Everyone should already know that you're not BUYING that meal at a restaurant, you're just licensing a single use of the meal. You have no first sale rights either, so don't even THINK about taking home a doggie bag!
Sharing? Forget it.. That's a violation of the license right there. If you order a plate of fries you can NOT share with a friend, that's outright theft!
These restaurants hire workers of all sorts. Think of the dishwashers?! If you share a plate of fries with a friend you are depriving the dishwasher of an extra dish to clean and thereby hurting the industry and their ability to employ workers....
There's a lot of "they" in these scenarios. Who is they?
I don't buy my music from the major labels. I buy it from Google Music. Can it be a "sale" from the label to Google and then a license from Google to me with some of the license terms being dictated via contract between Google and the label?
You still have a choice to use Google and Facebook or seek other alternatives. You're not forced to use Chrome, Gmail, Google Search, or any of their other products if you don't like the "cost" of using them.
For many of us un-biased consumers; we LIKE their products and accept the cost of using them. It's certainly better AGREEING to use a product knowing that they are going to try and build a demographic profile of their users than not having a choice at all.
With some of the MPAA/RIAA legislation that has been proposed; I think you would have a greater concern that your ISP could be inclined to do the same sort of thing with ALL of your traffic, opt in or not, for the benefit of big content.
"Editorial note: We have not included pieces below from the billsí supporters (if you want those see here, here and here). This, rather, is a compilation of voices other than our own, that we think raise an important point."
So they provide quotes that raise important points.. One of these "important points" that interested me was a quote from NY Times columnist David Pogue:
"But it was a sloppy success; the scare language used by some of the Web sites was just as flawed as the Congressional language that they opposed."
Since the RIAA sees this as an important point, and the quote states that the "scare language" was just as flawed as the Congressional language that they opposed, can this be interpreted as the RIAA admitting that their own language proposed in SOPA/PIPA was flawed?
DoS attacks and DDoS attacks are not the same. If this truly was a DISTRIBUTED DoS attack, the perp would likely have needed to gain control of a group of machines to collectively perform the attack. Did he have permission from all the machine owners to use their computers in such a way?
I disagree about IPv6 being in general use. VERY few endpoints on the net are ready for IPv6. While the major backbone providers are almost ready, there is a LONG way to go before we're ready to cut over. If you ceased IPv4 support right now, the Internet would cease to function for all but the most technical of individuals.
I also think you seriously underestimate the time required to get where we are today with DNSSEC. Unlike this law, DNSSEC isn't some fanciful idea that essentially won't be effective. It's implementation needs to continue as planned for the greater good of the ENTIRE Internet, not just to appease the MPAA/RIAA.
Do you understand what you're writing? Or are you just passing around quotes?
IPv6 isn't widely implemented yet either, so should we just get rid of that and replace it with an MPAA approved version?
This viewpoint is about as ridiculous as me saying that because 3D isn't yet widely used in all forms of media you should just replace it all with an entirely new format.
There is a LOT of engineering/security and time invested into getting DNSSEC developed, deployed and standardized. All of this takes considerable time. I seriously doubt that Paul Vixie meant for his statements to be used in the way you are applying them.
I'm always astonished reading stuff like this. I think many people simply don't understand how the Internet is built, maintained, and funded.
Each entity ALREADY pays for bandwidth to send/receive their data, be it an end user or content provider such as Netflix, Google, YouTube, or TechDirt. Content providers generally use far more outbound bandwidth than inbound, and end users generally do the opposite. The key point is both parties are ALREADY paying.
If you want to use the highway analogy; this is like my city charging WalMart extra taxes because too many people use the existing roads to get to WalMart. As a result of all these people going to WalMart, they make money and should have to pay for the privilege of allowing their customers to use the existing highway infrastructure to get there.
Using this train of thought, we need to ignore the fact that WalMart already pays taxes to the city, state and federal government which in part goes to fund these roads. We also need to ignore the fact that consumers pay these same taxes too to fund the infrastructure.
I think Netflix and Google should demand that the ISP's pay for the Netflix/Google bandwidth because it's the content companies that create the value that entices consumers to get Internet access in the first place! These companies create the useful services that cause people to even want to get ON the Internet.
AT&T, Comcast, COX and every other consumer broadband provider out there should be paying Netflix in order to make sure their customers have access to that service. After all, why should Netflix foot the bill for the bandwidth that Comcast's customers are sucking up?