Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Wants 'Net Neutrality' To Include Filtering

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the we-make-the-rules dept.

Censorship 212

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The RIAA is now worried about the FCC's rulemaking concerning Net Neutrality. Specifically, they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography, so they want to make sure that spying on and filtering internet traffic is okay, so long as it's being done for a good reason, even if it doesn't work correctly and blocks non-infringing content. Incidentally, the RIAA has some justification to lump child pornography and copyright infringement: after all, people might infringe upon the original cover art for the album 'Virgin Killer,' which featured a naked under-aged girl in a way that some consider pornographic. The copyright on it belongs to RCA Records."

cancel ×

212 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"..... (5, Insightful)

scosco62 (864264) | about 4 years ago | (#33312168)

It's hard for me to tell if this is a different aspect of RIAA's disconnect with reality, or if there is really a fundamental disconnect of what the First Amendment is out.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (3, Funny)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 4 years ago | (#33312176)

No - this is perfectly in line with the logic behind dehydrated water.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | about 4 years ago | (#33313156)

Stay away from my water.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (4, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | about 4 years ago | (#33312188)

Equally rapacious and soulless - they make their own reality and expect everyone else to live it. The RIAA is a classic case study on the influence of the private sector on governance.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | about 4 years ago | (#33312206)

No, the RIAA is a classic case of where government SHOULD have stepped in and squished and illegal Mafia cartel long ago.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (0, Troll)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33312370)

No, the RIAA is a classic case of where government SHOULD have stepped in and squished and illegal Mafia cartel long ago.

The government is a babbling retard playing with its own feces. Instead, the unwashed masses are (shock and horror) voting with their wallets, taking matters securely in-hand..

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (0)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33312398)

The government is a babbling retard playing with its own feces

Right...because NOT doing anything about it seems to have worked oh so well.

Instead, the unwashed masses are (shock and horror) voting with their wallets, taking matters securely in-hand..

And, like any mafia acts when denied money, they start pushing people around and generally being dicks.

Glad you approve of the RIAA's actions. (sensationalist, I know...but so is a blanket statement referring to government as a "babbling retard". How's that lead-free paint workin' for ya?)

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (0, Troll)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33312736)

Dear Troll,

Re-read my post minus the stick up your ass, if at all possible.

Guess I have to spell it out: "Shock and horror" was located within parentheses to convey the comically effeminate "well I never!" attitude of both the RIAA and government toward the fact that people would decide against being pushed around.

Why would you assume I'm _not_ on your side? You just got gored by Occam's Razor.

Fond of kicking goals for the other team, are you?

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33312892)

Re-read my post minus the stick up your ass, if at all possible.

::removes stick, rereads post::

Guess I have to spell it out: "Shock and horror" was located within parentheses to convey the comically effeminate "well I never!" attitude of both the RIAA and government toward the fact that people would decide against being pushed around.

Retcon. Your post clearly implied that government intervention would be a waste of time and that only the will of the people could do things to improve the situation.

The widespread piracy rates and lawsuits thrown around by the RIAA prove your point wrong.

Why would you assume I'm _not_ on your side?

The government is a babbling retard playing with its own feces

I believe that's called "answering your own question".

You just got gored by Occam's Razor.

Don't you mean sliced? Or maybe cut?

You won an internet argument. (-1, Troll)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33313130)

Welcome to Fark.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (4, Interesting)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | about 4 years ago | (#33312774)

You know what would be funny? Suppose Google wanted the congress to finally enact laws to help protect Net Neutrality (NN, from now on). They knew the government isn't doing anything and after the Comcast case, NN was in jeopardy.
So what to do? They team up with one of the big wireless carriers (AKA Verizon) and make up a not-so-bad-but-also-not-so-great deal and that way they have a force major backing up NN. Now there are two options:
1) People will like the deal and it will be pushed forward -> A good option.
2) People will be enraged by the compromises and demand the congress enact stronger NN rules (ones that will include wireless traffic)! The congress, being voter-minded will jump on the bandwagon (and having a big company like Verizon supporting NN doesn't hurt also) and push to enact said laws -> A great option!

