×

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!

ISOC Hires MPAA Executive Paul Beringer

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the interesting-choice dept.

The Internet 93

First time accepted submitter imwilder writes "The Internet Society has hired Paul Beringer to head up its operations in North America. Beringer was formerly Chief Technology Policy Officer for the MPAA, and Executive Director of Internet and Technology Policy for Verizon Corporate Services. Does this challenge the notion that ISOC is a 'trusted, independent source of Internet leadership?'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

93 comments

Boycott? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39457715)

How does one go about boycotting this?

Re:Boycott? (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 2 years ago | (#39459677)

How does one go about boycotting this?

There's a 'how to' video on boycotting this, but it's not available online. You have to provide two forms of picture ID to order the physical media, register your IP address, sit hrough an FBI warning and promise that only you - and you alone - will watch it. Sharing it with others, making copies, posting it online or selling it as used is strictly forbidden. A 'how to ' video about acquiring their videos is being prepared by their lawyers in conjunction with the US government and Interpol.

Welcome to the future (5, Insightful)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 2 years ago | (#39457735)

Where "independent" and "objective" simply means "giving the bad as much airtime and consideration as the good."

Re:Welcome to the future (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#39457821)

Where "independent" and "objective" simply means "giving the bad as much airtime and consideration as the good."

Reminds me of the news when they parrot statements made by government officials.

Even when the statements are easily shown to be false, internally inconsistent, misleading, etc., they just quote the statement verbatim like a sales-oriented press release. There is no criticism of the statements made. They're simply quoted. Easily researched facts that contradict such official statements are not mentioned. I guess that would be too much like real objectivity for their tastes? I mean the way the media and government works is very simple: if you are a reporter and you ask powerful people hard questions, you stop getting invited to the next press events. You lose access as punishment. Only those with the preferred dispositions are invited. It works as long as everybody doesn't want to ask hard questions, that way those who do can be singled out.

Anyway, maybe they are treating this Beringer guy like a lawyer: the "best" (most effective) oens are like attack dogs. They sic whomever their master points at. Maybe they're hoping that having him on their side will be an asset provided they can keep this dog on a short leash.

Personally, I think by hiring people with reputations and affiliations like this, they just destroyed their own goodwill and credibility supposing they had any. That's not in the least because he was the MPAA "Technology Policy Officer" and he's a pretty shitty one if he doesn't tell them to adapt to the Information Age as they have clearly failed to do.

Re:Welcome to the future (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39457953)

ISOC is an international body, with five large directories and hundreds of local chapters. ISOC America credibility has been outright destroyed by this move among the other ISOCs, and it is clear that it happened through the lobby in Washington DC. The New York chapter spoke strongly against it, but I very much doubt that anything short of a massive show of force by the non-American directories of ISOC and the non-corrupt american chapters of ISOC by outright and publicly expelling Paul Beringer and the entire DC chapter on the grounds of breach of the ISOC code of conduct and ethics will be enough to restore the ISOC good name.

For those that think ISOC doesn't matter, ISOC *funds* the IETF, and the IETF is one of the most important engineering bodies behind the Internet (and the least problematic of them all).

The ISOC code of ethics can be found here:http://www.isoc.org/members/codeconduct.shtml and it is NOT optional. You have to abide to it to be an ISOC member.

Re:Welcome to the future (4, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#39458083)

For those that think ISOC doesn't matter, ISOC *funds* the IETF, and the IETF is one of the most important engineering bodies behind the Internet (and the least problematic of them all).

Great. Now they have an *AA pet lapdog as part of the process. Anybody taking bets on how the engineers behind the scenes will now be pressured into 'fixing' things to make the internet into Cable TV 2.0?

Re:Welcome to the future (3, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 years ago | (#39458201)

Simple. ISOC will direct IETF to reject all RFCs unless they include support for DRM

Re:Welcome to the future (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | about 2 years ago | (#39458397)

RFC vetting is bad enough now. When the neckbeards lose control and corporate calls the shots, any network protocols and packets not complying with their DRM standards will be shunted to /dev/null.

Re:Welcome to the future (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#39458375)

For those that think ISOC doesn't matter, ISOC *funds* the IETF, and the IETF is one of the most important engineering bodies behind the Internet (and the least problematic of them all).

If need be, the IETF could seek other funding sources through the community.

