« Def Leppard to Record Label: No! |
| Penny Arcade Tries to Kickstart an Ad-Free Year »
July 10, 2012
Verizon are Utterly Daft
Orwell was too conservative when he described newspeak. Today's entry comes from Simon Maloy at the Mediamatters blog, who tells us that Verizon's notion of "freedom" is "we should be free to censor you."
Well, not you precisely. Verizon wants to be 'free' to edit what you see on the Net. In particular, Verizon's brief last week to the Court of Appeals in DC claims that the carrier wants to be thought of as an Internet "editor." If this seems a bit strange to you, then you might be remembering that Verizon argued exactly the opposite when the RIAA sued them.
As I've mentioned in my posts on "Safe Harbor" it's crucial for the DMCA's application that a safe harbor claim be made on the basis of provider neutrality. If Verizon wants to give up its claim that it is a neutral provider, then it suddenly becomes liable for every bit of infringing content that flows over its pipes. Dear Verizon, have you gone batshit insane?
Not only would that lead to a renewed flood of lawsuits and complications, but it would raise a whole host of issues of whether or not Verizon is claiming some kind of ownership over the content that it provides. People who feel that Verizon is trying to claim some kind of ownership of their content may themselves be moved to sue. This is very dangerous ground to tread and I suggest that Verizon might want to read the position paper that Google recently had prepared on the editorial role of search result-provision.
The parallels are surface-obvious, but functionally subtle and vitally important. Google is in fact editing the Web to produce an organized set of results. Google chooses what sites to crawl, which to index, and how to organize the results for display. However, much as they might mislead you otherwise, Google isn't the Web. There's lots of stuff on the Web that isn't in Google (or any other search engine). Conversely an ISP like Verizon shouldn't care what is or isn't in the Internet. If I type a URL then either that resolves or it doesn't. There doesn't need to be any editorial judgment involved, and trying to pretend to edit the Internet is just daft.
(h/t +Lauren Weinstein for the original pointer.)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Speech
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- Apple I Reaches CAFC
- Macmillan Pretends It Can Plug Analog Hole
- Pomplamoose is Still Making It
- Why Make the Secondary Market?
- Lexi Alexander vs the Copyright Cartel
- Digital Homicide Studio v Fair Use
- The Art of Asking for "The Art of Asking"
- Two Copyright-in-Gaming