Should the Internet be subject to the law?
 

Uncontrolled, unregulated, uncensored, above the law?

You can't choose some laws and not others. Either it's subject to the law or not?

Think hard before you vote.

I voted wrong. Fuck it, it's late and past my bedtime. LOL

there should be a third option:upsidedow

Should you be subject to GFY retirement?

no. :2 cents:

"the" law.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that the Internet is a series of tubes that starts and ends under Al Gore's mansion. :2 cents:

Sarcastic answer would have been only if it keeps old biddies off it but
:1orglaugh

The problem here, Paul is the the FCC has no real stautatory authority to "regulate" the interent as such. By the "Interent Neutrality" decision the FCC has simply GRABBED power over something it has no business controlling and the sheeple are weak enough to allow it.

Homeland Security were out testing the power to shut down websites anad seizing domains without warrants or court orders, preparatory to the FCC GRABBING this POWER from the PEOPLE and they got away with it!

This is a POWER GRAB and POWER GRAB only by the Administration and we will all suffer for it.

Government interference only creates problems and only benefits the larger corporations.

The question he really wants to ask is:

If the internet were regulated country to country, would piracy be stopped and could I pretend it was 1987?

And most would vote no.

So not subject to the law.

No DMCA
No copyright
No patent law
No 2257
No CP laws
No Fraud laws
No Libel laws

So anyone can copy any site they like, open an affiliates area and swindle all the affiliates. And members as well.

Tubes would be full of any content, send them a DMCA and they use it for toilet paper.

I can take any program I like off the Internet copy it and sell it on the Internet.

Phishing is allowed so long as it stays on the Internet.

So where would you guys work next?

Or are you guys saying you want to keep some laws and not others?

So let us have the laws that suit us and we can ignore the others because we don't like them.

That's why there is no 3rd option. No country allows you to pick and choose the laws you obey. Unless you run the country and even then you can come unstuck. Like Nixon.

Paul, the Internet is already subject to these laws and most are working effectively.

What I'm talking about is the illegal and unwarranted POWER GRAB currently being exercised by the FCC to sieze TOTAL control of the 'net such that any Administration in power may censor the 'net to suit its policial purposes.

The fight over Net Neutrality started well before Obama and you can bet 90% of the people on this board would likely need to find another line of work if it didn't pass. The days of free and open internet are gone, so you either have the FCC or Comcast and ATT regulating it...

Are you saying you are pro-patent law? Don't tell me you believe patents protect inventions or encourage creativity... They don't. Patents don't protect anything. When you have a patent for a certain technique, it means you can use the force of the State to stop other people from using that technique. Even if they came up with that technique all by themselves... even if they've been using that technique in secret for over 20 years....

Patents (letters patente) started out as a way for Kings to make money. They would sell special monopoly rights (those letters patente) to the highest bidder. The buyer/owner of such an open letter could then use it as a permit to use violence against his competitors.

In all of human history there isn't one single example of how patent law would have encouraged creativity.

On the contrary... At one time the Netherlands and Switzerland didn't have a patent system, while the rest of the west did have one. The Netherlands and Switzerland both flourished.

Paul, you seem to think that without government interference/intervention, there would be total chaos... that it would be a dog-eat-dog, law of the jungle out there.

The opposite is true. The opposite of government interference is not chaos, but voluntary association. Voluntary association = People who respect each others's property rights and voluntary engage in trade and commerce. It also means people have the right to defend themselves and their property when someone violates their property rights (by damaging property, stealing property or engaging in an act of fraud).

Government Interference = The law of the jungle. Government Interference = A big gang with a lot of guns forcing their will onto people who just happen to be living within certain artificial borders.

I'd still be doing what I do now: creating and delivering products and services other people are willing to pay for.

positive rep for u-Bob :2 cents:

Well, now, there's a thought or two!

Reads as though we have only to choose which overseer will whip the slaves into submission!

How do the tube sites, torrent sites and other download sites full of stolen content fit into all this? Or what about various scammers/phishers/malware installing idiots, etc ?

No, the internet should not be subject to law. Organizations should be allowed to setup an online store selling T72 tanks and enriched uranium. People should be allowed to setup sites that have live streaming of 11 year olds fucking. There should be auctions on eBay for cocaine processing centers, hit men, fake passports & credit cards, etc.

Yes, of course the internet should be subject to law... a world outside of porn, DMCA notices, and tube sites does exist.

history shows us his view does not work. a perfect example- antitrust laws.

Where did you see all those goodies? Craigslist? Ebay?

Don't keep us in the dark man. Tell us where we can go on the web to buy some enriched uranium and maybe a few fake credit cards to purchase a T-72 tank or two with.

