How to gain support for net neutrality
A recent article on savetheinternet.com announced that Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has joined the net neutrality cause. During a conference call with some bloggers, someone asked Huckabee him for his position on net neutrality. According to the two accounts I’ve read (here and here), Huckabee did not understand what net neutrality was at first. After receiving an “explanation” of net neutrality from the questioner (who happens to be a net neutrality advocate), Huckabee supposedly gave his endorsement.
I have no idea what Huckabee actually said during the conference call, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he really offered his support. I can say this not because I know much about the man or his position on property rights, but because I’ve seen how net neutrality advocates explain their position. They talk about “fairness.” They say that they want a “free and open Internet.” They tell you that broadband companies are about to make your internet connection slower and more expensive. They say that we should “protect” the internet from “discrimination.” They want to save the internet. Those all sound like great things!
But those things are not what net neutrality is about. They won’t explain what they are for, so I will.
Net neutrality is the belief that the government must control how broadband companies handle data transmissions over any privately-owned networks connected to the Internet. The government must do this to ensure that all data is treated the same, regardless of the content or type. Net neutrality holds that it should be illegal for any broadband company to give any data packets priority over any other data packets (i.e. they can’t make content from one website move faster to you than content from another website). All data should be treated the same, or else the government will step in.
In other words, net neutrality is not just a position on computer network administration. It is also a position on whether the government should regulate private computer networks.
I know that talk about computer networks, data, and property rights might be boring, so let me explain it another way. Let’s pretend that someone came up to you to preach about the benefits of vitamin pills. He explains that they will provide your body with all of the vitamins it needs, and that everybody should eat one everyday to stay healthy. You’d probably agree with him. Now let’s pretend that he went one step further and asked you to support a law that would make it a crime for anybody not to eat a vitamin everyday. Would you agree with that? I hope not! Arguing that vitamins are good is one thing, but saying that the government should force everyone to eat them crosses a line. What is that line? Our individual rights.
There is a big difference between saying that someone should do something and that someone must do something. That’s where net neutrality goes wrong. In order to create their ideal internet, they want to use government power to force people to behave how they want.
I wish that net neutrality advocates would openly explain their position, but they know better than that. It is probably easier to get someone to sign an online petition or state that they want “fairness” on the internet (leaving it to the net neutrality advocates to explain what that means later) than it is to convince them that the government should seize control of someone’s private property. And it is your “support” that they after, not your actual agreement with their entire position. They claim to have over a million and a half signatures and the support of their first GOP presidential candidate, so why would they change anything now?
Tags: [government regulation, mike huckabee, net neutrality]Comments
Congrats Google, You’ve Made It
Congratulations are due to Google! Once people start talking about whether the government should restrict what a company in what it can do because the company is too big, you know you must be very successful.
Note that the author says that Google has grow so quick while being “fair in square,” but that the government still needs to step in. Now the only thing that is missing is the attempts to demonize Google, but I’m sure it’s coming.
Tags: [google, government regulation, hatred of the good]Comments
Peter Schwartz on CNBC
Peter Schwartz appeared on CNBC early this week to talk on the issue “Going Green: Bad for Business?” He debated Michael Ewall from the Energy Justice Network. Schwartz made the argument that the purpose of environmentalism was to save nature from man, and as such it is the exact opposite idealogy of business. Enwall argued that capitalism was good for dictators and pollution and had to be restrained before it destroyed our environment.
Obviously, I agree with Schwartz. I also wish that when environmentalists says that “we” need to find “creative solutions” to our “energy problems,” they’d say exactly what they were for: government regulation.
You can click here to watch the video.
Tags: [capitalism, energy, environmentalism, government regulation, peter schwartz]Comments
Copyright Royalty Board Ruling (2)
I received a reply to my previous comment on the recent copyright royalty ruling, and I responded with this:
I don’t have a problem with the RIAA lobbying this government board because they are lobbying for their own property.
The little secret that the anti-RIAA side won’t tell is that webcasters depend on government intervention to keep royalty rates low enough to allow them to broadcast their stations. If this issue was left to the free market where the content owners were allowed to set their own rates, the RIAA would probably set high rates similar to what we saw the government board set. That’s why webcasters are urging their listeners to contact legislators to try to make the government set a low rate rather than try to get the government out of the business all-together.