So now you have Google, which (for the sake of this post) really does want complete NN as it always said, making a move that is a win-win situation for the NN group. Brilliant!

I know, to convoluted, but a nice scenario neverthelss.

Said it better than I. (1)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33312806)

Golf claps to you, good sir.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (2, Insightful)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | about 4 years ago | (#33313104)

I'd just like to point out that without the government's help the RIAA couldn't exist.
If copyright regulation were not being grossly warped by the government then there would be no way that the RIAA could wield the power that it does.
This isn't an issue of a free market run amuck, rather it's a perfect example of a badly regulated market favoring the establishment and being unable to change with the rest of the world.

In an actual free market all it would take is consumers voting with their wallets to change the market.

This reminds me of "The Office" (2, Interesting)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33312388)

This reminds me of the episode of "The Office" where Michael Scott becomes butthurt about something and dresses up as Jesus, interrupting people and telling them they're going to hell. The only non-moron in the group tells him he can't push religion and he responds that he either has to push religion or push drugs.

The RIAA is "The world according to Michael Scott" in a nutshell and taken to an extreme.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (4, Insightful)

HermMunster (972336) | about 4 years ago | (#33312426)

It is not net neutral if you filter. That's the point of neutrality.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (1, Insightful)

Batmunk2000 (1878016) | about 4 years ago | (#33312700)

NN sounds great on paper but if the plan is to have the Feds to it fairly - dream on. I'll take my changes with corporations over the FCC any day. A corporation can't raid my house or put me in jail.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (1)

GiveBenADollar (1722738) | about 4 years ago | (#33312792)

This goes hand in hand with the new freedom of speech law I've introduced which makes you free to say anything that doesn't disagree with me.

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#33312464)

Excerpt from the minutes of the meeting between the Internet and the RIAA:

"We'll let you have your silly "net neutrality" as long as you agree to all of our demands, the first of which is there will be no net neutrality. Now that we've got that taken care of, the next item on the agenda is "Money: You Must Give Us All of Yours". Thoughts? Or shall we just take it directly to a vote of the board, which is us?"

Marching Hammers (1)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33312578)

If they catch you in the backseat, trying to pick her locks, they're going to send you home to mother in a cardboard box. You better RUN! RUN! RUN!

Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (2, Interesting)

isopossu (681431) | about 4 years ago | (#33312518)

RIAA and the industry behind it are bound to vanish soon, so they have nothing to lose anymore and they can use any means they wish to gain small wins before the destruction. The problem is that the stupid laws they push will bug people for decades after the nowadays media industry has been buried and forgotten.

Almost every dying meme or institution works in a same aggressive and self-destructing way. Look at the news.

We've seen this before. (1)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33312592)

Mutually-Assured Destruction. Or "If I can't have it, neither can you."

RIAA said it first! (4, Funny)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#33312182)

Specifically, they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography

The RIAA wants to protect their copyrighted child porn?

Re:RIAA said it first! (1)

Moryath (553296) | about 4 years ago | (#33312236)

What precisely did you think that Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, the Jonas Brothers, etc... really were?

Perhaps this will help [southparkstudios.com] .

Re:RIAA said it first! (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33312460)

Perhaps this will help. [southparkstudios.com]

"Due to copyright and other legal reasons, South Park video content cannot be viewed outside the United States."

No, but it gives me a pretty good idea why they're in such a shithole and digging themselves deeper.

Re:RIAA said it first! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312742)

Child porn, the new Godwin's Law.

When you can't villianize the person, over-hype the law/act by saying it stops that.