Re:Welcome to the future (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#39458771)

It's called stuffing the panel. We learned about this during the Office Open XML standardization campaign with ISO. There is no level of corruption these bastards won't sink to. Something must be done. Don't think this guy is the end of it. He's just the camel's nose.

Re:Welcome to the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39468243)

that's bunk.
You guys sound like McCarthyists. I mean really, should we ask all ISOC employees, "are you now, or have you ever been a member of the motion picture industry?"
I don't know about any lobby, but I'm an active member of the DC Chapter, and he's been a supporter of the chapter ever since it was reformed. In fact that first meeting was in a Verizon conference room that he arranged for the chapter when he worked at verizon. One guy in the NY Chapter protested. The entire DC chapter enthusiastically supports him because we know him. He attends all or our events and has spoken on 2 of our panels recently. We know his views on the Internet, and we know he was trying to talk sense into the MPAA, and in fact left because of differences in opinion to join ISOC.

Re:Welcome to the future (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about 2 years ago | (#39458179)

I want to hear the news. The editorializing can appear on the editorial page. Most of the MSM want to gag me with their special polemic of the day and twist and bend the facts to suit their agenda. It doesn't matter which corporate news organization, pick one, it's tainted and flawed.

We're getting a little better with independents and I can get my propaganda direct from the gov't without interference by the MSM. I'm currently harassing the mayor I voted for to quit sucking up to the MSM and put relevant news items on the cities blog with an atom feed. Sheesh, raised in a bog with no internet and expects to run a modern city, nice person, woefully inadequate at the modern conveniences.

Re:Welcome to the future (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#39458781)

Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how was the parade?

Re:Welcome to the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39459099)

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play.

Re:Welcome to the future (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#39457921)

My version of "independent" and "objective" at least recognises that "good" and "bad" are in the eye of the beholder, the only real constatnt is that there will always be groups who see things the opposite way to each other.

Re:Welcome to the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458393)

So there is no such thing as a real good or bad, right? It's all just a matter of opinion, including the consequences. One person's internet censorship is just another person's right to be happy with whatever they are given, and be damned happy about it too!

Re:Welcome to the future (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#39460239)

So there is no such thing as a real good or bad, right? It's all just a matter of opinion, including the consequences.

Pretty much. As a concept, sure, most people have a similar set of inate 'morals', same as a wolf pack or pride of lions does. Knowing this doesn't change what I feel when I see something I consider good or bad anymore than knowing how my sense of smell works changes the scent of a rose. But these are all "gut feelings", which are by their very nature subjective. If you want to be trully objective then the very first thing you should do is question your own "gut feelings" about the subject at hand.

Re:Welcome to the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461723)

I do appreciate your point. I was being a tad sarcastic, and it was not very subtle as it is not my wish to be offensive. However, it is worth pointing out the pointlessness of taking the, "if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Yes, we are just star dust in the infinity of existence. Is that really your point? I believe the feeling of this article is the importance of working and fighting to keep the internet open and free. But there are those who are weighing in who feel that there is already too much freedom on the internet and that we all just need to shut up and pony up more cash for Mr. Gates and the Steve Jobs estate. What is your position? Other then, "beyond good and evil."

Re:Welcome to the future (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#39464607)

Your disbelief in innate, irredeemable, objective evil reveals a lack of experience, a sheltered existence so alien to many of us that true communication on this topic is impossible. We lack the common reference that gives meaning to the words. For your sake I hope it stays that way. Or you're lying, as evil folk are known to do.

Does this mean... (5, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#39457767)

... we now have a case of the fox and a platoon of his buddies guarding the henhouse?

Re:Does this mean... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39457813)

No. They already took over the hen house, ate all the chickens, and just wait for us to put more chicks in the house for their dining pleasure...

Re:Does this mean... (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#39458391)

... we now have a case of the fox and a platoon of his buddies guarding the henhouse?

No.... an international hen house franchise owner just appointed the Fox as chief landlord over all the henhouses in North America.

The hen houses have some autonomy, and there is a remote possibility they could band together and reject the Fox as their landlord

Re:Does this mean... (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#39463005)

It means that in addition to taking over the us DOJ, they have inserted themselves at the peak of the us Internet. They intend to shut down free expression on the Internet by any means necessary. These people are dangerous.

