"Net neutrality wouldn't exist at all without government coercion. "
The internet itself wouldn't exist either. So?
"It's like saying I should be able to buy a Whopper at McDonalds."
No, it's saying that if McDonalds own part of the path that leads to the food court, they can't built a toll booth in front of the part that leads to Burger King.
Please, understand the actual issue instead of reacting in a knee jerk fashion because you read the "government".
"As to competition in allegedly low competition regions (which I guess is where I live), what exactly will "net neutrality" do for me"
It means that your ISP has to treat every packet that you access equally, not filtering their competitors, slowing down some of the services you use in order to drive you to their preferred partners, creating high barriers to new competitors entering the market, charging you extra to have full speed on the services you want, etc., etc.
Again, read up on what the issue ACTUALLY is about, not whatever you falsely assumed it was.
"What's the sense of that?"
Well, you asked that the ISPs be able to maximise their profit. That's the result you get. Since there's no competition, who do you want to get them to offer lower priced plans to your neighbours?
"And I'm not particularly concerned with "monopolies""
Then, you *really* don't understand the issues and behaviour being discussed and the issues that led to this discussion in the first place. Hell, your own example of your neighbour indicates exactly why a monopoly is bad (if there were competition, your neighbours could move to a cheaper competitor offering the plan that suits them, without competition, the ISP isn't going to lower their prices).
"the continued support of a government engendered "net neutrality" has been bothering me."
Probably because net neutrality isn't "government engendered". Net neutrality protects what already exists, it's not the government inventing something new.
You're confused because you're contemplating a fiction. Try the real-life version now, you'll feel better.
"TechDirt is a sturdy espouser of the free market in the tech world"
This is true. Now, consider the broadband ISP market in most US jurisdictions. Most have one (maybe 2 if they're lucky) options. Not exactly a free market, is it? On top of that, consider that the trend among those ISPs is to collude and block competition. Also consider that they've already demonstrated a willingness to negatively impact competing video streaming service, for example.
This is good to you? Or, would you agree that something needs to keep them in check? If you agree, where are those checks going to come from, considering that there is zero competition in many areas for unhappy customers to move to and affect the market that way?
"I still wish that they had the freedom to do so if they deemed it necessary for their own personal economics."
You realise that this means you're supporting their rights to maintain monopolies and rip you off wherever you can, without so much as a competitor to move to if you disagree? Right?
We *are* talking about the company that included videos it directly authorised YouTube to host in the list of "infringing" videos during its lawsuit against YouTube. They need a common sense / "how to communicate between your own divisions" class before they graduate to fair use lessons.
"At this point, I have to wonder why real people actually use YouTube to post videos anymore"
Name recognition and familiarity, a much larger potential audience, a lot of devices have YouTube built in but not the other services (e.g. my Blu Ray player has a YouTube button on the remote), integration with other services, etc.
"Of course, it causes absolutely zero harm because no one is watching my video to secretly pirate music, they're watching it to see my video."
There is an exception to that, of course - cases where copyright, licencing or other factors cause the song not to be available via legal means for streaming or download. The solution to this is making the song legally available, not trying to sue anyone who lets others hear your music, but sadly we're still at the "we only want to do that if the artists can instantly retire from the royalties" stage with many of these fools.
The trend has since moved overseas unfortunately, but on my visits to the US I was always struck by how the credits would be squashed to one side to make room for an advert for the next show. So, not only do the names of the cast and crew become unreadable, you're literally pushing them aside for the next show before the audience knows who they are.
That's another time irony plays strong here - when this happens, the unedited pirated copy is giving more credit to the people who made the thing than originating network is giving.
"it would be impossible to report on anything that involved someone"
No, it just means that it would be impossible to report on anything in the public interest that involved stating anything negative, embarrassing or incriminating about the subject. Reprinting press releases and writing flattering articles about them would still be OK.
That's probably his point. If only people weren't able to know about his scams, criminal behaviour and poorly conceived attempts to cover them up, he'd still have a steady income!
Sadly, I can believe it. There's no effective penalty for filing false notices, nobody ever goes to court over it, and the general feeling seems to be that the DMCA perjury clause won't be effective against automated filers. Other than a bit of bad PR, they won't face any punishment over this.
Why would they have a dev sitting around watching the logs when they can just work on other projects or optimise the process to allow more claims to be filed?
"But if a rightholder carelessly makes a mistake in fighting back against a sea of those who intentionally violate his rights"
You do realise that someone violating his rights doesn't give him the right to violate the rights of other innocent parties, yeah? that's the point.
The owners of the IP in question here have every right to defend it - if and only if they don't violate the rights of others while doing so. In this case, an agent of the IP holder (Total Wipes are not a rightsholder themselves) attempted to violate the legal operations of up to 95 other innocent parties. That's unacceptable.
Sorry if this is too complicated for your tiny mind to comprehend - your rights do not trump everyone else's just because you own some "IP". You don't get to disrupt everyone else's business just because you're throwing a mardy fit over yours losing some potential sales.
But, in between pointing out how horrifically bad your heroes are acting and pointing out ways to reduce piracy without raping the rights of everyone else, your simple mind can't comprehend that this is not a defence of piracy.
Want us to criticise pirates? Fine, consider them criticised. That doesn't absolve the assholes you defend of their massive guilt and misdeeds. To use the usual flawed physical analogy - if people are shoplifting from your store, you're free to go after the shoplifters. That doesn't give you the right to lock up random innocent shoppers or rob the bank next door to make back your losses.
It's actually quite fun in a way. Having these idiotic wrong-headed arguments parroted by politicians and CEOs lend them some kind of credibility in the minds of the less informed, even if they're obvious wrong and desperate attempts to deflect blame for failure.
When we have someone like this, who not only acted in a completely immoral way but depended on fair use to some degree for his own business, it's much harder for the layman to ignore how wrong the hypocritical and idiotic arguments are.
He's obviously an asshole, and one that's obviously not interested in actually resolving his purported problem (as evidenced by his waving off of Mike telling him exactly how to get content removed from the index easily). Hopefully this helps get across the point that these ideas are ridiculous and they will never work, and although these people will probably continue to act like idiots so long as Google is a successful and cash-rich business, this should help prevent others from getting fooled by the rhetoric.
If just getting Netflix was his aim, he'd be smart to be going after the DRM requirement that forces the native app route in the first place. He would be shouting from the rooftops about how all the non-DRM requirements are already in the phone, but artificial restrictions are blocking him selling a Netflix capable phone. It would be a great example of how other businesses are screwed even unintentionally by the terrible and unworkable methods the content industry use to "protect" their products - and he'd get a lot of sympathy from consumers and developers alike.
But, that's not what he wants. He wants his crappy platform to be supported for all apps so that he can regain the competitive advantages his company has already squandered. He doesn't want Netflix to be forced to support his platform, he wants everyone to be forced to do it, and Netflix just happened to be the closest, biggest target he could think of.