5 ms·

"These packets belong to you, but the packets get to you through hardware that belongs to Comcast. You are free to access these packets and do what you want wi

"These packets belong to you, but the packets get to you through hardware that belongs to Comcast. You are free to access these packets and do what you want with them, but Comcast has every right to limit how you use their hardware [and subsequently charge you extra for using some hardware paths, such as the ones going to aol.com or anticomcastpolitician.org]." I don't like this argument, not one bit.

imgabe 13y ago
Not really the same thing. This isn't a net neutrality situation. While anyone can copy public domain material, that doesn't mean that any given entity is obligated to bear the expense of keeping it around to be copied. Publishers presumably have had copies of all public domain books since they've been printed. Does that mean the publisher should be compelled to print a copy and give it away to anyone who asks? Even if they send an automated request for one 1000 times a second?
- diminoten 13y ago
  Yeah, I realize that the effort was high on Google's part, but if they're claiming that their right to lift the text from a book (that takes effort to create too, mind you) is drawn from 'fair use', then can't I make the exact same argument for lifting the same text from their servers as well? Google's the one making the claim that publishers should do the work and not benefit from doing that work, so why can't I benefit from Google's efforts as well?
  - imgabe 13y ago
    Google isn't making a copyright claim in preventing you from accessing the books via an automated way. They're limiting access to their servers. If I have a book in my house and you want to cite text from it, you can't cite Fair Use to break into my house and look at it.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      That's a good point. If I did, though, you'd charge me with breaking in, not with stealing.
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    Apples and oranges: you're conflating copyright/fair use with terms of service. Google's not claiming you don't have a right to reuse the text. They're placing restrictions on how you use their service to access that information. It's no more a copyright claim than your local library telling you that you have to come during their operating hours.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      I never said it was a copyright claim, I said the same arguments can be used to justify packet preference. Maybe Comcast only works from 9-5 anyway. It's their service. It'd be like a highway charging you different amounts depending on what time of day you traveled.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - leoedin 13y ago
        Train fares vary depending on the time of day. Some cities (London) set a "congestion charge" to vehicles driving in the city centre during the day. Utilities charge industrial (and some residential) customers different amounts based on the time of day. I'm not quite sure what the parallel's are to Google Books though... (I think we've gone too far down the metaphor rabbit hole)
        diminoten 13y ago
        I just want to examine why it's okay for Google to say, "what we offer is yours, but since it's our servers we can dictate how we offer it to you", but when Comcast makes the exact same argument about our packets and delivering them to us, we call it a violation of net neutrality.
        tomkarlo 13y ago
        That two situations are superficially similar doesn't mean they don't have different real-world implications, and shouldn't be regulated in a different manner. Driving a go-kart is broadly similar to driving a semi-truck, but you only need a license for one. Google's (and other Internet services providers) terms of service restricting your usage aren't anti-competitive in nature. The restrictions they're placing on your usage of the content don't prevent you from getting that same content from another provider (especially when we're talking about public domain or fair use text.) Carriers are regulated much more heavily than other businesses, because the nature of their business creates a disproportionate number of opportunities for anti-competitive practices and other shenanigans. Also, many of them have a monopoly or duopoly position in their marketplace, and as such are scrutinized more closely for anti-competitive practices. Example: As a monopoly cable provider I can be the dominant internet provider in your city. So to extract more money from users, I create a new subsidiary owned by the same (unregulated) parent company as the cable division that charges for online video. The parent company then tells the cable company to throttle the bandwidth for all competitors so that everyone is forced to move to that new company's video service, regardless of whether it's actually a better product. This is anti-competitive and harmful to the public - rather than offering a better service, I'm using my ownership of one business to unfairly hamper free competition in another market.
peterwwillis 13y ago
I'll answer this with the plot for the movie 3:10 to Yuma. Rain falls down from the sky. It goes through a river. The river passes through Glen Hollander's land before it ends up in your backyard. Glen realizes this, and puts up a dam to prevent the water from reaching you, unless you pay a monthly fee. You may not like it, but the internet is the rain, and it's flowing through Comcast's land before it gets to your back yard. You can always try to find a different landowner to sell you water if you don't like it, but ain't no "argument" that's gonna change where the rain falls. (Unless you start your own ILEC and dig your own fiber)
- mpyne 13y ago
  Careful with that though. You're creeping pretty close to some of the more absurd thought exercises of a pure libertarian utopia, the types of thought exercises that show pure libertarianism to be flawed as a universal sociopolitical scheme. In the actual U.S. it is entirely probable that Glen would be made to get rid of the dam instead of cutting off water supply to the rest of the county, for the same underlying common-sense principles that have caused things like easements to end up in property law.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    I must have missed the meeting where libertarians decided that a free society would be a utopia.
  - peterwwillis 13y ago
    Yes, it's likely that an actual water supply could be a target for an easement, mainly because it's the only method of either transportation or sustaining someone's livelihood/life in a desert climate. Even if the internet 'needed' to be used, the only easement you could claim would be on the equipment of the telco in order to access something over the telco's property [that you could not otherwise access]. There are multiple methods to gain internet access, and the internet is not a requirement of a property or method of access (unless telephones and postal mail become abolished), and does not affect your property. I don't see what any of this has to do with political philosophy. The law is the law; doesn't much matter what you label it.