Here's what I think... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39457811)

Since I've been huffing paint thinnerand having sex all day and night, I really don't care.

Re:Here's what I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458019)

so, um, yeah - how'd that beard-trimming go?

Re:Here's what I think... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458197)

You'd still be a better choice than this MPAA shill.

RIAA and MPAA are ruining everything. (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39457845)

:-|

Re:RIAA and MPAA are ruining everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39457927)

True, people could simply stop buying anything from the labels backing them up, but they don't. Untill they end up in legal fights.

Re:RIAA and MPAA are ruining everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39457993)

money talks

Re:RIAA and MPAA are ruining everything. (4, Interesting)

FridayBob (619244) | about 2 years ago | (#39458465)

They're not my favorites either, but let's not become too pessimistic. All is not lost. The most important thing is that the free world remain so and that we retain the ability to resist all efforts to introduce censorship of any type.

We refer to this era we live in as the information age because the Internet is so amazingly effective at making it possible for people all over the world to freely exchange information. This has been great for most people, but since it has also had the effect of decommoditizing information in general, it has been bad news for the various publishing industries and their centuries-old business model, so don't be surprised if they continue to put up a fight.

They see censorship as the best way to once again make information scarce and thereby raise the value of their products, so our task is to raise public (and ultimately political) awareness that such an artificial measure can only be counterproductive at best. It will be much better for society in general if the publishing industries learned to develop new business models, rather than if our governments effectively allow them to dictate rules that will lead to the implementation of tools more befitting of a police state. If we allow that to happen, then we may wake up one day to find that the clock has indeed been turned back... to 1984.

Re:RIAA and MPAA are ruining everything. (2)

Hairy1 (180056) | about 2 years ago | (#39462043)

You're cute when you are naive. When the DMCA passed its implications for free speech were clear, and since that time have been used to control what appears on YouTube and many other sites. Corporations now control speech. When the PATRIOT act passed it was almost unanimous. Now you get to be virtually stripped naked every time you fly; a gross invasion of privacy. The NDAA sweeps away the last vestiges of any of your rights to a trial. Corporations now assign their cronies into critical Government roles at will while the Police permit execution of innocents in the streets if they belong to a minority. Meanwhile Corporations have purchased the media to openly indoctrinate and control the population. They don't even try to hide this agenda any longer.

The last time the US were considered the defenders of freedom and justice was a long time ago. The OOXML business was another example of corporate interests corrupting genuine efforts to create a genuine standard to help users. Again the object was to control and restrict people. Now we have the US exporting legislation like the DMCA via ACTA and TPPA to other countries to extend their iron grip of cultural death.

Wake up America - this is not a case of "one day" ending up in 1984 - you are there now. Just look at how the Occupy movement failed through control of the media. There will be no revolution of the people while corporations can control the discussion and the media. Wake up - you have already lost your rights.

Frankly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39457879)

"Does this challenge the notion that ISOC is a 'trusted, independent source of Internet leadership?'"

Since I've never heard of the ISOC in the first place, I'd say the answer is no, since the notion didn't exist in the first place.

Re:Frankly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39459541)

You've never heard about RFC's? Really?

TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458017)

spells it 'Brigner'

He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (4, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | about 2 years ago | (#39458029)

He was only at the MPAA for a year, and from what I hear, that was no accident. I know people who know him, and they say that he understands the Internet and didn't agree with what the MPAA was doing, and was described to me as "one of the good guys." We shall see, but he won't last long at ISOC if he isn't.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (1, Troll)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#39458099)

That's about on a par with saying 'Hey, Hitler wasn't all bad. After all, he did kill Hitler!'

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (2)

million_monkeys (2480792) | about 2 years ago | (#39458165)

That's about on a par with saying 'Hey, Hitler wasn't all bad. After all, he did kill Hitler!'

No. Actually it's nothing like that.

As a general rule, when you use Hitler in a comparison, that comparison is probably flawed.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | about 2 years ago | (#39460813)

Well, it depends on the analogy, there is no way to really make a "general rule" that can outright declare an analogy flawed like that without said rule being flawed.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (3, Funny)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 years ago | (#39458381)

Congratulations, you're the first commenter in this story to demonstrate Godwin's law [wikipedia.org]. Enjoy the results.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#39458655)

Hey, I haven't seen a decent thread Godwined on /. in a while. We were about due.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (1)

zblack_eagle (971870) | about 2 years ago | (#39459107)

That doesn't really mean much, since there have been many more Godwins than decent threads when it comes to slashdot

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | about 2 years ago | (#39458509)

He was only at the MPAA for a year, .... didn't agree with what the MPAA was doing

and he didn't know what the mpaa was doing before he joined them? yeah right ...

