Supreme Court Ruling is Bad News for P2P
(freepress.net, 27 June 2005)
The Supreme Court today ruled on two critical cases, NCTA v. Brand X and MGM v. Grokster, both of which could have a profound impact on future of the Internet. Free Press joined amici curiae briefs in both cases. . . . Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, issued the following statement: The Supreme Court handed down two rulings today that will have a tremendous impact on the future of the Internet. The Brand X decision will badly weaken the foundation of the Internet as an open marketplace for new ideas, competitive services, and the free flow of information. . . . The 6-to-3 decision in the Brand X case will likely change the face of the Internet as we know it. The Court ruled that the FCC's interpretation of the Communications Act was lawful, upholding the agency's long-contested decision to exempt cable modem service from the common carrier regulations that apply to its major competitor, the telephone companies. . . . The response of the telephone giants that control the DSL market will no doubt be to rush to the FCC and the Congress to demand their own exemption from open access regulations. If they are successful, the Brand X case will stand as the trigger that reversed a century of communications policy and undermined the bedrock principle of democratic media - nondiscriminatory access for all. . . . Every major technology in the history of this nation designed to facilitate the transport of goods, services and information has operated as a common carrier network. The railroads, the highway system, the telegraph, the telephone, and the Internet all have followed this principle. Now we are told that this tremendously successful system will be overturned because the FCC was within its rights in an arcane definitional ruling. . . . The FCC's decision was awash in lobbying dollars from the affected industries that had little media scrutiny at the time and absolutely zero public involvement. The FCC's distinction between "information service" and "telecommunications service" to describe precisely the same bit-streams of ones and zeros boggles the imagination. . . . [COMMENT by Lorenzo: Of course, when you remember who was the Chairman of the FCC at the time they made this moronic decision, the picture begins to come into focus. Who do you think has the biggest stake in keeping the masses from using the Net? And other than being the son of a top administration official, what credentials did that Chairman bring to his job. . . . Face it, the FCC is part of the Junta's plans to lock this police state down as tightly as it can.] . . . Justice Scalia, who rarely collects accolades from the public interest community, got it right this time in his dissenting opinion. "After all is said and done," he wrote, "after all the regulatory cant has been translated, and the smoke of agency expertise blown away, it remains perfectly clear that someone who sells cable-modem service is 'offering' telecommunications." . . . The Brand X decision is not only absurd on its face, it is an insult to the American ideals of competitive markets, equal opportunity, and the free flow of information. This short-sighted decision to eliminate common carrier requirements on broadband networks essentially grants the incumbent cable giants the prerogative to stifle all competitive access to their wires. If the telephone companies receive similar exemptions - as is expected - the cozy duopoly of cable and DSL that controls more than 95 percent of the broadband market will be entrenched for a generation. There will be no competitive broadband carriers. There will be no independent ISPs. The thriving new market for Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) may be badly destabilized. The owners of the wires will likely determine what content is and is not appropriate to travel over their networks. . . . Without guarantees of nondiscriminatory access, Internet services provided by anyone other than the incumbent wireline giants will be under threat. Not just the so-called last-mile connections into consumer households will be affected. The decision also impacts the "middle-mile" networks that connect our major cities. The booming market for wireless broadband depends upon these middle-mile pipes for backhaul connection to the wider Internet. . . . The hundreds of communities across the country that have built their own Community Internet services must also be interconnected. Common carriage rules guaranteed that competitive broadband providers serving rural areas and low-income urban neighborhoods would not become isolated islands. After Brand X, this guarantee will be replaced by the whims of the cable and telco cartels. . . . The response from the public and its representatives in Congress must be firm, swift and resolute. The open proceedings at the FCC dealing with nondiscrimination on wireline networks should become a focal point of attention for advocates of telecom policy in the public interest. Congress must seek to reverse the FCC's misguided judgment, re-establishing rules that protect open access to communications networks. Far from granting the phone companies the same exemptions, Congress should write an unambiguous statute guarding communications network from monopoly domination. . . . Finally, the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have chosen to build their own Community Internet and municipal broadband projects should rise together in strong denunciation of the demise of common carriage. These new enterprises represent the true spirit of innovation, local ingenuity and competitive enterprise. These local networks offer the promise of bridging the digital divide and pursuing affordable broadband access for all Americans. We must not allow them to be held hostage by wireline monopolies emboldened to crush competition with disastrous public policy.

posted by LoZo 3:36 PM

 

EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers
Whether you're a newly minted blogger or a relative old-timer, you've been seeing more and more stories pop up every day about bloggers getting in trouble for what they post.

Like all journalists and publishers, bloggers sometimes publish information that other people don't want published. You might, for example, publish something that someone considers defamatory, republish an AP news story that's under copyright, or write a lengthy piece detailing the alleged crimes of a candidate for public office.