Re:RIAA said it first! (2, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 4 years ago | (#33312936)

It's an interesting point - in the UK, laws against possession of adult (not child) material have been used against pirates ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/16/extreme_pr0n_convictions/ [theregister.co.uk] ). But wait a moment, if it's true that piracy harms the producer, and production of said material is bad, surely it's doing good to pirate it...

Ah, they're trying a Glenn Beck. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312192)

They're trying a Glenn Beck. Now they can make the implied accusation that by supporting net neutrality, you support child pornography.

I can hear the arguments now, "We need to prevent net neutrality, FOR THE CHILDREN!"

They forgot to include terrorism (2, Funny)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 4 years ago | (#33312194)

People might share videos explaining how to build bombs with an RIAA copyrighted music in the backgroup :O

Re:They forgot to include terrorism (2, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33312406)

Like the IRA videos of kids throwing petrol bombs at RUC cops with soundtrack provided by RATM? Something tells me RATM isn't opposed, but their label might have a thing or two to say about it.

Re:They forgot to include terrorism (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33312940)

I am beginning to think that child pornography is overtaking terrorism as the go-to scary issue. Perhaps people have become desensitized to warnings about terrorists, especially since the racial undertones make it difficult to push the "terrorists are around every corner" angle. Child pornography, on the other hand, is a great way to get people of all skin colors, religions, and professions. If you live in the suburbs, there could be someone interested in child pornography living right next door to you. Inner city? Rural? Child pornography is everywhere, they tell us, so it is easy to scare everyone; plus, it has the word "child" in it, so you get a free "think of the children" angle.

Jesus Christ (5, Informative)

yt8znu35 (1202731) | about 4 years ago | (#33312198)

RIAA does not care about child pornography. They're hiding behind the issue. They want to be able to claim that those who oppose their position hate children.

Re:Jesus Christ (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312250)

Wouldn't those that oppose their position like children?

Think of the children! Isn't that the root cause of child pornography?

Re:Jesus Christ (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 4 years ago | (#33312318)

I really can't believe that even government officials wouldn't notice how shallow this attempt is.

Re:Jesus Christ (1)

rotide (1015173) | about 4 years ago | (#33312360)

Sadly, officials can be persuaded to not notice.

Re:Yeshua Cottontail vs. La Cucaracha (3, Insightful)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33312420)

I really can't believe that even government officials wouldn't notice how shallow this attempt is.

That's their job. A roach can fit through even the smallest of gaps.

The difference is the roach's only agendae are spreading feces and breeding... oh wait...

Re:Yeshua Cottontail vs. La Cucaracha (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | about 4 years ago | (#33312914)

In fairness to roaches, that's pretty much my entire agenda also.

Re:Yeshua Cottontail vs. La Cucaracha (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about 4 years ago | (#33313022)

That's their job. A roach can fit through even the smallest of gaps.

The difference is the roach's only agendae are spreading feces and breeding... oh wait...

You, sir, now just deeply offended all roaches in the world by comparing them to RIAA!

Re:Jesus Christ (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 years ago | (#33312424)

Why? The government does the exact same thing all the time.

Need extra homeland-spying powers? Just invoke "terrorists" and "pedophiles" and you can pass any law.

Re:Jesus Christ (2, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33312986)

Considering that it was government officials who pushed the whole "you should be terrified of child pornography" issue...

Seriously, we have FBI officials telling the news stations that children are "re-victimized" every single time someone looks at child pornography. The executive branch is chastising judges who oppose harsher sentences for possession of child pornography, even in cases where the punishment for possession exceeds the punishment for child abuse. The government wants everyone to be afraid of child pornography; after all, gangs, satanism, drugs and terrorism are old news now.

Re:Jesus Christ (2, Funny)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | about 4 years ago | (#33312392)

RIAA does not care about child pornography. They're hiding behind the issue. They want to be able to claim that those who oppose their position hate children.

considering the RIAA acts like a bunch of spoiled children, this is starting to make a lot of sense!

