Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 March 2008 18:48 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ?Net neutrality? debate heats up in Canada
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Last week the Canadian public media service, CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting
>>>| Corporation) became the first major North American broadcaster to
>>>| distribute a DRM-free download of a primetime television show via
>>>| BitTorrent. The download was not only DRM free, it didn?t contain any
>>>| commercials or license based copy restrictions. In fact the CBC website
>>>| proclaimed ?You are free to download, share and burn this video?. This is
>>>| how I like my media served.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://ostatic.com/158758-blog/net-neutrality-debate-heats-up-in-canada
>>
>> Excellent, someone is finally taking a moral stand! Let's see more of
>> this.
>>
>>>
>>> Beleaguered BitTorrent search engine shuts down
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| TorrentSpy has spent the past two years and hundreds of thousands of
>>>| dollars "defending the rights of our users and ourselves" in a legal
>>>| climate that was "hostile" to torrent files, according to the note, which
>>>| is attributed to the TorrentSpy team.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1205693246&rid=-50
>>>
>>
>> One has to wonder if it should really be legal for rich interests to
>> harrass smaller ones into submission.
>
> The problem here is the generalisation. And it's just the beginning. It's a
> tipping point for abuse and control (precedence in a sense).
>
There are some other philosophical issues, though. Large businesses
have a perfect right to exist, indeed, can often offer the best economic
solution to all kinds of different societal needs through offering
employment, providing tax revenue, ensuring the best possible scaling
economies and so on.
One of the big dangers of the actions of Microsfot in trying to
corrupt ISO, BSI and such like is that the rules will have to be
tightened in order to stop the corruption.
This is precisely the kind of ultra-selfish behaviour which allows
governments to introduce speed-cameras on roads. If people were a bit
more circumspect about the way they drove, there would never have been
any speed cameras, but there are, and they continue to raise millions in
"fines" (tax, basically).
So, we end up with a situation where breaking the law becomes a taxation
opportunity, rather than anything else... this is a deeply broken
philosophical position, to my mind, and very much pushes the position
that those who can /afford/ to break the law will do so, those who
cannot /afford/ to do it have to abide by it. This is not, to my mind,
a morally acceptable state of affairs.
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