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (1)

mbone (558574) | about 2 years ago | (#39458681)

He was only at the MPAA for a year, .... didn't agree with what the MPAA was doing

and he didn't know what the mpaa was doing before he joined them? yeah right ...

Don't know. Maybe he was told he could change things, and found out different.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (1)

Angostura (703910) | about 2 years ago | (#39459479)

It's quite possible to join an organisation believing that you have a mandate for change,only to discover... You don't

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (4, Insightful)

nosilA (8112) | about 2 years ago | (#39458749)

This. Paul is a personal friend of mine and a professional colleague and I will vouch for him as knowledgeable, fair-minded, and a talented lawyer and technologist. I have no doubt that he will perform admirably in the spirit of everything ISOC has done over the years to promote a free and open Internet. Then again, any article that would repeatedly misspell the name of the person being smeared proves itself uninformed and sloppy.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (4, Insightful)

professionalfurryele (877225) | about 2 years ago | (#39459759)

He was CTPO of the MPAA. You don't work for a group that evil and get to claim that you are a person working for the common good. You cant be fair minded and take the MPAA's money. At best he is a Puyi, and someone that politically naive does not belong belong in this position.

Even if he was trying to change it from the inside the only change that needs to happen at the MPAA is for it to disband and for everyone involved who ever aided in the bribery of politicians to be locked up. Your friend is complicit in the corruption of the United States political system and belongs in a cell, not heading up a North American chapter of ISOC.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39460155)

Do you even know anything about what you're speculating about?

Playing both sides (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39463465)

The AC was actually a lot more convincing than the post that he/she was replying to.

If that Paul is both a good guy and a bad guy, then at best he's an arms dealer playing both sides. And since he's a lawyer, that's undoubtedly exactly what he's doing. It's what lawyers do.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 2 years ago | (#39460397)

Thanks for this. I'd mod you up if I could, but you're at +5 and I've already posted here.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39460403)

Does it matter what a third party like you say he is?
It's an established fact that he worked for Satan and had no remorse taking their money.

Cut the PR, actions speaks for themselves.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (3, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | about 2 years ago | (#39461213)

Then again, it's not that hard to find quotes with him claiming copying threatens american jobs and that PIPA is a vehicle to deal with that, or the opposition to net neutrality from his stint at Verizon.

Unfortunately I think one gets tainted beyond redemption by even associating with the MPAA not to mention having gotten a paycheck from them. Perhaps he's just saying what his employers want him to, but in that case there would be more appropriate hires with a bit more spine for the ISOC to employ.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39460567)

I know people who know him, and they say that he understands the Internet and didn't agree with what the MPAA was doing, and was described to me as "one of the good guys."

Citation needed. Word of mouth isn't exactly hard evidence.

Re:He is supposed to be "one of the good guys" (1)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 2 years ago | (#39460723)

I was assuming this was some sort of "know your enemy" move.
Gaining knowledge from the inside of the MPAA command chain should come in handy.

Nuts are not just for squirrels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458093)

It means nothing to an executive which house it is in. They are loyal to the paycheck...nothing more. A true psychopathic occupation.

why are people assuming the worst?? (1)

million_monkeys (2480792) | about 2 years ago | (#39458129)

Does this challenge the notion that ISOC is a 'trusted, independent source of Internet leadership?'

Why would you think it does? Anyone who's qualified for any sort of leadership position is going to have past experience with some company or group. When you hire someone, you don't magically become a shill of that person's past employer.

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458157)

>> Does this challenge the notion that ISOC is a 'trusted, independent source of Internet leadership?'

> Why would you think it does? Anyone who's qualified for any sort of leadership position is going to have past experience with some company or group. When you hire someone, you don't magically become a shill of that person's past employer.

Elop?

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458215)

You are a shill.

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#39458417)

When you hire someone, you don't magically become a shill of that person's past employer.

