tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post6331828001647365571..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: If there is no net neutrality, is there now a new net liability?Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-416256428891782372010-08-20T08:35:49.402+01:002010-08-20T08:35:49.402+01:00This from DMW Media
Noting that "the current...This from DMW Media<br /><br />Noting that "the current legal and regulatory regime is not working for America's creators," thirteen trade groups representing many factions of the music industry have sent an open letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, seeking more information about the company's recent joint proposal with Verizon regarding an open Internet.<br /><br />"The music community we represent believes it is vital that any Internet policy initiative permit and encourage ISPs and other intermediaries to take measures to deter unlawful activity such as copyright infringement and child pornography," reads the letter from groups including the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA); performing rights organizations BMI, ASCAP and SESAC; the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA); American Association of Independent Music (A2IM); and industry guild the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). <br /><br />"We are deeply interested in the details of your proposal as they may relate to the protection of content and to making sure that the distinction between lawful and unlawful activity has operational meaning," the letter continues. <br /> <br />Related Links:<br /><br />http://riaa.com/blog.php?content_selector=Google_Mail <br /><br />http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2010/08/19/music-trade-groups-ask-google-piracy-details-verizon-pactBen Challishttp://www.musiclawupdates.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-75068344545604705762010-08-08T20:30:25.591+01:002010-08-08T20:30:25.591+01:00Yeah, your inference is wrong. Identifying 'i...Yeah, your inference is wrong. Identifying 'infringing' content in general is impossible.<br /><br />If you made a law to do it, everyone transferring such material would use end-to-end encryption, such as SSL, and I can mathematically prove you can't identify *that* without more cpu cycles than it's worth.<br /><br />Ultimately the property of "infringement" is not a property of the material itself (which is the same, no matter whether transmitted by the rights holder or someone else) it is a property of some legal system somewhere.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04527450899504569727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-49568172949536160622010-08-08T18:41:37.823+01:002010-08-08T18:41:37.823+01:00You mean the deal both sides have denied and calle...You mean the deal both sides have denied and called the NYT story false?Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01863908675256558774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-56180877090046709532010-08-08T14:11:24.278+01:002010-08-08T14:11:24.278+01:00surely this must lead to the conclusion that if th...<i>surely this must lead to the conclusion that if they can ‘prioritise’ traffic (if paid) they could also do the reverse – and easily block infringing material</i><br /><br />I don't think this follows, does it? It's easy to prioritise Google's traffic, as a) it's easy to prioritise traffic, and b) Google's traffic can easily be identified as coming from them. However, blocking "infringing material" is a very different proposition - blocking traffic isn't difficult, but how do you identify which traffic is "infringing"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com