4 ms·

What do you think the federal policy on torrents will be? Ask Disney.

by NoPiece 12y ago

jfb 12y ago
Who cares? The Feds here are not in the business of bandwidth provision; they're acting to counterbalance the elephantine mass of Comcast by preventing them from overpowering municipal politics.
- rev_bird 12y ago
  I think the idea was that if Disney can get the government to essentially destroy the idea of 20th century work entering the public domain, they could probably get the government to act against an open internet.
  - jfb 12y ago
    They can do this now. Municipal ownership of some of the pipes isn't going to stop what is essentially an orthogonal fight from happening at a higher level.
    - djrogers 12y ago
      Yeah - I think the point was that if the pipes are owned by the same government that's already in the pocket of hollywood, then the laws (more likely regulations written by bureaucrats, not laws passed by elected officials, but..) against torrenting/pirating/distributing would be easier to get written and enforced.
      - jfb 12y ago
        Well, then, you switch to Comcast/Verizon/&c. if these issues are important to you. Big ISP will be forced to compete for your business, rather than buying your acquiescence with franchise agreements and big steak dinners at your state capital. I fail to see any way in which this isn't a good thing.
      - skywhopper 12y ago
        A huge portion of broadband in the US is already owned by Hollywood. At least we have a theoretical voice in the federal government's policies. Still, the ideal is for local municipalities to own the last-mile fiber, like they do with power, water, sewers, and streets most places.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        That might not actually be the case. You can't bring a First Amendment complaint against Verizon, but you can certainly bring one against your state-run or municipal ISP.
      - tw04 12y ago
        Because Comcast has no stake in Hollywood?
- WillNotDownvote 12y ago
  A thought that occurs to me is that if the government is providing internet access, various pressure groups will leverage that for various kinds of censorship. Why is my government providing access to porn? To religious sites? To sites that violate copyright? To sites that contain many sorts of 'unsavory' content? Allowing children uncensored access to many things? I don't know how those complaints would fare, but I'm absolutely certain they'd be made.
  - Jtsummers 12y ago
    This is already an issue faced by other government entities that provide access to the internet. See libraries. Their solution is to leave it open because it's not their place to censor. Parents already have (I assume faulty, never checked it out myself) software solutions to block "unsavory" content.
    - zerocrates 12y ago
      Libraries already have to use internet filtering/blocking software under CIPA (though adult users are supposed to be able to get the filter disabled).
    - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
      Right, and libraries in various municipalities are in fact censored, both in terms of publications and in internet access they allow. Why would this be different?
      - wglb 12y ago
        How are they censored? Do you have any examples of this?
        fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        The public library a few hundred feet from my residence heavily and ridiculously censors its internet access. The censorship is provided by a third party and getting a site whitelisted is practically impossible to achieve.
hawkice 12y ago
The ability to encrypt torrent traffic (requiring encryption is tremendously easy to do through the guis I use, and might even be the default in many clients) combined with the American reflexive response to government censorship leads me to think this won't be as big an issue as you imply.
- smallerize 12y ago
  If you use a tracker, anyone on that tracker can get your IP address. Not to mention querying the DHT and busting everyone with a matching hash. I once downloaded a file with all the encryption buttons checked (Deluge interface) and some enforcement agency still sent a warning notice to my ISP with my IP address.
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Couldn't that be because they seeded the file to directly?
    - smallerize 12y ago
      I hadn't thought of that. I'd forgotten to install the "Blocklist" plugin for Deluge and configure a list.
api 12y ago
What will the federal policy be on encrypted traffic? Only two possibilities: ban it -- untenable -- or allow it.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  They're not the only possibilities - for example they can refuse it but not police it, they can refuse it and police it, they can allow it but discourage it somehow (eg rate-limiting), I'm sure there are more if someone cared to thing about them for a minute. Not sure what you're trying to say here?
  - eru 12y ago
    Or only police a few very harshly times to make examples. (And inconvenient people will have a higher chance of getting selected.)
sliverstorm 12y ago
I'm more than prepared to give up pirating movies in exchange for modern broadband and competitive providers.

