Internet is NOT a communication channel

[kuddlesworth9419]

And waters also not wet.

[Lurick]

Anyone who says that the internet is not a communications channel either lacks any fundamental understanding of how it works and as such should not be allowed to make decisions on it, or they are taking a big bribe... err "campaign contribution" and they are being told what to say.

 

This is almost certainly the latter and it has been shown before the telco industry is more than willing to write laws for politicians, hand it to them, and they'll push it on through without even reading it. (It happened not too long ago in Tennessee)

[AresKrieger]

The 9th circuit, aren't they the ones who struck down Trumps original travel ban

 

Methinks they are in someone's pocket

[stconquest]

2 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

The 9th circuit court, the shitty liberal court which generally tends to get 80-90% of it's rulings overturned. Is this really a surprise ? The judges there seem to take liberties in interpreting the laws with scant regard for the US constitution. And I would like it if proper tech experts gave the people in the house of representatives, the senate and the higher echelons of the judiciary ( which are entirely comprised of VERY OLD TECH ILLITERATE people ) a tech briefing. Wikileaks has been dropping tons of bombshells as of late regarding things like high tech spying and "electoral interference", and I don't think many lawmakers understand the full gravity of the situation due to their ignorance of technolgy. The internet is comprised of various optic fiber cables ( which would qualify as transmission channels ) which link various repositories of information or computational units to each other and then internet exchanges link through some more cables ( again a transmission channel ) to the normal citizens. I guess one potential point of contention could be that while other "transmission channels" are used purely for communication purposes, the "internet" not only transmits information, but stores and generates new information. But the internet is used as a transmission channel nonetheless. Just because the internet fulfils multiple criteria and not any one criteria exclusively doesn't mean it should be excluded from any of those individual classifications IMO.

"Shitty liberal court"?  Like the guy that parroted FOX News in court papers:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmuid_O'Scannlain

 

Yeah, he screams liberal.  He is the one that stated that the internet is not a communications channel.

 

Maybe you don't understand, I'll give you that.  Being polarized does not make you right.  There is very little difference between the current core Republican and core Democratic parties.  Treat every incident objectively, on a case by case basis; instead of using every opportunity to attack "liberals". 

 

Psst...the current Democratic establishment is not liberal, they are corporate.  They would rather lose elections to keep the machine running, than adapt to the population in a real effort to win elections because many of them would get fired.

 

Beyond the stupid argument that the internet is not a comms channel, made by Republican media parroted by a Republican judge, the issue (according to the article) was that extending sec. 111 to the internet might infringe on the purpose the law was originally designed to fulfill:

 

Quote

The judges also looked at the historical context of Section 111, which was written in 1976, when the cable industry "was a fledgling" that needed help with the transaction costs that would result from negotiating with individual copyright owners. Congress wanted "to balance the socially useful role cable systems had come to play, on the one hand, against the property interests and creative incentives of copyright holders, on the other."

Extending Section 111 to the Internet transmissions "would not further, and might in fact jeopardize, the values just described," the judges held. Their rationale is that the Internet has no geographic boundary and "can retransmit works across the globe instantaneously." And Internet signals "are more vulnerable than traditional cable to unauthorized copying and other acts of piracy."

 

 

So FilmOn has to go back, with knowledge of this ruling, and try again... or another potential provider will eventually.

[stconquest]

Just now, Kumaresh said:

Then the laws are just shitty and outdated More reason to give a tech briefing to all the important members of the legislature and judiciary and pass laws regarding regulations for the internet. If they do pass a new law, then my rationale in the later part of my post ( which you conveniently ignored ) would hold.

When you begin to throw stones at people for no good reason, the rest of your post becomes relative garbage. 

 

Government officials probably do get "tech briefings", immediately followed by a nice big fat campaign contribution.

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Kumaresh said:

Eyy, that's just my fundamental style of arguing most of the times This has gotten me into a LOT of trouble with the mods though Lobbying is getting harder and harder to do in the government and the current government doesn't want it's members to be lobbyists. Some "unbiased" briefings would be good instead of rich tech companies doing the *wink wink nudge nudge* routine to get what they want

You know we can't discuss this anymore... but I don't think lobbying is any more difficult than it has previously been. 

 

The content of the so called "tech briefings" is not important to a lot of these officials.  That dollar amount is what they remember.  I can see it now:  A vote comes to the floor and a gov't official opens a little "black book".  "Ah yes, this is Wednesday's $15000 vote."  They then look to the left to either see a "Y", or an "N" next to the line.