While true. You don't appoint the former CEO of a national beef conglomerate to be head of PETA. You don't appoint a former devil worshipper as pope. You don't appoint a former member of the pirate party as an executive of the RIAA.

The fact that you were a chief executive of an organization such as the MPAA says something about you. And what it says is largely inconsistent with the values of the internet society.

You choose executives whose personal views are consistent with the values of the organization, or who at least are not widely known as having opposite views; such as the scope and capabilities of the internet should be heavily restricted in order to protect media companies.

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458435)

You don't appoint the former CEO of a national beef conglomerate to be head of PETA.

I sure as fuck would, and I'm a vegetarian. PETA is closer to the MPAA than to ISOC.

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458441)

The rare albeit slight possibility you're missing here is: He might've been someone coming in to try and rock the boat. Not everyone going into organizations you dislike is out to follow the 'company line', although I will agree that it seems like most of them conform once they get there regardless. But as someone else said, since he left/got the boot after only a year it is not impossible to imagine he might actually have sane ideas for balancing technical rights versus intellectual property rights. Hell, maybe he thinks DRM is a waste of time and money and instead programs should be put into place to educate people on the legal rights they enjoy versus the rights granted for a limited time to industry members to turn a profit on their investments.

Yeah I don't much believe that either, but the possibility, albeit slim, is there that this guy will do right by the position. If not, there's plenty of boxes you can go through to oust him, and unlike a real politician, very few people will be out for your blood whichever one you choose :D

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (3, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#39458497)

You don't appoint the former CEO of a national beef conglomerate to be head of PETA.
You don't appoint a former devil worshipper as pope. You don't appoint a former member of the pirate party as an executive of the RIAA.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here... Why shouldn't you hire such people? People can change, and such people often have insights that lifetime partisans lack. For example, an ex-satanist who finds religion might make a good pope, in that he'd have an intimate understanding of what could drive people to devil worship and what could bring them back. The RIAA would likely benefit from having a former pirate party member at its helm, because that person would understand piracy in a way the organization currently doesn't and could drive sane policy changes.

What you're promoting seems to be ideological purity at the cost of maybe not expanding or improving policy. It's an innately defensive posture, used by people who are playing to not lose rather than to win. Maybe such a posture is better in this case, but I wouldn't say that that's always the case.

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#39458799)

Leopard. Spots.

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39460023)

Asinine. Cliche.

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39460085)

Redundant. Shit.

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#39460611)

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here... Why shouldn't you hire such people? People can change, and such people often have insights that lifetime partisans lack. For example, an ex-satanist who finds religion might make a good pope, in that he'd have an intimate understanding of what could drive people to devil worship and what could bring them back.

CEOs are not just people with insight, they are also leaders. Leaders are figureheads as well, models, people to set an example for others. People can make major changes of their point of view, but it's not a sign of the stability and consistency an organization would expect from a leader. Leaders are expected to draw upon their own vision and insight from those they lead.

Someone may have the perfect technical characteristics to be leader, but still not be suitable because of their public image or past history. Because their image, their past, and how the people they lead view them have a major influence on their ability to do your job. Good leadership is basically impossible if those you lead see an inconsistency in what you do or what you have done versus what you exclaim.

Just because a criminal has reformed and because of their history has a deep understanding of the ways of criminals does not mean they belong as Chief executive over the FBI; that's not to say they necessarily may never work for the FBI, and not to say they might never be allowed to share their insight with a Chief executive, but their past is incompatible with being that executive.

Just because a tax cheat has reformed and has detailed insight into how to better catch tax cheats, does not mean they belong in charge of the IRS.

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461357)

In all your examples, the previous job of each subject influences their decision in the next job. Using the obvious conclusion to your little experiment, why the FUCK would we want more RIAA in our Internet?

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#39458741)

Popes aren't appointed, they're elected.

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39459105)

Right. Elected by a small group of elites who have all reached their positions by appointment from a former Pope. Not exactly a democratic vote by all Catholics now is it?

Re:why are people assuming the worst?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458433)

You must be new here; when TFS mentions the MPAA that is your cue to start crying that the free and open internet is dying and America is a fascist state. I'm choosing to overlook your faux pas just this once, but consider yourself on notice...

Another day at the office for Canada... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39458487)

Our CRTC is run by former executives from our incumbents...

