| rdfs:comment
| - Tom, Molly, Jason-- I was catching up on last week's shows on the morning commute this morning, and you guys just prompted a 'John Rant' (me being John). If I can paraphrase, you stated that while you oppose legislation regarding filtering, that it was OK for the RIAA to lobby ISPs to ask them to filter voluntarily. Are you flippin' nuts??? This is completely unacceptable. If anything, we should have legislation that specifically prevents filtering!! (Disclaimer: I am referring to U.S. legislation, I cannot speak for other countries and apologize to the International listeners of BOL.) John
|
| abstract
| - Tom, Molly, Jason-- I was catching up on last week's shows on the morning commute this morning, and you guys just prompted a 'John Rant' (me being John). If I can paraphrase, you stated that while you oppose legislation regarding filtering, that it was OK for the RIAA to lobby ISPs to ask them to filter voluntarily. Are you flippin' nuts??? This is completely unacceptable. If anything, we should have legislation that specifically prevents filtering!! (Disclaimer: I am referring to U.S. legislation, I cannot speak for other countries and apologize to the International listeners of BOL.) ****While I am a huge fan of competition, open markets, consumer choice, and invisible hands--content on the Internet must remain free and open. If I have my legal MP3 collection on my home server, and I have chosen an ISP who does not filter so I can access that legal content 'anywhere' from my laptop, am I now expected to only stay in hotels who use ISPs who don't filter? Am I now expected to use Wi-Fi services only the coffee shops who use ISPs who don't filter? This is crazy--the whole benefit of an open network like the Internet is I don't need to ask these questions, it just works.***** Not too long ago, I was at Panera Bread (my favorite free Wi-Fi coffee/sandwich joint), and access to my own server was blocked by their content filtering engine (I have a static IP and have had the same one for about four years). Thankfully, there was a link on the 'blocked' page to the filtering company--I was able to look up my own IP address and request that it be removed from their blocked list (their list was horribly out of date and whoever had my IP five years ago must have had some questionable content on there). My next visit to Panera, access to my server worked fine. This was a nuisance, but I somewhat understand. A public location like a coffee shop wants to have a filter in place to prevent customers from seeing offensive content over another customer's shoulder. I get it. It's the same as requiring customers to wear shirts and shoes. But when you start filtering simply to allow another business to continue their flawed business model, this crosses the line. In keeping with the shirts and shoes analogy, this would be akin to inspecting your customers shirts and shoes for counterfeits: "I'm sorry, that's not a genuine Izod, so I'm going to need to take your shirt..." Angry in Fairfax, John P.S.: Love the show. P.P.S.: Does the "PS: Love the show." reverse any and all criticisms of the show above? Should one instead say, "Love the show, with one noted exception (see above)."?
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)