Re:Jesus Christ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312396)

That is why I am pushing for a worldwide ban on cameras. After all, it's those pesky cameras that enable CP. Anyone who wants to keep their cameras must have something to hide.

Re:Jesus Christ (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | about 4 years ago | (#33312794)

Even worse, the RIAA is trying to group together those who distribute copyrighted works without the owner's explicit authorization (i.e, file sharers) with paedophiles and all sorts of depraved individuals. They are trying to pull yet another set of false correlations, such as the one they managed to pull by associating the unauthorized commercial distribution of a copyrighted work with all the raping, pillaging, murder and violence perpetrated by pirates.

Re:Jesus Christ (5, Informative)

wygit (696674) | about 4 years ago | (#33313020)

correction: The music industry LOVES child pornography.

"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites".

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/28/music-industry-spoke.html [boingboing.net]

Classy (5, Interesting)

John Betonschaar (178617) | about 4 years ago | (#33312216)

The RIAA knows that they won't find much sympathy anywhere if they ask for a carte-blanche on traffic spying just to catch a few illegal MP3's, so they just throw in child pornography, for good measure.

Seriously, child pornography is the new Godwin for justifying invading privacy and getting constitutional exemptions.

Re:Classy (4, Interesting)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 years ago | (#33312284)

Seriously, child pornography is the new Godwin for justifying invading privacy and getting constitutional exemptions.

The real question is: Why are people still unable to reply "don't use child porn for your benefits", and stop the argument right there?

Re:Classy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312368)

Because the brain shuts down as soon as child porn is talked about. Someone saying "don't use child porn for your benefits" could easilly be accused of being pro-child-porn and suffer the wrath of the hysterical masses.

Re:Classy (3, Insightful)

QCompson (675963) | about 4 years ago | (#33312612)

The use of child pornography as justification to restrict other rights won't end anytime soon. Law enforcement and interested groups have successfully convinced most of the public that possession of child porn is equivalent to molesting a child. Literally, one and the same. This has inflamed any conversation about child pornography well past the point of any rationality.

Re:Classy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312814)

Law enforcement and interested groups have successfully convinced most of the public that possession of child porn is equivalent to molesting a child.

So, whoever (including law enforcement/interested groups) holds on to those copies of child porn until it is destroyed, they're molesting children for the duration?

Re:Classy (1)

garcia (6573) | about 4 years ago | (#33312732)

The real question is: Why are people still unable to reply "don't use child porn for your benefits", and stop the argument right there?

People are, legislators are not. After all, if they did, the insanely deep pockets would suddenly get a lot smaller.

Re:Classy (5, Funny)

denebeim (674459) | about 4 years ago | (#33312616)

Hitler was against child pornography.

Re:Classy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312894)

I am not so sure about that, Hitler did molest and rape his underage cousin until she committed suicide. Only later did he settle for Eva.

Re:Classy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312752)

A better question is can you even filter that sort of thing?

Sure there are 'whitelists' and 'blacklists' of sites. But actual images themselves? Then classify them as 'kiddy porn'? Is that even technically even possible to do? Maybe you could get the existing set of 'porn' into some sort of filter. But you would never get it all in. What sort of mega processing center would an ISP have to have to process every jpg/gif/png/tiff that flys thru its system? I would say a good 60-80% of what flys thru on most web pages is images. Thats not even including advertisements as I already blacklist filter those.

so block all jpegs? why not just kill the net whie (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#33312850)

so block all jpegs? why not just kill the net while your at it?

I give up. (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 years ago | (#33312220)

This isn't even funny anymore.

In a letter sent today to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the RIAA and other music trade groups expressed their concern[...]

The only sane answer is: "To say what you just said you have to be either a lying bastard or deeply retarded. I have no interest on educating either profile on the reasons why your statement is manipulative, false and idiotic."

Each day that passes I value education more. If this keeps going I'll end up firmly believing that educating the population is the solution to all of humanity matters.

