somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> In this context, information is a commodity, the very thing being sold. They
> can chose what to sell and what not to sell, or how to bundle them and what
> pricing levels they use.

  Can they? They don't own the information in question.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> How is it basic human right for a *customer* to dictate the goods? Telecoms
> are selling you services which *they* alone should be able to define. You,
> as a customer, can chose to buy it or not.

  Ok, this seems to have become a list of nitpickers.

  Anybody else feel like joining in? If yes, please reply to the original
post and comment on that one point about human rights and how the internet
isn't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message news:49ed8c94@news.povray.org...

> You are talking like there is some basic human right that you should have
> access to every single website in existance?  Why on Earth should that be
> the case?

Agreed. As a sidenote, some piracy advocates claim that there's some basic
human right that guarantees them access to every single bit of infomation
out there. I call that the "entitlement mentality". There was a point not
too long ago where creators were respected and it was a priviledge to be
able to purchase and enjoy the fruits of their hard work and investment.
Nowadays, creators and providers are regarded as greedy scumbags if they
don't give you the heaven and the earth for free.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49ed9d53@news.povray.org...
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > >  If an ISP started censoring all websites related to a political
party,
> > > should they be allowed to do that? What if all the ISPs started
blocking
> > > all political parties except one? Should they be allowed to do that?

> > It wouldn't be very popular, but IMO it shouldn't be illegal.

>   I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. However, I would at least
> hope that that kind of behavior from the part of ISPs would be highly
> illegal in most civilized countries.

Why? Different broadcast and print media companies already have their
biases, agendas and contents. You as a consumer are free to pick between
them.

I see nothing wrong with one ISP promoting themselves as a family ISP,
blocking all pornographic content, and another one blocking the boring stuff
and focusing on pornography alone, for instance.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> So every company should be forced to do things that are no extra cost to 
>> them?
> 
>   Every company should be (and is) forced to submit to basic human rights
> which include, among others, freedom of information. No company has the
> right to actively censor information from its clients.

	Eh - I disagree. But before I begin, I will admit that this is perhaps
a gray area, and it may take decades to get it right.

	Generally, at least here in the US, freedoms like the freedom of speech
are meant to be regarding the government - not private entities. It just
means that the government cannot restrict it. If an ISP wants to, they
can. If I run a physical structure where people debate stuff, I have the
right to restrict the topics.
	
	There are _rights_ that you can't violate, but not all freedoms are
rights in that sense. Occasionally, the government will "promote" one of
those freedoms to a right. But it hasn't happened yet with speech.

	I don't like what the ISP's may be planning, but I can't find a good
legal or constitutional argument against it (laws in Europe may be
different). I can see that in the future, perhaps access to the Internet
will be seen as a human right, and these limitations will then become
illegal. But it's not clear at this point.

>   An ISP blocking part of the internet would be active censorship. They

	Which, I believe, is legal for private entities to do - particularly if
they state it in the TOS.

	It's like if I own a store with a bulletin board. I have the right to
dictate what goes on there and what doesn't. I could arbitrarily say
that you can post anything you want to sell on it, but no postings
regarding private tutoring are allowed.


-- 
"The security of the Enterprise is of Paramount importance.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         Generally, at least here in the US, freedoms like the freedom of speech
> are meant to be regarding the government - not private entities. It just
> means that the government cannot restrict it. If an ISP wants to, they
> can. If I run a physical structure where people debate stuff, I have the
> right to restrict the topics.

  Everybody seems to know that it's completely legal and not in violation
of any human rights that ISPs can freely choose how they filter content
and what part of the internet they will sell to who.

  Question: If this is indeed so, then why are the directives allowing this
being in the process of admission in the first place? What do they need the
directives for if the filtering is already legal and allowed?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message news:49ed8c94@news.povray.org...

> > You are talking like there is some basic human right that you should have
> > access to every single website in existance?  Why on Earth should that be
> > the case?

> Agreed. As a sidenote, some piracy advocates claim that there's some basic
> human right that guarantees them access to every single bit of infomation
> out there. I call that the "entitlement mentality". There was a point not
> too long ago where creators were respected and it was a priviledge to be
> able to purchase and enjoy the fruits of their hard work and investment.
> Nowadays, creators and providers are regarded as greedy scumbags if they
> don't give you the heaven and the earth for free.

  Yeah, there's absolutely no difference between:

1) The claim that people should be given unhindered access to all free
information in the internet.

2) The claim that people should be given free access to all copyrighted
commercial material.

  These two things are the exact one and the same, and advocating one
advocates the other.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I wasn't aware there was anything to prevent them doing that already...

In the USA, there are laws like your local telco has to service anyone who 
wants to pay the rate, for example. If you start censoring stuff, then 
you're responsible for the content you pass through.

I.e., if an ISP starts censoring porn, and little Jimmy finds porn the ISP 
missed, then the ISP can actually get in trouble for it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
 > Without using the example, I would just say that there is no
> reason why a company should have to do something just because it doesn't 
> cost them anything.

It would have to do things because they're a public carrier. I.e., it's the 
same sort of argument as "I don't see why my company has to sell stuff to 
black people."  Well, because the rest of society decided it's in society's 
best interest to prevent that sort of thing. I think it's in society's best 
interest to prevent companies providing the tubes from interfering with what 
flows over the tubes and charging discriminatory pricing on top of what the 
actual creators of the information provided.

It would be like the postal service saying "we're not going to carry 
packages from Amazon unless you pay extra for the postage." The postal 
service isn't adding any value to what you already paid the manufacturer for.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> In this context, information is a commodity, the very thing being sold. They
> can chose what to sell and what not to sell, or how to bundle them and what
> pricing levels they use.

The argument is not against people charging for the information. The 
argument is the ISP specifically blocking you from buying information 
without paying the ISP extra money to deliver it above and beyond what 
you're already paying for the ISP.

It's Sony making a TV that won't play NetFlix DVDs unless you stick a 
quarter in the slot when you put a NetFLix DVD in the DVD player. You 
already paid NetFlix, the studios, etc, and you already bought the TV from 
SOny. Why is it a good thing to pay more?

What happens when the ISP starts filtering out access to any web site 
critical of the ISP, or which reveals their lobbying information?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message