I know that some artists have come out against the rate increase, and they’re paraded as examples of how webcasters are siding with interests of content owners. However, so long as those artists have signed with labels that are members of organizations such as the RIAA, they’ve voluntarily give up their say in what happens with their music. It’s part of what goes with the paychecks they receive. They traded their music for money from someone that wants to sell their works. Once the property rights over that music have been transferred to another party, that second party has the same rights over that music that the content creator had. So, I really disagree with this idea that the RIAA is somehow taking artists’ music or getting in the way.
I don’t want to take Gus’ comment list, but there is one more thing I’d like to address while I’m writing about this: Webcasters bemoan the fact that the internet rates are so much higher than AM/FM radio rates, and claim that they are unfair. I have two responses to that statement. First, and most importantly, content owners decide what is “fair” when it comes to their property. It would be more fair if the RIAA charged $100 per song per listener than if the government set the rate to a level webcasters could afford. Second, broadcasting music over the internet brings has problems that don’t exist when broadcasts over the airwaves. The first problem that comes to my mind is the fact that internet broadcasts can be ripped easily, turning some stations into a real-time music file-sharing system. I believe that the majority of webcasters are honest and that the bitrates the music is streamed on probably stops most people from trying to steal music in this manner. However, there is an increased risk for the RIAA here, and I can understand why they would want to try to better secure their property. It’s the same reason much of the music purchased online has DRM built-in. I think it’s perfectly fine to debate whether the RIAA is following a good business model when it comes to online distribution (personally, I won’t buy any more of their DRM’d music, it’s too much of a hassle), but what should not be up for debate is the RIAA’s right to their property.
Sid said:
“The alternative method — negotiate with content owners — is, quite frankly, impractical.”
It’s statements like this that make it easier to understand what the RIAA is up against. This is not an issue of how much should be charged for internet broadcasting, it’s for who actually controls the content to be broadcast. I believe that all personal property, whether material or intellectual, should be respected.
Tags: [copyright, government regulation, intellectual property, internet radio, royalty rates]Comments
Copyright Royalty Board ruling on webcasting rates
Gus Van Horn wrote a post discussing the recent U.S. Copyright Royalty Board’s ruling to increase the rates webcasters owe for broadcasting music over the internet. His previous posts on this issue are what alerted me to the problem, so I wrote my feelings about the ruling as a comment on the post:
Tags: [copyright, government regulation, intellectual property, internet radio, royalty rates]Hi Gus. I saw the news about the internet royalty ruling today, too, and since I’ve been thinking and reading about this issue since your last post on it I thought I’d post another comment.
The problem with the rates that the government set is not that the rates are too high or low, but the fact that the government has any say in the rates at all. Those who hold the rights of the music should set the rates, and nobody else. It’s their music, so you need their permission. But so long as the government is playing a role in this issue, the government should side with the content owners. Like I said in my previous comment, the government should not be trying to balance the rights of the content owners with the wants of the broadcasters. Since SoundExchange seems to be very happy with the ruling, I’m more apt to believe that the correct ruling was made.
I disagree with how this issue is framed as a question whether “internet radio” will be allowed to continue. Internet radio will continue. This ruling doesn’t take away any broadcaster’s right to play music to which he or she has permission. What this ruling affects is what it will cost for some broadcasters to get permission to play some music, and it’s setting the cost to a rate that the content owners want. That’s all. Nobody’s individual rights are being violated (except the property owners for having negotiate with anyone about their own rates).
Imagine what would happen if the government gave the internet broadcasters the low rates they wanted. The government would essentially be telling the RIAA, “We don’t care what you want to do with your property, because internet radio must be preserved.” What is “internet radio?” Playing music over the internet? Whose music? Playing it to whom? These aren’t questions you’ll find answered on sites like saveinternetradio.org. There, you’ll just find easy ways to get in touch with your legislators and pressure them to take from the RIAA what you want.
I’d like to finish by pointing out that despite this ruling, it’s never been easier to listen to the music you want legally. Many websites allow online streaming and will continue to do so. Some even allow you to play a low monthly fee to have unlimited access to millions of songs, and even download them all to your mp3 player. For $12 a month, you can have a music library that beats the biggest internet music pirate. I think online music is going to be ok.