Re:I give up. (5, Funny)

Midnight's Shadow (1517137) | about 4 years ago | (#33312266)

If this keeps going I'll end up firmly believing that educating the population is the solution to all of humanity matters.

Not quite. There is always the nuclear option- you know just nuke the planet until cockroaches are the highest form of life. Then it because the cockroaches' problems on what to do with the RIAA.

Re:I give up. (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 4 years ago | (#33312374)

But then members of the RIAA would survive ; they could go on with their bullshit in the post-apocaliptic cockroach society.

Re:I give up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312860)

Do you know what the sound 1000kph wind being blasted from a nuclear detonation is?

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHHHHH

{hint: That's part of the joke. He implies that mere cockroaches are higher forms of life than RIAA members. And cockroaches don't take no shit from nobody. They survived the motherfucking nuclear holocaust.}

Re:I give up. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#33312324)

To say what you just said you have to be either a lying bastard or deeply retarded.

Either/or? Um, how about both?

Some people hate freedom.

Re:I give up. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#33312800)

OK, we are told that the terrorists want to bomb us because they hate freedom. Now the RIAA also hates freedom. Therefore I have to conclude the RIAA wants to bomb us. Send them to Guantanamo! :-)

As if that has not been known. (-1, Troll)

will_die (586523) | about 4 years ago | (#33312276)

This has been one of the problem with net neutrality since the various groups started pushing for a law.
It would prevent network operators,ISPs, from blocking spam, setting up firewalls to prevents outside attacks, or even from having an e-mail virus scanner.
Various groups that are proponents of the various laws have said they are for it because it would prevent prevent libaries and schools from providing filtering; because of how the various past laws have defined network operators alot of them would qualify.

Re:As if that has not been known. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312338)

I don't want firewalls or spam blockers at my ISP filtering things out. I want a copper wire or fiber connection from "the Internet" into my house and I'll decide what I want to filter. If users do want these services from their ISP, I don't think there's anything that would stop them from hosting these applications and having users turn them on and configure them for themselves. As long as it is the customer deciding which content is filtered we have no problem.

Re:As if that has not been known. (1)

rotide (1015173) | about 4 years ago | (#33312380)

Exactly, what is spam to my ISP isn't necessarily spam to me. Oh, we see this other company is soliciting you for an alternative internet service that just rolled out in your area and you may or may not have signed up for said notice.

Marked as: SPAM
Status: DELETED

I'm not saying ISPs do this on a regular basis, but if it even happened once, it would be too many. We're not even scratching the surface of the potential for abuse in other areas that your ISP would rather consider spam.

Re:As if that has not been known. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#33312846)

I actually like my mail provider to mark what he considers spam. However I wouldn't want him to delete the message without my consent.

Re:As if that has not been known. (5, Informative)

j0nb0y (107699) | about 4 years ago | (#33312382)

Except everything you just said is a lie. Network neutrality has always allowed reasonable network management, including spam blocking, firewalls, etc. Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the issues involved in network neutrality? And who on /. modded you up for it?

Re:As if that has not been known. (1)

will_die (586523) | about 4 years ago | (#33312990)

Please educate yourself on the issue. The various bills that groups have been pushing provide just as I described.
Net neutrality has not been about preventing the ISP from making a special deal with company A where they slow down the Company B site for a long time.

Re:As if that has not been known. (1)

js_sebastian (946118) | about 4 years ago | (#33313050)

This has been one of the problem with net neutrality since the various groups started pushing for a law. It would prevent network operators,ISPs, from blocking spam, setting up firewalls to prevents outside attacks, or even from having an e-mail virus scanner.

I have no problem with any of the above being done to my connection, so long as I can switch all of them off depending on my needs. If I can't switch it off, it's not a service to me, it's a restriction.

August 19 - VoteLikeAPirat Day - Sweden (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312282)

Time to vote like a Pirate in the upcoming election in Sweden.

