LWN: Comments on "Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere"

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

scientes — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 03:50:05 +0000

This happened http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/6/fccs_net_neutrality_...

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

scientes — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 21:17:45 +0000

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/202

47 U.S. Code (FCC) § 202 - Common Carrier - Discriminations and preferences

(a) Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

How does this differ from net neutrality?

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

scientes — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 21:08:01 +0000

"For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States..."

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

mpr22 — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:21:26 +0000

Wikipedia informs me (referencing 47 U.S.C. §151 et seq with a link to a copy of the text thereof at the web site of Cornell University Law School) that the Communications Act of 1934, which provided for the establishment of the Federal Communications Commission, not only superseded the Federal Radio Commission, but also transferred responsibility for wired communications from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the newly founded FCC. As such, your belief regarding the FCC's jurisdiction over Internet traffic within the borders of the United States of America would appear to be incorrect.

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

raven667 — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:08:05 +0000

> The big disagreement with the EFF is the implicit assumption that the FCC has the ability to regulate the Internet, when I believe it only has authority over electro-magnetic spectrum

Wut? They regulate communication technology in general but even if I presume your absurd comment about the EM spectrum, over the air, copper and fiber all transmit data using EM radiation through different media and so would still be covered.

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

scientes — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:29:28 +0000

The point is that IP packets should be regulated similarly to shipping parcels, and this can apply to countries without common law and common carrier. The big disagreement with the EFF is the implicit assumption that the FCC has the ability to regulate the Internet, when I believe it only has authority over electro-magnetic spectrum: https://dearfcc.org/

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

dlang — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:26:00 +0000

you aren't going to have the same laws applied to the Internet everywhere in the world.

In some countries it's specifically a national resource, where everything is owned and run by and for the government. In other countries the government has remarkably little control over it.

The US is closer to the latter end of things, although the rule changes that allowed ISPs to be exempt form common carrier requirements seem to have allowed the large leaf ISPs far too much control (I say "seem to" not because I think that there's any doubt that the large leaf ISPs have too much power, but because the cause may not have been just the exceptions to the common carrier requirement)

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

Wol — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:09:46 +0000

Which is why you need a setup similar to the UK. It's not perfect, but basically the organisation that owns "the last mile" is not allowed to offer services over the wire.

(Admittedly, it's a subsidiary of a company that does, but legally that is an arms-length relationship.)

Cheers,
Wol

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

krake — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 14:39:43 +0000

> Common carrier is specific to common-law countries.

Which could potenially result in it having no meaning in countries with a different law base.

The Internet is in effect a global resource, having a term that applies comparatively well everywhere would still be a positive thing.

If the goals of net neutrality can be achieved by common carrier in common-law based countries then this could be preferred when discussing actions in these countries, while still using the umbrella term when discussion actions elsewhere or internationally.

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

dlang — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 02:08:44 +0000

I actually agree that common carrier status (assuming it's enforced) would address the majority of the abuses that have triggered the "net-neutrality" backlash. I also believe that Google (overall) would love to see common carrier status become the law again.

Google has offered to let anyone who has content delivery to put boxes in Google Fiber's datacenter, and Google will not charge them anything (for space, power, bandwidth) so that the companies can provide the best possible service to the Google Fiber customers.

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

scientes — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 01:53:57 +0000

Google Inc. is a huge company that does many amazing things. I do not think the company is evil, but I do feel that common carrier is not only required for ISPs, but makes the entire "net neutrality" issue moot. "net neutrality" makes the arrogant assumption that the federal government has the ability to implement heavy-handed regulation of the Internet, which is a dangerous precedent, compared to common carrier which is much more geographical.

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

dlang — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:14:12 +0000

Specifically, I am saying that I think that there is room for there to be ISPs that aggressively block some types of traffic at their perimeter so that they don't have to pay the cost of transport for things they don't allow, and for ISPs that are far more open.

Yes, this does require that we have the option between multiple ISPs, which is not the case in many places today.

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

Wol — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:23:42 +0000

> So I think that there is room for both types of operations to exist, but companies need to pick which type they are.

That's easily done. Companies should be "common carrier", but *customers* have the *right* to *opt* in to filtering.

In other words, companies have to carry everything, but are under no obligation to deliver it if their customers have said they don't want it. Just like in the UK, you can tell the Royal Mail not to deliver junk mail to you. (NOT widely publicised, but I'm pretty certain you can...)

Cheers,
Wol

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

Wol — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:19:17 +0000

> Spam is an annoyance at most,

And when it overwhelms your internet link? It's a pretty effective DoS attack. Although I think that is better dealt with by ToS but I wouldn't call it just an annoyance.

Cheers,
Wol

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

dlang — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:53:19 +0000

While I don't agree with you that net neutrality is propaganda by (implied) Evil Google. You do make an important point that telcos are common carriers, and ISPs used to be treated the same way. It was only later that the rules were changed to allow ISPs more control over content than common carriers are allowed. I don't remember exactly when this was (but I'm sure that now it's been mentioned, someone will jump in with the details :-)

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

scientes — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:46:34 +0000

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself.

That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”

― Franklin D. Roosevelt

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

scientes — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:41:29 +0000

Common carrier is specific to common-law countries. With strong common carrier for Internet providers (as was the case under George W. Bush) there is no need for "net neutrality", which is a propaganda term created by Google Inc..

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

dlang — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 22:54:55 +0000

The idea is that liability should be related to the amount of control that they exercise over the contents of the network.