Gambling? (1)

tramp (68773) | about 2 years ago | (#39459527)

It is a hell of a gamble to hire such highly questionable person for this job. Their arguments have to be really very good to do this. I personally do not trust anyone hired or anything owned by one of the **AA's.

Brigner, not "Beringer" (0)

cjonslashdot (904508) | about 2 years ago | (#39460647)

You got the name wrong.

I have known Paul Brigner since the 1990s and he is one of the most ethical, intelligent, and fair minded people I know. I expect he brought some of that to the MPAA - although I do not actually know what his impact there was. I do know that he is deserving of the benefit of the doubt, and I anticipate that he will be thoughtful, progressive, and fair-minded in his new position at ISOC. And I say this as someone who strongly supports Internet freedom and openness.

Re:Brigner, not "Beringer" (1)

Elbart (1233584) | about 2 years ago | (#39472603)

Brigner is in favor of SOPA/PIPA and screwing with DNS.
http://www.shinkuro.com/PROTECT%20IP%20Technical%20Whitepaper%20Final.pdf [shinkuro.com]
http://blog.mpaa.org/BlogOS/author/Paul-Brigner.aspx [mpaa.org]
So, yeah.

Re:Brigner, not "Beringer" (1)

cjonslashdot (904508) | about 2 years ago | (#39473565)

That is disappointing. Thanks for these links. Remember though that people often have to represent the viewpoints of the organizations that they work for. I guess we'll have to wait and see how things evolve.

Re:Brigner, not "Beringer" (1)

Elbart (1233584) | about 2 years ago | (#39475311)

Remember though that people often have to represent the viewpoints of the organizations that they work for.

That may be the case for representative positions like spokesperson or similar, but as "Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Policy Officer at MPAA"? Isn't that a position which defines these viewpoints and policies?

Re:Brigner, not "Beringer" (1)

cjonslashdot (904508) | about 2 years ago | (#39475623)

Insightful. I was wondering if you would point that out.

I do not know how the MPAA operates, but I would expect that a policy group would be an advisory group that provides analysis and options to the board or executive leadership, but that final policy choices would be made by the leadership and board, and that it would be up to the policy group to draft appropriate language to reflect those policy choices. But again, I don't have any insight at all into how the MPAA operates.

Ultimately, the people who set an organization's policies are (or should be) the board and executive leadership team.

Why is anyone surprised at this? (3, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#39461613)

Anybody who has seen both Sean Doran's brilliant screed "It Seeks Overall Control" and watched the IAHC committee where ISOC made the deal with the devil for control of the DNS which it then presented to the USG as the final solution, can not be surprised at this.

After the US government threatened to make Jon Postel "go away" for his ideas about expanding the DNS to make NSI "one of many" registires (instead of the current plan to have 10,000 sales agents for .com) per the original NSF cooperative agreement with NSI/General Atomics/ATT, the USG (really Commerce) made their own version of IANA run by intellectual property lawyers, starting at the top with WIPO from Geneva being involved in the earliest secret (!) meetings about the DNS delivered on a platter by ISOC; this was initiated when Don Heath (ISOC) ran into Albert Tramposch (WIPO) and Bob Shaw (ITU) at an OECD workshop in Ottawa at about the time Jon was trying to expand the DNS namespace around the time the Vint Cerf's FNCAC advised the NSF to instruct NSI to began charging for domains.

ISOC, and really any of these organizations that start with an "I" are really a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" old boys club - look at their salaries on their organizations tax forms, they're 2 to 5 times for equivalent government work and lets face it if you saw FCC staffers in kayaks at a five star hotel Costa Rica claiming it was "bottom up multistakeholder consensus making" - one of four junkets a year - heads would roll and never mind the FCC has stated the multistakeholder model is rubbish.

But how else can they let the intellectual property crowd and speculators have as much as a say as all those people that actually own and operate nameservers?

Bad News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39462295)

I once thought they were the good guys, I guess I was wrong. You don't hire evil, unless you are evil. If they are not evil, they should have just shut their doors and closed down rather than do this.

Does it challenge it! (1)

arisvega (1414195) | about 2 years ago | (#39463509)

Does this challenge the notion that ISOC is a 'trusted, independent source of Internet leadership?'

Is what now?

ISOC; INGSOC: not much difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39468173)

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

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...