51–60 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this particular case, the answer is rather obvious--the ISP is a content rights owner. Vertical integration FTW!
How is it different from when Time Warner media business and Time Warner Cable (ISP) were the same company?
"Don't violate the law over our network" is not an unreasonable expectation, and "we will shut off service to people that violate the law using our network" is not an unreasonable penalty. It's hard to imagine any business of any kind taking the position "feel free to violate the law over our network" or deciding that they just won't do anything about it if people do. Imagine a restaurant that could see you operating…
The law in America is enforced by the courts, not by private corporations.
If a gun store owner knew a guy was buying a gun to shoot up a school, wouldn't you want him to refuse to sell it? Wouldn't you want to hold the gun store responsible for knowingly enabling illegal activity?
(Note that I am using gun analogies in my comments because I feel the positions here are oddly tied to a specific issue, and hypocritical when applied to others. I'm aware these aren't really similar in severity by any means.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming I'm parsing the sarcasm correctly, they can't sign on for any other ISP? So you get a choice of one depending on where you happen to live? I'm used to what's called local loop unbundling in the UK and Europe - which is the removal of the last mile monopoly, and all ISPs simply putting a DSLAM in exchanges. Initially this was localised, and there were smaller local players, but they're now effectively all nat…
50 million US homes have only one 25Mbps Internet provider or none at all https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi...
DSL (with a single provider) is my only option for wired internet at home. Satellite and cellular are both available, but with higher prices and sever data caps.
I have an office 1.5 miles away that also has a cable line that can do ~120Mbps down and ~5 up, but the cable lines end about a mile from my house.
How does this differ from the deplatforming we've recently seen with Twitter, Apple app store, Gab from hosting providers, facebook, youtube, etc?
People actually are accused of doing something illegal by law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law in America is enforced by the courts, not by private corporations.
They aren't enforcing the law. They're managing their risk as a business, by not doing business with people who could put them at legal risk. If they were "enforcing the law", they'd send you a fine for tens of thousands of dollars and throw you in jail if you didn't pay it. If a gun store owner knew a guy was buying a gun to shoot up a school, wouldn't you want him to refuse to sell it? Wouldn't you want to hold the…
What if AT&T's risk management software scores that its customer is "likely" to commit a petty crime by analyzing his traffic? Turn him off as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m sure many of us believe in following and enforcing laws (even flawed laws like 150yr copyright) FWIW, many of us don't believe in following or enforcing unjust laws.
References to 150-year copyrights is (deliberate or not) pure obfuscation. We're talking about downloading the latest box office hits†, not century-old texts bound by unjust extensions to copyright. † Edit: in most but obviously not all cases
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m sure many of us believe in following and enforcing laws (even flawed laws like 150yr copyright) FWIW, many of us don't believe in following or enforcing unjust laws.
References to 150-year copyrights is (deliberate or not) pure obfuscation. We're talking about downloading the latest box office hits†, not century-old texts bound by unjust extensions to copyright. † Edit: in most but obviously not all cases
People are exactly as guilty (and should feel exactly as guilty) download one as downloading the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People actually are accused of doing something illegal by law.
Sorry, "illegal" versus "legal" in America is determined by the courts, not by private corporations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law in America is enforced by the courts, not by private corporations.
They aren't enforcing the law. They're managing their risk as a business, by not doing business with people who could put them at legal risk. If they were "enforcing the law", they'd send you a fine for tens of thousands of dollars and throw you in jail if you didn't pay it. If a gun store owner knew a guy was buying a gun to shoot up a school, wouldn't you want him to refuse to sell it? Wouldn't you want to hold the…
the ISP is like the roads that you take to get to the gun shop. Yes the gun shop should prevent you from buying a gun to kill someone.
The people who maintain the road to get you to the gun shop should not decide that you cannot use the road.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
References to 150-year copyrights is (deliberate or not) pure obfuscation. We're talking about downloading the latest box office hits†, not century-old texts bound by unjust extensions to copyright. † Edit: in most but obviously not all cases
The story doesn't have any such details. Please remember that the most famous such case, the prosecution of Aaron Swartz until he committed suicide, was for downloading academic papers from JSTOR, presumably including many century-old texts, and that the current best system for obtaining academic papers you're legally allowed to get — Sci-hub — is on the receiving end of a series of lawsuits from companies who didn't…