back and read the rest of what I said.

 

[SixNein]

It's theft. You are taking income away from the rightful owner. You're stealing money, removing income, by any name it's theft. When an employee "fixes" the books at work and moves "numbers" to other accounts, you think it's not theft? Authorities would disagree. I know you're going by what's being claimed online, I've seen the arguments, by the same authorities that claim doctoring numbers in a ledger is theft.

It's ridiculous to say because it's not physical it's not theft, and I know old laws are written that way. When a film is made, is it wrong to charge to see it? When music is recorded is it wrong to charge to hear it? When a book is written, is it wrong to charge to read it?

How else are artists to make their money? If everything they make is stolen, then we will have no more films, no more recordings, no more stories, because people can't make livings anymore.

Intellectual property is being stolen, and in this day and age, that can be worth much more than any piece of physical property.

According to me, Ryan, and the Supreme Court, it's not theft.

Copyrights have nothing to do about the decision of artists to sell or not sell their work. Copyrights are about exclusive rights over a work. For example, a music group like the beastie boys is impossible today because they sampled a lot of their music. Today, a group like that simply couldn't exist because copyrights are very strong.

 

[SixNein]

That's incorrect, search engines like google just help you find things, they have nothing to do with accessing it.

Search engines like google build very large databases of other people's content. You can go right now and do a search for images, and you will see images pop up from all over the web.

Here are some images associated with physicsforums.com that google happily serves up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=phy...d7a6d3d50a25b6&bpcl=38625945&biw=1920&bih=946

In fact, you could find numerous examples of copyright and trademark violations just from images being posted all over the forum. For example, someone posts a picture of their kids holding a Pepsi is a violation of IP. People have to either blotch out the logo or put tape over it. A youtube video with that tv playing in the background is violating copyrights.

 

[Evo]

Search engines like google build very large databases of other people's content. You can go right now and do a search for images, and you will see images pop up from all over the web.

Here are some images associated with physicsforums.com that google happily serves up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=phy...d7a6d3d50a25b6&bpcl=38625945&biw=1920&bih=946

In fact, you could find numerous examples of copyright and trademark violations just from images being posted. For example, someone posts a picture of their kids holding a Pepsi is a violation of IP.

Yeah, that's what I said, search engines find things.

 

[Evo]

According to me, Ryan, and the Supreme Court, it's not theft.

Copyrights have nothing to do about the decision of artists to sell or not sell their work. Copyrights are about exclusive rights over a work. For example, a music group like the beastie boys is impossible today because they sampled a lot of their music. Today, a group like that simply couldn't exist because copyrights are very strong.

And I'm saying that the definition of theft will need to be changed.

Did you read through the thread before posting?

 

[SixNein]

Yeah, that's what I said, search engines find things.

Those images are stored on Google servers. If they weren't, then google would be profiting off of other people's bandwidth.

 

[Evo]

Those images are stored on Google servers. If they weren't, then google would be profiting off of other people's bandwidth.

They're a search engine, of course the search page is on google's servers, did you expect it to be somewhere else?

What does this have to do with the misunderstanding the member had?

Today something has been published on the Web if and only if the search engines like Google can read and list it

 

[SixNein]

They're a search engine, of course the search page is on google's servers, did you expect it to be somewhere else?

What does this have to do with the misunderstanding the member had?

I'm trying to figure out a way to explain to you in a convincing way why I'm not a fan-boy of copyrights, and I was trying to use Google as an example. Google is arguable committing copyright infringement. But let me drop this approach and try a more straight forward approach:

I suppose my greatest concern with intellectual property is how it allows people to control, through exclusive rights, the building blocks of knowledge. For example, mathematics can be both patented and copyrighted when it is employed on a computer (Something that concerns me GREATLY). In addition, there has been a long history of continuous extensions to the term of copyright protection and also the scope of such protection. Also, there is little consideration given to how a copyright effects the public in the long term. The only consideration being given is corporate profits.

To provide an example, suppose I created a software program. I would own the copyrights to the program for my entire life and even 50 years after my death. And this assumes that congress does not decide to extend copyrights yet again in the meantime (And congress has a long history of periodically doing exactly that). Even patents provide a 20 year protection, and software qualifies for both copyright and patent protection. In a basic nutshell, I have been granted exclusive rights over what is likely well beyond the lifetime of the actual usefulness of the product. And the public will be unable to so much as create an extension to my software without my permission. Quite frankly, we aren't talking about me making some profit for my troubles. We are talking about my great grandchildren having exclusive control over something I made long after I've turned to dust.

My opinion is that monopolies shouldn't be handed out so freely. They should be rare and limited in scope and span; otherwise, the real theft is theft of the public. (Theft is still a bad word for it)

 

[Drakkith]

I'm not seeing the problem SixNein.

 

[Astronuc]

Here is a reasonable perspective on copyright infringement.

Call it What You Will, Copyright Infringement is “Theft”
http://www.jonathanpinkesq.com/call-it-what-you-will-copyright-infringement-is-theft

Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Note:
■CHAPTER 1—SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT (§§ 101–122)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1
■CHAPTER 5—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (§§ 501–513)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5

 

[SixNein]

Here is a reasonable perspective on copyright infringement.

Call it What You Will, Copyright Infringement is “Theft”
http://www.jonathanpinkesq.com/call-it-what-you-will-copyright-infringement-is-theft

Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Note:
■CHAPTER 1—SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT (§§ 101–122)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1
■CHAPTER 5—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (§§ 501–513)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5

I disagree about the perspective in link #1 as being reasonable. Instead, the perspective is from an Attorney making a sales pitch to potential clients.

According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual Property” Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) Wide use dates from around 1990. (Local image copy)

The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

 

[Evo]

Sixnein, what I am discussing is simply the theft of artistic products - music, films, literature, where profits due the artists are stolen from them. That's all. Something needs to be done to address this as more and more of these products are produced/made available through the internet instead of traditional physical products.

 

[TheMadMonk]

And I'm saying that the definition of theft will need to be changed.

Why, what benefit does changing the definition of theft in a jurisdiction achieve? Seems like a complete waste of time to me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It isn't theft in any of the legal systems in the UK yet that doesn't prevent action being taken against those who infringe upon the copyright of others. There is simply no need to change the definition of theft, at least where I live.

 

[nazarbaz]

With the current Internet Infrastructure, it's a lost cause. The business must live with it. Here in France, they charge 15 to 20 euros for a music album on average (I heard that it's a bit cheaper in the US). I don't see how an average teenager could get access to the music he likes. That's the real theft : most of it goes to the industry, not the artists.
You're not going to change the actual trend with moral or legal injunctions while the authorities lack the means to enforce them.

 

[Evo]

Why, what benefit does changing the definition of theft in a jurisdiction achieve? Seems like a complete waste of time to me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It isn't theft in any of the legal systems in the UK yet that doesn't prevent action being taken against those who infringe upon the copyright of others. There is simply no need to change the definition of theft, at least where I live.

The problem is that it is broken. The laws are outdated and don't address the current problems. Due to the internet, there are new types of theft and the laws need to be re-written to include them.