The difference between you and the reporter at your local newspaper is that in many cases, you may not have the benefit of training or resources to help you determine whether what you're doing is legal. And on top of that, sometimes knowing the law doesn't help - in many cases it was written for traditional journalists, and the courts haven't yet decided how it applies to bloggers.

But here's the important part: None of this should stop you from blogging. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Internet bullies shouldn't use the law to stifle legitimate free expression. That's why EFF created this guide, compiling a number of FAQs designed to help you understand your rights and, if necessary, defend your freedom. [Click the link above for the Bloggers' legal guide.]

posted by LoZo 2:38 PM

 

Bush's Fascist Appointee Has Destroyed PBS
( Molly Ivins, AlterNet, June 20, 2005)
I have listened patiently to years of right-wing bull about liberal bias in the media, but let us be perfectly clear about what is happening at PBS. Big Bird is not in favor of affirmative action. Bert and Ernie are not gay. Miss Piggy is not a feminist. "The Three Tenors," "Antiques Roadshow," "Masterpiece Theater," "Wall Street Week" and nature programs do not have a political agenda. "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" is biased in favor of boring, old, white guys who appear on painfully well-balanced panels. "Washington Week in Review" is a showcase for "Inside the Beltway," conventional wisdom, power-parroting, political-geekhead, Establishment journalism -- there is nothing liberal about it. . . . But there is a plot to politicize public broadcasting. It is plain as a pikestaff, and it is coming from the Right. It is obvious, undeniable and happening right now. The Bush administration is introducing a political agenda to public broadcasting. They are using the lame pretext that PBS is somehow liberal to justify it into a propaganda organ for the government. That is precisely what the board of CPB was set up to prevent 40 years ago. . . Ken Tomlinson is a disgrace to the purpose of that board, he has a political agenda and is engaging in a raw display of ideological bullying. The right-wingers in the House of Representatives are backing his power play with a threat to cut off funding for PBS entirely. . . . Tomlinson's claim of liberal bias at PBS is based on the program "NOW with Bill Moyers," even though Moyers' program frequently featured guests on the Right. Moyers is now retired, and the show has been cut to half an hour. Tomlinson "balanced" it with a weekly program by the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal, who don't even bother to pretend to be objective: They are right-wing beyond argument. Tomlinson actually spent $10,000 of the taxpayers' money to pay some consultant to find bias in Moyers' program but has never released the results of that "study." . . . Tomlinson, himself a former head of Voice of America in the Reagan administration and a retired editor Reader's Digest, has been an active right-winger since I first met him in 1974. He is also the Bush-appointed chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other official arms of the government's propaganda machine. He is a Bush information apparatchik. It is quite clear he believes PBS and NPR should also function as cheerleaders for the government. . . . His choice for president of the CPB is Patricia Harrison, who is such a Republican activist she was elected co-chair of the Republican National Committee, where she was particularly noted for attacking Hillary Clinton. This is beyond open partisanship. . . . [COMMENT by Lorenzo: You'd better wake up, my friends, we are living under a Fascist Christian dictatorship, and things are going to get a lot worse before we rise up and take over our government once again. Bush and his gang of criminals are fascists, plain and simple, and PBS now stands for the Propaganda Broadcasting System, and it's main objective now is to force-feed fascist Christian propaganda to the ignorant masses in this besotted land.] . . . When Richard Nixon attacked PBS 35 years ago, the Republican chairman of CPB resigned in protest over the political interference. The impeccably Republican Ralph Rogers of Dallas led a nationwide effort to stop the malicious meddling. Where's a decent Republican when you need one? [COMMENT by Lorenzo . . . it seems that the phrase "decent Republican" has become an oxymoron.] . . . What I don't get is their inability to do the simplest exercise in elementary fairness -- how would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot? . . . Let's pretend Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election. Who do you want her to appoint chairman of CPB? James Carville? Noam Chomsky? Or should she show how much she understands the importance of the independence of public broadcasting by naming an esteemed Republican, say John Danforth or Alan Simpson or Richard Lugar? How about anyone who understands that the function of journalism is not to toady to those in power but to challenge them? Is that too much to ask? . . . The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.

[COMMENT by Lorenzo: As much as it pains me to say this, I urge you to quit giving your hard-earned money to PBS. This once-great organization has now become a fascist propaganda machine, and it's purpose is to brainwash our young people into thinking like the criminals who have occupied the White House. Boycot PBS !!! . . . How far do you suppose we are from Orwell's nightmare scenario where citizens are required to tune into the government channel during certain hours of the day? . . . These are truly dark days, my friends.]

posted by LoZo 5:45 AM