Should the Internet be subject to the law?

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

there should be a third option

Should you be subject to GFY retirement?

no.

"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.

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

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

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...

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.

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
.

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.

In that case the issue is not the enforcement of the laws, but the laws themselves. Take up issue with the particular law if you have an issue with it. We don't stop enforcing laws, simply because a few are stupid. We don't go soft on rapists for fear that in prosecuting sex crimes we might be opening the doors to illegalize masturbation.

The air between two grown men is fine, as long as it is between two grown men, you don't see two grown men talking about banging out their wives at the same table as their children now do you? Because in the real world, people exercise a level of self control. So tell me again, why it is all good when you're doing essentially the same thing, just hiding behind a monitor while doing so? Why do we think it's our right to just forget about decency and self control as soon as we're alone in some room hiding behind a computer screen?

Wake up, the internet is still a public space. Freedom of speech applies, but so does common sense and decency. The half of the partnership that seems to be left out as soon as everyone jumps online.

free markets 101

Right now, we have the government/State making and enforcing laws, rules and regulations and that in no way stops the activities you mentioned. It is naive to think that just because you have the Government/State regulating things that there won't be any crime. If history teaches us one thing it is that the State is unable to provide the security services it claims to provide. The never ending excuses the State uses, is that it fails because it does not yet have enough power. It's already illegal to defraud people, yet fraud still exists and continues to be perpetrated on a daily basis. Over the last 200 years the State has acquired more and more power and has started interfering more and more with our daily lives all because that would somehow be needed to keep us safe, to fight crime, to protect the children, to protect our mental health, to, to fight terrorism,... Yet crime still exists. Terrorism still exists. Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
When will we learn that giving the state more and more power does not bring progress? Violating people's privacy, monitoring what they do online, harassing people at airports, deciding what sites they can visit etc. does not keep them safe. Forcing people to pay money to give it to "those in need", does not end poverty. Forcing employers to pay certain minimum wages, does not help the poor. Having the state police the net, will not bring back 2001 style sales.

In a free world (free market), crime would still exist. Phishers, fraude, malware,... would still exist. As long as there are human beings, crime will exist. However, the difference between a free world and the State is that while the State constantly grows bigger and bigger and collects more power at the expensive of the people, in a free world people are free to deal with problems, dangers, crime themselves.

If you are afraid of catching a malware infections, you can reconfigure your system to make it more secure, you can download or buy protection software, you can chose to avoid certain sites, you can chose to buy another security package if you are not happy with your previous package, you can chose not to go online, you can chose to recover your system from an image after you've browsed the web, you can buy operating system A instead of operating system B if B has a bad security record,....

Let's say you keep all your valuables in your living room and don't lock your doors and a criminal walks in and steals everything. Do you blame the State and ask them to make more laws and regulations or do you start locking your doors? What if you did lock your doors but the burglar was able to pick one of the locks? Do you ask the State to make more laws (for example a law to require everyone to install a certain type of lock. A law that would be enforced by police officers that come by to check if you have the correct type of locks and will fine you if you use a different type of lock (maybe even a better one))? Or do you buy and install a better lock or maybe even add an alarm system or maybe even put your valuables in a safe...? If the next burglar notices you have a special lock that would take a very long time to pick he might not even bother trying and head over to your neighbor. If your neighbor has also secured his house, the burglar might not even bother trying that house as well and head over to the next house. Maybe that house isn't as secure, but maybe the owner will learn his lesson and install better locks so he won't get burglared again in the future.

Thing is, we are all individuals, we are all different, we are all good at different things, we come up with lots of different solutions to fix problems,... Who do you think will come up with the most, the most efficient, the most effective solutions to problems? Millions of people freely deciding what they want and need and what they are willing to do or invest to get it or fix it or secure it? Or Government officials that don't know what they are talking about, that rely on corporate lobbyists for information and have no real incentive to find the best solution? Who do you think will able to defend your life and property? You, who have a very good incentive? Or the police who have no incentive? It's not like if you can stop buying protection services from the police and start buying protection services from another company.