And for you non Swedes, blog about this madness, and support your local Pirate party.

Pirate Party tried to have this discussion in Sweden, but it failed miserably, you can not discuss that some people always jump on the 'And for gods sake, save the children!' to stop what ever they don't like.

A comic book translator was convicted for Anime/Hentai pictures, cause as he said him self "The girls had to small boobs".

Pirat Party even had to add a section in its political program "about the right to posses any kind of information", to include the statement: _ not including documented child abuse _
I can think of a lot more additions that should have to be added, if every impossible miss interpretation should be covered.

Madness!

Let's all say things that are offensive but true (5, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about 4 years ago | (#33312296)

Copyright is more harmful to society than child pornography. Yeah, I said it.

Also, I have a feeling the RIAA doesn't give two shits if some kids get molested and photographed, as long as a song they have the copyright to isn't in the background of the video. Lumping together CP with copyright infringement is just a way to get support and alienate anyone who opposes copyright - since if you're against filtering of copyrighted files you must also be for child porn.

Re:Let's all say things that are offensive but tru (4, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about 4 years ago | (#33312334)

I rarely reply to my own posts, but In case my first statement requires clarification, I am serious about copyright being worse. Very few people in society will be affected by child pornography, fewer still negatively affected. Those that were victims of abuse have suffered a terrible crime at the hands of their abusers, but nearly EVERYONE in society is impacted in a negative way by copyright law. The difference is in sensationalism. It's a lot easier to get people angry about something to do with children, or sex, or both than it is to get people angry about the every day violation of their right to their own culture and freedom of expression.

Re:Let's all say things that are offensive but tru (2, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#33312942)

Bad way to argue. Better say: "Copyright protects child porn!" It's of course a bull shit argument, but it links copyright to child porn, instead of contrasting it to child porn, as your argument does. And most people will not think any further anyway if they hear "child porn".

Re:Let's all say things that are offensive but tru (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33313060)

They do care, they have a history of collecting royalties for works they have not rights to, cp is just another venue to exploit...

see all this time (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 4 years ago | (#33312304)

i have tried in my life to be lucid, coherent, and persuasive in what i say

little did i know all you have to do is say "kiddie porn", and whatever you are trying to argue for, people instantly flock to you sympathetically

so, in that spirit, instead of making a rational argument here, i will simply say

kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

there!

now i may rest assured that whatever your opinion before reading my comment, i have now inexorably swayed you to believe as i do, simply by reciting the magic words that trumps all debate, argument and rhetoric

Re:see all this time (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#33312330)

Yup, that's the entire rationale behind Maude Flanders logic. "Think of the CHILDREN! Won't someone PLEAAAAAAASE think of the CHILDREN!!!" Then again, perhaps the problem there is that some people think TOO MUCH about the children...

Re:see all this time (1)

Pteraspidomorphi (1651293) | about 4 years ago | (#33312438)

Mrs. Lovejoy, actually! Maude Flanders is a different character who died several seasons ago.

Re:see all this time (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#33312538)

Ooops, you got me there. Yup, Helen Lovejoy! Maude Flanders isn't into hysterical screaming, she's more of a judgemental passive-aggressive type.

Lovejoy? Am I the only one who... (0, Offtopic)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33312546)

Am I the only one who thinks she looks like a Praying Mantis? It's as though that character has mantis wide-screen eyes to afford greater ability to find things to bitch about.

Re:see all this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312664)

To quote George Carlin: "Fuck the children!"

While it's coarse (Heh...it's George after all...) he has quite a few profound observations about why it's probably a bad idea doing what we're doing these days on this subject. I especially like the observations about making children dress alike...and he had a good point there to think on.

Re:see all this time (1)

Chibinium (1596211) | about 4 years ago | (#33312866)

Throw in grandma and freedom with the children. Why you could put anything under these umbrellas!

Re:see all this time (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about 4 years ago | (#33313134)

Damn, it looked so much like some children song, that now I have theme from "Happy Tree Friends" stuck in my head, thank you very much.