If they claim that they control what goes over their networks, then they become liable for what goes over their networks.

If they are willing to relinquish the idea of controlling what goes over their networks, then they receive immunity from any liability of what goes over the network.

The phone company exercises zero control over what goes over the phone lines, and as such, cannot be liable for anything anyone says over that line.

UPS doesn't inspect the contents of the packages they ship to make sure they are legal (beyond possible checking for explosives, etc), and as such, UPS is immune from lawsuits if they are used to ship something that's illegal.

However, if there was a shipping company that insisted on inspecting and approving everything that they shipped, they would not be a "common carrier" at that point, and if they approve something that is illegal or causes harm, they could be considered liable, since they approved the package.

If ISPs want to control what goes over their wires so that it's only "good stuff", then they should be liable for any "bad stuff" that goes over their wires under their control.

If they don't want that liability, they shouldn't try to exercise that level of control.

Personally, I would avoid any ISP that tried to have that level of control, but I can see some parents that would love to have the ISP guarantee that "bad stuff" was kept off of their network for example. So I think that there is room for both types of operations to exist, but companies need to pick which type they are. Right now ISPs are trying to have it both ways, dictate what you are allowed to do on their network and have no liability about what goes over their network.

Think about comments on articles, if you tightly control what is allowed in the comments, then you could be liable for what you allow to be posted. If you have a light touch on control over the comments, then you clearly should not be liable for what's posted in comments. But in either case, you as the site owner would be liable for what's posted in the articles (where you control what's published)

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

mpr22 — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:57:00 +0000

The US Constitution has, since the day it was ratified, granted Congress the power to pass laws which make certain kinds of speech, at a minimum, unlawful, since Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Furthermore, established Constitutional jurisprudence is that the right to freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment is not absolute and unbounded, and that some kinds of communication do not, in fact, qualify as "protected speech".

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

nybble41 — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:50:28 +0000

> You'd have death threats be protected under the first amendment? Or even spam?

Yes. Of course, if you do make a credible, imminent death threat then others are free to take you at your word and respond preemptively in self-defense. However, that response is justified in response to the act of murder (even if it hasn't happened yet), not the speech itself. The speech is merely evidence of your intent.

Spam is an annoyance at most, and certainly doesn't justify a violent response. It's strange how you seem to deem it less worthy of protection than death threats...

Freedom of speech is a natural consequence of the far more fundamental principle of proportional response. The act of infringing one's rights, whether through fines, imprisonment, or corporal punishment, is always a disproportionate response to speech, regardless of the content.

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

smitty_one_each — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:40:17 +0000

>Would common carrier status prevent an ISP from disconnecting a user for sending spam, especially if it isn't illegal spam?

I should think there would be a Terms of Service that would offer some legal basis for where the free speech/spam line is drawn.

You wouldn't want being an ISP to morph into being a fraternity on the UVA campus, such that allegation is tantamount to conviction.

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

scottwood — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:01:06 +0000

Your notion of what is "plainly unconstitutional" is "really rather ridiculous", or at the very least bad policy and contrary to established precedent. You'd have death threats be protected under the first amendment? Or even spam?

Would common carrier status prevent an ISP from disconnecting a user for sending spam, especially if it isn't illegal spam?

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

nybble41 — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:43:13 +0000

> I actually would love to go a very slightly different direction, give ISPs the choice of being a common carrier or not. If not, they are responsible for whatever goes over their lines (and so become liable for copyright lawsuits if they don't block piracy, etc).

ISPs should not be held responsible for whatever other parties choose to communicate over their lines, regardless of common carrier status. They are only responsible for their own decisions, based on the information they have access to in the normal course of their business, and have no way of knowing whether any particular communication is legal or not[1]. For copyright it depends on whether the sender had a license to distribute the file, which is not the ISPs' concern even if they can identify the file with DPI. Subjecting them to lawsuits for others' activities unless they agree to common carrier restrictions would be extortion.

[1] Though the very question is really rather ridiculous in light of the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech implies that there can be no such thing as illegal communication. Any law to the contrary is plainly unconstitutional.

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

micka — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:25:16 +0000

Thank you, that seems clearer that anything I found with web search.
Maybe because it was much more synthetic.

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

dlang — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 06:41:52 +0000

"Common Carrier" is a legal status that means that the company must provide service to all with the same price schedule.

think trucking companies, or trains, they have to sell transportation to anyone willing to buy it at the listed prices. They can offer quantity discounts, but if they do so the discounts apply to everyone. As part of this, the transportation company is not responsible for what's in the package (if it turns out to be illegal), they are just providing the transportation to all customers equally.

Many people think that ISPs should be classed as common carriers. This makes it so that they can't favour one customer over another, they just deliver packets.

ISPs right now sometimes claim protections as if they were common carriers, and at other times claim privileges that common carriers aren't allowed. They should not be able to get away with both claims.

I actually would love to go a very slightly different direction, give ISPs the choice of being a common carrier or not. If not, they are responsible for whatever goes over their lines (and so become liable for copyright lawsuits if they don't block piracy, etc).

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

micka — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:43:27 +0000

I'm not familiar with the expression "common carrier". Would you care to explain what it is (and also what you think the confusion might be) ?
Is this something specific to the US ?

Cory Doctorow Rejoins EFF to Eradicate DRM Everywhere

scientes — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 01:42:34 +0000

Is he complicit in EFF's collusion with Google (via SaveTheInternet.com) to confuse the public about common carrier with "net neutrality"?