Even if you gave the state 100% control over our lives, the still would not be able to end crime. Environments with 100% of State control already exist: prisons. A prison is a facility where you have no rights: the State determines where you sleep, what you eat, when you can exercise, what you can read, when the lights go out, when you have to get up, what clothes you can wear, if you can have visitors, how long they'll keep you there,...
And guess what? Murder, rape,... still happen in that environment with 100% State control.

The Sate make it illegal to use certain chemical substances for recreational uses. And in the name of this "war on drugs" they constantly violate people's property rights, but at the same time they are willing to admit that they will never be able to keep drugs out of the prisons. If they are unable to keep a substance they prohibit out of an environment they have 100% control over, why do we even believe the state when they say they need more power, more control over our daily lives to "fight drugs"?
If the state is unable to prevent murder or rape in an environment they have 100% control over, why do we trust they will keep us safe outside of that environement?

Are you saying antitrust laws prevent monopolies? You do realize the first antitrust laws were welcomed by the larger cartels as a way to protect their market share, right?

First of all, you need to understand what a monopoly is. A common misconception is that having a monopoly means you have a very large market share. Monopolies are not based on scale. Monopolies are based on force. You only have a monopoly if your forcibly prevent someone from entering the market.

The only monopolies are those of the Sate (aggression, security and judicial services) and those granted by the State.

Like Ludwig von Mises said, There's Government (intervention) and there's the Market, there is no 3rd option. The problem here is that people seem to think that State means order and justice and the Market means chaos. This couldn't be further from the truth. The State means chaos. The State constantly changes the rules... they even agree that it is now impossible to merely count the number of laws and regulations you have to abide by. If you can't even count them, how can you expect not to violate them? The State creates a system of fear, chaos and uncertainty. The State constantly creates more rules and regulations, all in the name of protection us while in reality only the State and those big corporation that are in bed with the State benefit from them.

In a free world (free market), there is order. There is the non aggression principle: All human beings are master of their own body and property and are free to do what they want with it as long as they don't cause damage to another human being or his property. This means you are free to buy property, trade or sell property, give things to charity etc but the second you damage another human being's property he has the right to retaliate.

I voted yes.

You are either subject to laws or not. No middle ground. You can't say laws we have can stay and no laws can be passed in the future. You can't say we can't have laws that are specifically for the Internet.

I know you would like to. But I live in the real world. Must come live in fantasy land for my holiday.

You must live next door to Sally.

Seriously we have loads of people who have 0 respect for other peoples property ruining our business. Even if you do create something that people want. Todays problems is without any laws the result would be total anarchy.

Exactly. Those things don't appear on the Internet because of laws.

Most arguing the other side just want to pick and choose the laws they like. Do they want a total amnesty for child porn sites on the Internet?

The original concept of the Internet as a place above the constraints of political control. And look what it gave you. A place where people can say "Fuck your laws, I'm above them I'm on the Internet."

Well that's not going to last. Get used to it.

What ever the outcome of this poll.

The Internet is subject to the law and will be more and more subject to it in the future. Adapt or die.

What has the government ever done to protect your business?

People check their brain at the door when they go online. This thread is proof.

But that's like saying, "what has the government ever done to stop you from being robbed while walking to the store?" You can't point to any specific thing, but if the government didn't worry about laws, you would have probably been robbed many more times in your life.

Look, what I'm saying is: People are master of their own body and property and are free to do with their body and property what they want as long as they don't cause damage to another person or his property. That's 1 very basic rule/principle to prevent injustice. A principle that doesn't change depending on the situation or your geographical location.

Now, if you want an organization like that State... basically an organization that enforces its own set of rules onto people who just happen to be living within certain artificial borders... an organization that constantly creates new rules, rules that are not aimed at preventing injustice but at serving the system... an organization that infringes on people's rights... an organization that violates people's property rights... all in the name of safety and efficiency.... then the burden of proof is on you. Then you need to prove that the State is more efficient, better at providing safety than the free market. then you need to come up with some numbers that support your claim.

btw: I have been robbed... well, at least they tried... and they didn't succeed... not because the State stopped them, because the state did nothing to stop them... The robbers didn't succeed because I defended my property.