Typical Corporate & Government Propaganda! (2, Informative)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | about 4 years ago | (#33312316)

There's always a reason to curtail people's rights:

Communist witch hunt
The Cold war
Terrorism
Child Pornography

Let's suppose they do start "filtering" content there will always be a way to circumvent it.
It comes to a point where if you stand against it you are then branded a "sympathizer" and thus becomes politically incorrect to oppose it.

(In the UK when anyone questioned immigration policy they were publically branded "racist" by the Labour party and prevented it from being debated. It was a legitimate concern)

Unfortunately not nearly enough people question the motives of the Government & their commercial "bed fellows".

Re:Typical Corporate & Government Propaganda! (2, Interesting)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 4 years ago | (#33312358)

There's always a reason to curtail people's rights:

Communist witch hunt
The Cold war
Terrorism
Child Pornography

God help us when we encounter the Communist Terrorist Paedophile who was part of the Cold War!

Re:Typical Corporate & Government Propaganda! (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | about 4 years ago | (#33312550)

There's always a reason to curtail people's rights:

Communist witch hunt
The Cold war
Terrorism
Child Pornography

God help us when we encounter the Communist Terrorist Paedophile who was part of the Cold War!

Are you referring to Evilenko [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Typical Corporate & Government Propaganda! (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | about 4 years ago | (#33312604)

I have bad news for you comrade. Russia has 2chan.ru. So yeah...

Re:Typical Corporate & Government Propaganda! (1)

guruevi (827432) | about 4 years ago | (#33312666)

We tend to call them Father, Pastor, Priest, Bishop or Pope - depending on denomination other names might be used.

Re:Typical Corporate & Government Propaganda! (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 4 years ago | (#33313162)

North Korea? Sure

Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312488)

There's always a reason to curtail people's rights:

Communist witch hunt
The Cold war
Terrorism
Child Pornography

See also:

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

Re:Typical Corporate & Government Propaganda! (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 4 years ago | (#33312980)

In the UK when anyone questioned immigration policy they were publically branded "racist" by the Labour party and prevented it from being debated. It was a legitimate concern

Citation?

Actually I'd say that immigration is itself another example of what you list - something that the Government scaremongers about, in order to pass new laws, including the Labour Government: e.g., proposing the national biometric ID cards and database "because otherwise immigrants might get in!"

And there are also the tightened restrictions on employment checking (passport scanning, the UK Border Agency), because oh noes, someone might "steal" a "British" job.

As for political correctness, this is often a tool used by those supporting these things - e.g., people saying "I think we should take freedoms away from people who look different to me, because they might be terrorists - but I can't say that, because it's not politically correct!"

They're not worried about child pornography (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 years ago | (#33312326)

They're not making any money off it, why the hell does the RIAA care? Are they pretending to be the DA now? Is the DA pretending he's riding on the wing of justice for copyright infringement?

And why don't they just... (2, Insightful)

razwiss (1823216) | about 4 years ago | (#33312350)

And why don't they just infiltrate the CP networks the same way someone addicted to children would do ? Internet is a gold mine of informations, and there is no way you would search a week without finding something. There is even some little boys lover web sites that their domain name is crystal clear. In Quebec, a radio station reported a website known as "La garconnière" which you can translate to as "The bachelor's pad". This website is an OPEN forum of mature guys talking about little boys they see in the park and their fantasies with them. Police dept. won't do anything as they haven't "infringed the law yet" And they say they need the ISPs to track them down ? yeah right.

For We Are Many (2, Funny)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33312472)

*blows 4chan whistle* Anonymous! Get 'em!

Re:For We Are Many (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | about 4 years ago | (#33312628)

He's too busy fapping.

Re:And why don't they just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312780)

And what would you have police do to this website? Talking about people you find attractive is not against the law, you know.