What do you think the federal policy on torrents will be? Ask Disney.

by NoPiece 12y ago

What do you think the federal policy on torrents will be? Ask Disney.

jfb 12y ago

Who cares? The Feds here are not in the business of bandwidth provision; they're acting to counterbalance the elephantine mass of Comcast by preventing them from overpowering municipal politics.

rev_bird 12y ago
I think the idea was that if Disney can get the government to essentially destroy the idea of 20th century work entering the public domain, they could probably get the government to act against an open internet.
- jfb 12y ago
  They can do this now. Municipal ownership of some of the pipes isn't going to stop what is essentially an orthogonal fight from happening at a higher level.
  - djrogers 12y ago
    Yeah - I think the point was that if the pipes are owned by the same government that's already in the pocket of hollywood, then the laws (more likely regulations written by bureaucrats, not laws passed by elected officials, but..) against torrenting/pirating/distributing would be easier to get written and enforced.
    - jfb 12y ago
      Well, then, you switch to Comcast/Verizon/&c. if these issues are important to you. Big ISP will be forced to compete for your business, rather than buying your acquiescence with franchise agreements and big steak dinners at your state capital. I fail to see any way in which this isn't a good thing.
    - skywhopper 12y ago
      A huge portion of broadband in the US is already owned by Hollywood. At least we have a theoretical voice in the federal government's policies. Still, the ideal is for local municipalities to own the last-mile fiber, like they do with power, water, sewers, and streets most places.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      That might not actually be the case. You can't bring a First Amendment complaint against Verizon, but you can certainly bring one against your state-run or municipal ISP.
    - tw04 12y ago
      Because Comcast has no stake in Hollywood?
WillNotDownvote 12y ago
A thought that occurs to me is that if the government is providing internet access, various pressure groups will leverage that for various kinds of censorship. Why is my government providing access to porn? To religious sites? To sites that violate copyright? To sites that contain many sorts of 'unsavory' content? Allowing children uncensored access to many things? I don't know how those complaints would fare, but I'm absolutely certain they'd be made.
- Jtsummers 12y ago
  This is already an issue faced by other government entities that provide access to the internet. See libraries. Their solution is to leave it open because it's not their place to censor. Parents already have (I assume faulty, never checked it out myself) software solutions to block "unsavory" content.
  - zerocrates 12y ago
    Libraries already have to use internet filtering/blocking software under CIPA (though adult users are supposed to be able to get the filter disabled).
  - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
    Right, and libraries in various municipalities are in fact censored, both in terms of publications and in internet access they allow. Why would this be different?
    - wglb 12y ago
      How are they censored? Do you have any examples of this?
      - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        The public library a few hundred feet from my residence heavily and ridiculously censors its internet access. The censorship is provided by a third party and getting a site whitelisted is practically impossible to achieve.

hawkice 12y ago

The ability to encrypt torrent traffic (requiring encryption is tremendously easy to do through the guis I use, and might even be the default in many clients) combined with the American reflexive response to government censorship leads me to think this won't be as big an issue as you imply.

smallerize 12y ago
If you use a tracker, anyone on that tracker can get your IP address. Not to mention querying the DHT and busting everyone with a matching hash. I once downloaded a file with all the encryption buttons checked (Deluge interface) and some enforcement agency still sent a warning notice to my ISP with my IP address.
- bduerst 12y ago
  Couldn't that be because they seeded the file to directly?
  - smallerize 12y ago
    I hadn't thought of that. I'd forgotten to install the "Blocklist" plugin for Deluge and configure a list.

api 12y ago

What will the federal policy be on encrypted traffic? Only two possibilities: ban it -- untenable -- or allow it.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
They're not the only possibilities - for example they can refuse it but not police it, they can refuse it and police it, they can allow it but discourage it somehow (eg rate-limiting), I'm sure there are more if someone cared to thing about them for a minute. Not sure what you're trying to say here?
- eru 12y ago
  Or only police a few very harshly times to make examples. (And inconvenient people will have a higher chance of getting selected.)

sliverstorm 12y ago

I'm more than prepared to give up pirating movies in exchange for modern broadband and competitive providers.