Comments on: Free Speech for Me, But When it Comes to Thee I Need to Think About It http://broadbandpolitics.com/2009/12/free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee/ On the theory and practice of networking Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:33:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Richard Bennett http://broadbandpolitics.com/2009/12/free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee/comment-page-1/#comment-429016 Richard Bennett Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:58:13 +0000 http://broadbandpolitics.com/2009/12/free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee/#comment-429016 Yes, there are two proposed anti-discrimination rules, one that I like and one that I don't like. And yes, I generally like anti-piracy laws: there's no Constitutional right to profit from the unauthorized sale of another guy's stuff, either through advertising or subscription, and large-scale piracy always has a profit motive. Yes, there are two proposed anti-discrimination rules, one that I like and one that I don’t like.

And yes, I generally like anti-piracy laws: there’s no Constitutional right to profit from the unauthorized sale of another guy’s stuff, either through advertising or subscription, and large-scale piracy always has a profit motive.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://broadbandpolitics.com/2009/12/free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee/comment-page-1/#comment-429015 Seth Finkelstein Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:53:44 +0000 http://broadbandpolitics.com/2009/12/free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee/#comment-429015 "The reason for this is that the proposed anti-discrimination rule makes it illegal for ISPs to sell enhanced transport to publishers who require it to deliver high bandwidth, live interactive services to people on the Internet." You're weaving between two different types of anti-discrimination rules here - call it the no-exclusives type rule (any service must be available to all for a given price), and the no special-handling rule (no service can have priority over another service). I'm leaning towards the innovation arguments that the no-special-handling rule would be wrong. But the no-exclusives rule is a different matter, and I suspect that's the focus of many of the panelists. "it’s chiefly government. ..." Bah. This is Libertarian-type nonsense. The DMCA is much better thought of as a business monopoly measure of big corporations. “The reason for this is that the proposed anti-discrimination rule makes it illegal for ISPs to sell enhanced transport to publishers who require it to deliver high bandwidth, live interactive services to people on the Internet.”

You’re weaving between two different types of anti-discrimination rules here – call it the no-exclusives type rule (any service must be available to all for a given price), and the no special-handling rule (no service can have priority over another service). I’m leaning towards the innovation arguments that the no-special-handling rule would be wrong. But the no-exclusives rule is a different matter, and I suspect that’s the focus of many of the panelists.

“it’s chiefly government. …”

Bah. This is Libertarian-type nonsense. The DMCA is much better thought of as a business monopoly measure of big corporations.

]]>