Re:And why don't they just... (1)

Spad (470073) | about 4 years ago | (#33312884)

Police dept. won't do anything as they haven't "infringed the law yet"

I don't know about you, but I'm quite fond of the idea of the police not doing anything to people who haven't "infringed the law yet" unless there is clear evidence that they are going to do so.

To clarify, me talking about hating work and having fantasies of blowing it up *is not* clear evidence that I'm going to do so. Once I start buying explosives and sending the boss death threats then it's probably a good idea to do something about me.

In short, bullshit (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33312434)

"An Internet predicated on order, rather than chaos, facilitates achievement of this goal."

The Internet has always been chaotic, you never needed to lease lines to any particular point. Everybody can go everywhere at any time over any protocol, that chaos has been the core of its success. That all the users can access mylittlestartup.com just as easily and quickly as they can access megacompany.com has been a massive boom to competition and innovation for corporations and social media for individuals. That is the essence of net neutrality.

The kind of order and regulation they want is to kill Internet as we know it, a system where ISPs get to siphon off the profits acting as the middle men that direct online sales was supposed to avoid. It's to stifle competition leaving only approved, incumbent content providers who pay their way to access the market. What they aim at, despite not saying so, is that to filter anything you must force everything into a few, known formats and protocols you know how to filter.

Child pornography is a red herring, those that deal in that will never let themselves be forced into the confines of such filtering as there are ways like password protected files that prevent any automated filters. What they seek to prevent is to kill off the open marketplace, all those that do not go through a "legitimate" label like themselves but instead offer it up independently. They want every site of user-generated content like YouTube to drown in the cost of being their copyright enforcers. They want to return to the 80s when radio and TV ads determined what people would buy. Do not let them try to turn the clock back.

This is nothing new (2, Informative)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 4 years ago | (#33312444)

The lobbyists have made it pretty clear before that they are very much willing to exploit child porn to push through their own crap. Here's Christian Engstrom's (Pirate Party MEP) blog entry: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/ [wordpress.com]

ISPs should NEVER be copyright police (2, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | about 4 years ago | (#33312498)

We dont see the RIAA wanting AT&T to get involved because someone makes a phone call and plays a copyrighted piece of music through the phone. Why should AT&T need to involved when someone sends a copyrighted piece of music through the phone lines using a different protocol? (HTTP over TCP/IP over ADSL vs raw voice audio)

Copyright law has had clear steps in it for how to go after someone who is infringing your copyright ever since it was first passed all those years ago. And the law also clearly spells out what you can do if you believe your copyright has been violated and you have some kind of link back to the person but you dont know their name.

Of course, the real problem is that the "evidence" the RIAA (and their hired lackeys) collect is good enough to be able to send vaguely worded threatening letters but not good enough to actually stand up in court.

Flip the logic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312506)

It Will make it a LOT harder for the RIAA to take people to court for any allegedly infringing copyright downloading, because there would be a quite reasonable argument to presume your internet connection is being protected by such a filter from infringing content.

Child porn, racism, communism (2, Insightful)

hessian (467078) | about 4 years ago | (#33312520)

People love "reasons" that are really justifications, like calling someone a pedophile or a racist. It doesn't matter if it's true. The herd's so afraid of being associated with child porn or racism that they freak out and ostracize the person. That way, you don't have to censor them or jail them. You can just socially isolate them, which in turn bankrupts them as their business or job prospects collapse. It's 100% effective.

You think Virgin Killers is bad? Try that Blind Faith album they don't stock in stores anymore even though it has Eric Clapton on it:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51F4qeGnsXL._SS500_.jpg [images-amazon.com] [NSFW!]

Shocking. (2, Insightful)

Freddybear (1805256) | about 4 years ago | (#33312760)

I am shocked. Truly, deeply shocked.
Not that the RIAA would try this, but that anybody here is surprised.

RIAA's statement contains an excellent example of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33312912)

this [wikipedia.org]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>