3 ms·

that would be against the terms of use. from the article: You have the freedom to use the network for any purpose as long as you don’t harm the operation of th

by snewk 10y ago

that would be against the terms of use. from the article: You have the freedom to use the network for any purpose as long as you don’t harm the operation of the network itself, the rights of other users, or the principles of neutrality that allow contents and services to flow without deliberate interference. You have the right to understand the network and its components, and to share knowledge of its mechanisms and principles. You have the right to offer services and content to the network on your own terms. You have the right to join the network, and the obligation to extend this set of rights to anyone according to these same terms.

johnm1019 10y ago
If any of the other users are part owners (shareholders) of any copyrighted material being downloaded illegally, then those downloading it are accessing the network against the ToS. Surely by "rights of other users" they mean to include the right to not "have my property stolen."
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  "The rights of other users" most probably refer to the rights mentioned in this chart. Not copyright. It is unlikely anyone in the network has the rights to the copyrighted material being exchanged. There may be some exceptions, but you'd have to dig for them, in an extremely invasive and non-neutral way. Also, copyright infringement is nothing like property theft, mostly because copy & paste doesn't have the same effects as cut & paste. Stop using this broken analogy, it only hurts the debate.
timlyo 10y ago
>You have the freedom to use the network for any purpose as long as you don’t harm the operation of the network itself, the rights of other users, You could argue that taking all the bandwidth is harming the network. > or the principles of neutrality that allow contents and services to flow without deliberate interference. As long as no service was prioritised, e.g. every user gets an equal fraction of the bandwidth, then it is still neutral.

by snewk 10y ago

johnm1019 10y ago

If any of the other users are part owners (shareholders) of any copyrighted material being downloaded illegally, then those downloading it are accessing the network against the ToS. Surely by "rights of other users" they mean to include the right to not "have my property stolen."

loup-vaillant 10y ago
"The rights of other users" most probably refer to the rights mentioned in this chart. Not copyright. It is unlikely anyone in the network has the rights to the copyrighted material being exchanged. There may be some exceptions, but you'd have to dig for them, in an extremely invasive and non-neutral way. Also, copyright infringement is nothing like property theft, mostly because copy & paste doesn't have the same effects as cut & paste. Stop using this broken analogy, it only hurts the debate.

timlyo 10y ago

>You have the freedom to use the network for any purpose as long as you don’t harm the operation of the network itself, the rights of other users, You could argue that taking all the bandwidth is harming the network. > or the principles of neutrality that allow contents and services to flow without deliberate interference. As long as no service was prioritised, e.g. every user gets an equal fraction of the bandwidth, then it is still neutral.