imgabe 13y ago

Not really the same thing. This isn't a net neutrality situation. While anyone can copy public domain material, that doesn't mean that any given entity is obligated to bear the expense of keeping it around to be copied. Publishers presumably have had copies of all public domain books since they've been printed. Does that mean the publisher should be compelled to print a copy and give it away to anyone who asks? Even if they send an automated request for one 1000 times a second?

diminoten 13y ago
Yeah, I realize that the effort was high on Google's part, but if they're claiming that their right to lift the text from a book (that takes effort to create too, mind you) is drawn from 'fair use', then can't I make the exact same argument for lifting the same text from their servers as well? Google's the one making the claim that publishers should do the work and not benefit from doing that work, so why can't I benefit from Google's efforts as well?
- imgabe 13y ago
  Google isn't making a copyright claim in preventing you from accessing the books via an automated way. They're limiting access to their servers. If I have a book in my house and you want to cite text from it, you can't cite Fair Use to break into my house and look at it.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    That's a good point. If I did, though, you'd charge me with breaking in, not with stealing.
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  Apples and oranges: you're conflating copyright/fair use with terms of service. Google's not claiming you don't have a right to reuse the text. They're placing restrictions on how you use their service to access that information. It's no more a copyright claim than your local library telling you that you have to come during their operating hours.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    I never said it was a copyright claim, I said the same arguments can be used to justify packet preference. Maybe Comcast only works from 9-5 anyway. It's their service. It'd be like a highway charging you different amounts depending on what time of day you traveled.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - leoedin 13y ago
      Train fares vary depending on the time of day. Some cities (London) set a "congestion charge" to vehicles driving in the city centre during the day. Utilities charge industrial (and some residential) customers different amounts based on the time of day. I'm not quite sure what the parallel's are to Google Books though... (I think we've gone too far down the metaphor rabbit hole)
      - diminoten 13y ago
        I just want to examine why it's okay for Google to say, "what we offer is yours, but since it's our servers we can dictate how we offer it to you", but when Comcast makes the exact same argument about our packets and delivering them to us, we call it a violation of net neutrality.
        tomkarlo 13y ago
        That two situations are superficially similar doesn't mean they don't have different real-world implications, and shouldn't be regulated in a different manner. Driving a go-kart is broadly similar to driving a semi-truck, but you only need a license for one. Google's (and other Internet services providers) terms of service restricting your usage aren't anti-competitive in nature. The restrictions they're placing on your usage of the content don't prevent you from getting that same content from another provider (especially when we're talking about public domain or fair use text.) Carriers are regulated much more heavily than other businesses, because the nature of their business creates a disproportionate number of opportunities for anti-competitive practices and other shenanigans. Also, many of them have a monopoly or duopoly position in their marketplace, and as such are scrutinized more closely for anti-competitive practices. Example: As a monopoly cable provider I can be the dominant internet provider in your city. So to extract more money from users, I create a new subsidiary owned by the same (unregulated) parent company as the cable division that charges for online video. The parent company then tells the cable company to throttle the bandwidth for all competitors so that everyone is forced to move to that new company's video service, regardless of whether it's actually a better product. This is anti-competitive and harmful to the public - rather than offering a better service, I'm using my ownership of one business to unfairly hamper free competition in another market.

peterwwillis 13y ago

I'll answer this with the plot for the movie 3:10 to Yuma. Rain falls down from the sky. It goes through a river. The river passes through Glen Hollander's land before it ends up in your backyard. Glen realizes this, and puts up a dam to prevent the water from reaching you, unless you pay a monthly fee. You may not like it, but the internet is the rain, and it's flowing through Comcast's land before it gets to your back yard. You can always try to find a different landowner to sell you water if you don't like it, but ain't no "argument" that's gonna change where the rain falls. (Unless you start your own ILEC and dig your own fiber)

mpyne 13y ago
Careful with that though. You're creeping pretty close to some of the more absurd thought exercises of a pure libertarian utopia, the types of thought exercises that show pure libertarianism to be flawed as a universal sociopolitical scheme. In the actual U.S. it is entirely probable that Glen would be made to get rid of the dam instead of cutting off water supply to the rest of the county, for the same underlying common-sense principles that have caused things like easements to end up in property law.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  I must have missed the meeting where libertarians decided that a free society would be a utopia.
- peterwwillis 13y ago
  Yes, it's likely that an actual water supply could be a target for an easement, mainly because it's the only method of either transportation or sustaining someone's livelihood/life in a desert climate. Even if the internet 'needed' to be used, the only easement you could claim would be on the equipment of the telco in order to access something over the telco's property [that you could not otherwise access]. There are multiple methods to gain internet access, and the internet is not a requirement of a property or method of access (unless telephones and postal mail become abolished), and does not affect your property. I don't see what any of this has to do with political philosophy. The law is the law; doesn't much matter what you label it.