You keep on saying 8 pages. I do not think you know what that means. lol ;)
Why do I expect you to disappear and not admit that I'm right when the rules come out. Reporters are mis-reporting it because the dissenters Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly have been spreading this misinformation that you lapped up.
No, it takes 8 pages. The rest are the *legally mandated* responses to comments.
Are you sure RIAA didn't get their grubby claws in this for suspending sites, servers or IP ranges that are accused of copyright violation. Anyone that runs an even semi-controversial facebook page or Youtube channel knows the annoyance of falsely accused copyright violations suspending their content or sometimes entire service until they prove they are innocent.
Indeed. As we've stated repeatedly, we are concerned about the details in the actual rules.
What I want is a full review of those 300 pages. Enough of the back and forth from people who don't know what it contains. Even supporters of net neutrality need to be concerned as to why it took 300 pages to define and why all the secrecy from "the most transparent administration in history" LOL
Except that it's not 300 pages, it's 8. So, really, you look silly when you keep saying 300 pages.
And, as has been made clear, the FCC can't release it yet because the two dissenters, Pai and O'Rielly have not provided their dissents, which needs to be included for the rules to be released.
Wow, how nice of you to finally admit there are legitimate concerns regarding the FCC's overreach, you arrogant, condescending prick.
If that's what you got from the article, then you should go back to reading fundamentals.
First, we've always admitted that there was some risk. Months ago, we pointed out that the FCC solution was simply the best of a bunch of bad options. Our position has not changed at all.
Also, when you end your comment with "you arrogant, condescending prick" it at least hints at the fact that you don't have anything rational and reasonable to say, but you're merely overrun with an emotional response.
One of the main backers of FCC takeover was Netflix and they are now realizing that a non-regulatory solution would have been better.
You look incredibly intellectually dishonest when you say something like that which is directly contrasted by the details of the story. Lots of people -- including us -- have said that it would have been better if there didn't need to be a change, but given the actions of the telcos themselves, these rules were the second best and necessary option.
That's not "having second thoughts" that's admitting reality -- that the world isn't perfect and that the broadband companies are looking to abuse their position.
"But maybe Clinton's approach was more secure than using the government's e-mail. During Clinton's second year on the job in 2010, WikiLeaks posted online several thousand state.gov e-mails. None were from the clintonemail.com handle."
So because *that* leak didn't include her emails, it proves her emails were secure? That's hilarious.
The word "regulation" isn't what worries me, its "government".
Sure. That's understandable.
The choice of the Internet being overseen by the Mafia or an insular tribe of paranoid narcissists with vast numbers of mercenaries at their command isn't a great choice to be forced into.
No, it's not. But it's also not accurate. This is not about overseeing "the internet." It's about setting rules for a small part of the internet (internet access providers) to make sure that they're not unfairly diminishing the internet itself.
Title II under the Telecommunications Act does not require net neutrality or prohibit fast lanes and paid prioritization.
It does not, but it does allow the FCC to declare that paid prioritization or blocking is not "just and reasonable" and then build rules around that. So, yes, you can ban fast lanes and paid prioritization based on Title II. It's not that Title II does that by itself, but the rules based on Title II absolutely can.
If you are going to write an article extolling the virtues of fair use, it seems to me prudent that the works used as examples in the article bear some relationship to US copyright law. A photo originating from Scotland would not be my first choice.
So your argument is that because the photo was taken in Scotland, the argument that US sites reposting/transforming it for commentary is no longer fair use? You really want to stake out that ground?
This is why I will never donate to a crowdfunding project -- unless it's run by people I already know and trust.
That seems extreme. I would say that the vast majority of projects I've backed have turned out to be great, and I was quite happy with the result. I can only think of a very small number that ultimately disappointed.
What surprises me is how fast this Judge has ruled on this forfeiture considering this Judge is still yet to rule on other matters of the case against Megaupload that has well preceded this forfeiture by months.
This is an entirely separate case. It's not part of the same case.
Also, pretty sure the other cases have basically all been put on hold until the extradition process is through, so not sure what else there is to rule on.
How is it that you _know_ that "Um, no, it's actually the reverse" and "None of this is true"? I thought you said earlier that the actual rules haven't been released and no member of the public has been able to read them?
The overall concept behind the rules has been released, which shows those claims are not true.
I'm still concerned about the details *on the margins* which may have some bad or worrisome stuff in there, but nothing like what the WSJ was talking about. Enough people have seen the rules to know what the overall issues are.
On the one hand, TechDirt is a sturdy espouser of the free market in the tech world, and a steady critic of government malfeasance and overreach in numerous realms including surveillance, copyright, etc.
On the other hand: Cheer leading the FCC and the government in their latest endeavor.
There is a disconnect somewhere that I just can't reconcile.
Out of curiosity, do you find the First Amendment to be a burdensome government regulation?
But because it's Obama's idea, it's automatically ASSumed to be a great idea because any idea coming from the liberal/progressive/statist/corporatist/fascist/Democrat side can't be anything but good, right?
Considering that most of the same people were pushing Michael Powell and Kevin Martin (FCC chairs under GWB) for basically the same proposal, uh, no.
Yes, I agree that there is massive confusion on the political front regarding net neutrality; however, I am still unclear as to why Techdirt extolls the virtues of regulating the internet.
We don't. Title II and net neutrality are not about regulating the internet. They're about putting very basic non-discrimination rules on *internet access providers* to keep *THEM* from "regulating" the internet in terms of how everyone gets to use it.