Category: Internet Neutrality

Google’s Library

In case you don’t have the time to read Battalle’s The Search, a pretty good substitute might be an article in today’s Washington Post (Search Me?). The article discusses a number of issues around Google’s book project which got me thinking: could a bit of creative lawyering and calling Google a “library” be a possible escape for the project’s leagal liability. The point is made that:

To index the Web, Google first sends out software programs called “crawlers” that explore the online universe, link by link, making copies of every site they find — just as Book Search makes a digital copy of every book it can lay its hands on. Web sites are protected by copyright, so if you don’t want your site indexed by Google and its search brethren, you can “opt out,” usually by employing a nifty technological watchdog (a file called robots.txt) that tells search engines to bug off.
Ditto for books, Google argues: Publishers and authors can opt out by informing Google that they don’t want their books scanned and made searchable.

It looks as though the “transformative use” argument is being made, but I wonder if this could be extended to the notion that, much like a traditional library, all Google is doing is collecting material and making it available for a limited public use (a few pages, as opposed to a limited-time loan). I’m not saying that this argument is necessarily persuasive, or even right, but rather creating an analogy between a data warehouse and a physical book warehouse. As it is, copyrights basis in “the copy” pretty much makes the argument untenable (but this basis is up for debate).

…in other stories grabbing my attention today

Michael Geist is picking up on the emerging Blackboard v D2L patent fight. Not exactly sure what to make of this yet, as a large part of my job involves working with D2L software (I’ll note, for one of its earliest and largest clients). For more, keep an eye on Michael Feldstein’s blog.

Finally, the Times has an article about Paparazzi 2.0, where anyone with a cell camera stands to profit from selling quick pics to tabloids. Now celebrity privacy can be added to the list of areas of media law individuals may need to “be more aware of” in the world of anybody-can-publish (something Ashley Simpson knows well). It appears in at least these cases, there are still organizational checks within news and tabloid firms to keep the issue from falling totally on a photographer.

Finally finally, here’s a good note on “Astroturfing 2.0” from Ars. If my old pro-market comment-ers on net neutrality were in fact involved in this, they might like to know that their efforts were appreciated in that they really forced me to further examine and clarify my own views. If they were legitimately commenting–thanks for the same reason!

Slashback

Long time no blog, so it’s time for my own kind of “slashback,” or a look at previous stories worth mentioning.

Law

Patriot Act Bypasses Facebook Privacy

A student’s facebook profile was accessed under the Patriot Act when he applied for a government job. Privacy and legislative scope issues, all rolled into one story.

YouTube and the copyright cops: safe… for now?

One of my favorite sites, YouTube.com, is coming under increasing legal fire from copyright holders. For now they’re being a good corporate citizen by removing copyrighted material when asked under the rules of ISPs in the DMCA. One to watch.

Chat rooms could face expulsion

The House passed a law (DOPA) designed to limit access to social networking sites to protect minors. I need to go through this and the pending telecom bill to make a more informed comment.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality debate highlights need for thoughtful action

I start with this post, because I think it’s vital to have an informed opinion on this debate. Click on the “Audio” link to listen to two of the biggest names in the formation of the Internet debate on the value of legislation in this area. Their one point of agreement: if we legislate, it needs to be informed, specific, and narrowly tailored to address the potential dangers (admitted by both) of a non-neutral network.

Microsoft asked to explain network neutrality stance, fights to avoid vote

Microsoft is feeling the heat from its shareholders to make a statement on net neutrality. This is surprising to me, since they’ve been much more vocal than Apple in favor of neutrality. Perhaps more specifics from stakeholders such as Microsoft could help sway the debate; or perhaps there is an effort to avoid treading too close to anti-trust waters.

Cell Phones Presage Future of Non-Neutral Internet and Verizon Wireless: Unlimited, Yet Limited, Access

One thing that I was struck by on my European trip was the advertisements for cell phones…not for service providers, but for the actual phones. Now that I’m back, I do see a few ads for phones, but they’re all attached to wording like “Available only through Cingular.” Essentially, the phones and their functions are tied to the whims of the network providers–the cell phone companies. Personally, I would be more likely to buy and use a smartphone if I were able to use the applications and Internet services that I want, which are closed out due to common polices among service providers. These articles are great examples of the drawbacks to non-neutral (closed) networks.

Google

I just read The Search by John Battelle, so Google issues are pretty hot in my mind.

AT&T Labs vs. Google Labs – R&D History

Links to two articles which are comparing the “new” and “old” ways of doing R&D within telecom companies, as well as how history (and banked capital) impact this process and innovation. I’ve blogged about R&D in America before, and this is a great look at some of the details on how this is (and is not) changing.

Search 2.0 vs. Traditional Search and Text Mining the New York Times

In the last chapter of The Search, Battelle looks at some of the directions of the future of searching. One of his more interesting points is the idea (actually from Tim Berners-Lee) of the “Semantic Web.” The idea is that the more data we gather about our preferences (search history), and the more our computers are able to segment digital data into more meaningful categories, the better our searches will become. These articles are right on point.

Personal

Why we have trouble concentrating

The C-Net Blog pointed me to this interesting article on getting better at concentrating. My “Search” reading has made me realize just how much Google has impacted my ability to concentrate. I’m serious. It’s a wonderful tool, but it makes it too easy to get off on a tangent by starting a search with an “I wonder about…” type of thought.

Finally, in the weather dept.: Thursday’s Downtown Storm Created A Violent Mini-climate

Thursday’s intense rains came down so hard and so fast that the storm created “its own little climate” in downtown Madison with new fronts streaming out from the central city, a meteorologist said today. …

The most serious call came early this morning when thick black smoke was reported pouring out of the front of a building at 1301 University Ave. in a row of five storefront buildings.

That’s my work 🙂

Apple’s Neutrality Runaround

It recently occurred to me that Apple’s name was noticeably absent from the list of companies supporting Internet neutrality (or perhaps I’ve just missed it). As a provider of iTunes music and videos, as well as software updates, it seemed to me as though their bandwidth needs would be a prime candidate for higher tiered service.

A few days ago, the Apple rumor mill turned out a theory that Apple would bundle bittorrent in the next version of their operating system. Users would get credit (perhaps on iTunes) for sharing their harddrive space and bandwidth to serve tiny bits of Apple content, like music, videos, and updates.

This would essentially remove the need for them to sign up for a higher tier of service, because their serving needs would be completely distributed in terms of time, space, and bandwidth. While this has been around for years in the linux world, building a commercial model on this technology would be a fascinating innovation.

Net Neutrality: A bit more depth

Salon has published an article with more depth on the technical and policy arguments behind the net neutrality debate (worth the few seconds to watch an E Trade ad).

Among all of the he-said/she-said coverage of each side’s arguments, what I see is the true heart of the issue is starting to emerge: who can control the physical infrastructure of the Internet?

At firms like AT&T and Verizon, both of which have roots in the monopolistic old AT&T, there’s now an effort afoot to reengineer parts of the Internet by introducing more intelligence to manage and control data.
(emphasis added)

In this case, the question might be more accurately phrased around controlling the speed of a particular web site/application, but this central issue remains. Personally, I would prefer that the control remain in the hands of those who use the Internet, as opposed to being “in the network” or the hands of those who own the wires.