Idiot.


So say you.

No doubt this will come as a revelation to you but, selling military hardware, hiring hitmen and all the rest, are acts that are in fact subject to existing law.

Yes really, I'm not making this shit up.


That "world outside" stuff you mention sure as hell hasn't affected my bottom line any.

I wish I could say the same about tubes, idiots like you and now this dumb ass bullshit the limeys came up with.
.

this thread is dumb.

Really? How so?
.

It sounded to me like he tried to point out the flaws in the "No" answer with his sarcastic response... :2 cents:

Ask the majority of citizens in ANY country if they would like to live without YouTube and other social networks that endlessly violate copyright law. The answer is, "no".

Companies need to find new ways to police their content, and/or profiteer off of it. Stop thinking you are going to take gideongallery's Delorian time machine, and VCR back to the good ole days. Their over. Adapt.
:2 cents:

Existing law covers everything that you have mentioned.

Food for thought....

1.6 billion people in China live fine without those sites.

they have their own versions.

example:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youku.com#


http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/renren.com#

What do "existing laws" have to do with anything? We are NOT discussing whether more or less regulation is needed... we are discussing a theoretical internet without ANY laws as the OP asked in the first post:

"Uncontrolled, unregulated, uncensored, above the law?

You can't choose some laws and not others. Either it's subject to the law or not?"

Which is precisely what I addressed in my rather less sarcastic reply.

See if you can hit the "50" in this thread better than you hit that one :winkwink:
.

Existing laws have everything to do with the question at hand.

What she's trying to tell you is that all of the really egregious evils that Markham, and others, allege would plague the world, were the internet to be unregulated, are in fact already criminal acts under existing (i.e. non internet specific) law.

To put it another way, you don't need to regulate the internet in order to criminalize fraud, dealing in stolen property, kiddie porn or any other already criminal act.

It's only when you move on to regulating the internet itself that you then open the door to the sort outrageous abuse that the Australian government is presently preparing to implement.

See what I'm saying?
.

The question was, "Should the internet be SUBJECT to law", keyword being SUBJECT.

And my answer is that the internet itself - as an entity - should NOT be subject to such with respect to the content within.

If there's illegal content and/or acts taking place on the net, the actual real world perpetrators need to be be prosecuted for such (under real world laws) whereupon said content will promptly vanish.

But... if you regulate the internet itself, you end up with Iran or China, or soon to be Australia.

I don't know how to say it any clearer than that.
.

But the question wasn't, "Should the government use its legal powers to censor the content of the internet".

The question was, "Should the internet be subject to law". And of course it should. If the internet wasn't subject to law, nothing you did on the internet could be used as evidence in a court of law. That wouldn't work out very well.

But once you make it subject to law, it then becomes subject to any and all laws no matter how poorly conceived those laws may be.

Case in point; Australia.

The beauty of the internet - as originally conceived - is that it rises above all that political rubbish.

The net should remain as unadulterated and clear as the air between two men, such as ourselves, standing face to face discussing law, politics, beautiful women or whatever.

And in the event that one of us were to say something truly stupid, or even criminal, methinks it would be unwise to lay the blame on the air that stood between us.
.

Of course it could.

Why the hell not?

You don't need to subject the content on the web to the rule of law in order to use it in a court of law.

Get some sleep.
.

But it is weakly enforced. If at all. If a law exists it should be enforced, online or off, no? Would you not agree with that?

I am 99% positive this thread spawned from the thread about the proposed UK porn filter. So if openly presenting pornographic material to children is against the law, and everyone and their uncle is smearing porn across the net with easy access and no age verification needed, would that not constitute open distribution of pornography to the under 18 crowd? Should we simply look the other way regarding one law, while enforcing another? Does a biased approach like this work? In the public space that is the internet, why should one law be enforced heavily (say the illegality of child pornography) while another is not (the open distribution of pornography to children)? That shit would never fly at your local newsstand selling adult mags, why should it on the net? Should we allow piracy to run rampant to protect freedom of speech?

Should I be able to walk up to someone's 10 year old daughter on the street and start talking about anal sex, ass to mouth, and swallowing my shit laced cum? Would jailing me for doing so not be a violation of my freedom of speech? So why should it be any different online? Just because the internet is a vessel for free speech, does that mean we are free to abuse it? No, but we have been...

So yes, the internet should be subject to the law, and yes the government of individual countries should have some ability to exercise controls in their user base. The wild west days are nearing their end, get fucking over it. We signed that check just as soon as we all accepted the net into the daily lives of ourselves and our families.