Category: Mass Communication Law

Is the net changing or staying the same?

GOP senators: Net neutrality rule making must be bipartisan (Ars)

Republican senators are asking that any net neutrality regulations be a bipartisan effort, which is fine, so long as we’re talking about Republicans and Democrats and not the public and business interests.

“We do not believe that the Commission should adopt regulations based merely on anecdotes, or in an effort to alleviate the political pressures of the day, if the facts do not clearly demonstrate that a problem needs to be remedied,” they wrote.

What has always interested me about this point is that, in my view, internet neutrality is an effort to maintain the status quo — not “speculation about what may happen in the future.”

“As we analyze this situation further, we remain hopeful that any future Commission action will create an atmosphere that is conducive to promoting freedom, investment and innovation not only at the edge of the Internet but at its core as well.”

The problem with this logic is that by making the core anything less than a commons, the edge stands to suffer both from a public sphere and business standpoint. Traffic throttling and packet inspection along the very heart of the Internet don’t seem like “innovation” to me.

The Internet is about to die. Literally die! (Ars)

In a surprisingly simultaneous move, an industry-sponsored report was released stating that net traffic is growing and stands to be transformed by the costs that this might impose on carriers.

When far right and left wing groups are working together on an issue, you can bet that it has bipartisan support.

Innovation stories and copyright

100 years of Big Content fearing technology—in its own words – Ars Technica

It’s almost a truism in the tech world that copyright owners reflexively oppose new inventions that do (or might) disrupt existing business models.

Any readers who follow media law might not be surprised by anything in this article, but for anyone else who is interested in copyright history, this article has a few interesting stories. The perspective is a bit slanted, but if memory serves, the accounts are quite accurate.

Busy day

It’s been a busy day in the world of tech law news:

  • FCC to investigate “gating” role of middle-mile access lines (Ars)
    • This might seem like a snoozer, but since companies pass their costs on to customers, I can’t see this oligopoly standing. Then again…
  • EU taunts US: Net neutrality’s better here (Ars)
    • Competition through regulation–what a novel idea.
  • Telephone Company Is Arm of Government, Feds Admit in Spy Suit (Wired)
    • “The communications between the agencies and telecommunications companies regarding the immunity provisions of the proposed legislation have been regarded as intra-agency because the government and the companies have a common interest in the defense of the pending litigation and the communications regarding the immunity provisions concerned that common interest.”
      …good ruling against this shaky rationale by the District Court judge.
  • A Library to Last Forever (NY Times Op Ed)
    • I can see both sides of this issue. Either way, I hope that we find a satisfactory way to rescue orphaned works from the black hold of being out of print.

Perhaps these would have been better Twittered or Quick Pressed.

Can you own a copyrighted work?

AutoCAD resale ruling a messy win for first-sale doctrine – Ars Technica

An interesting decision in the 9th Circuit cuts right to the heart of a crucial IP issue–whether software can be owned (under a transfer of ownership), or just (merely) licensed.

The outcome of this ruling, I think, makes common sense. I would argue that people typically think, when they buy something from a company, they own that thing they bought. This line of thought would explain the outrage over Amazon’s 1984 shenanigans. The “secondary market” issue is significant, but I think winning consumers the freedom to do whatever they see fit with purchased digital goods is more important–and that requires a transfer of ownership.