Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
As far as I know, yes, any company can refuse to do business with any individual or company with very few exceptions.
No. Only if ISP's would call under the common carrier principle. And it seems the world is trying its very best not to grant them that. You can't have the cake and eat it too. If common carrier principle is not valid, you can refuse someone's traffic, as long as you're not violating another law (eg anti-discriminatory laws). So you can probably tell RIA "we no longer carry your traffic for no reason", but you can't deny someone because they're a black pregnant lesbian Mormon. Paul
Hi Paul Paul Wouters wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
As far as I know, yes, any company can refuse to do business with any individual or company with very few exceptions.
No. Only if ISP's would call under the common carrier principle. And it seems the world is trying its very best not to grant them that. You can't have the cake and eat it too. If common carrier principle is not valid, you can refuse someone's traffic, as long as you're not violating another law (eg anti-discriminatory laws).
I am confused by what you just said. The common carrier principle does not apply here. AT least, the last time I checked no internet companies were considered under that principle. The reason, I believe, is that the internet is still not considered a necessity. Unless i misunderstand what you're referencing. Antitrust laws definitely do, however. IANAL either, but collusion is collusion.
So you can probably tell RIA "we no longer carry your traffic for no reason", but you can't deny someone because they're a black pregnant lesbian Mormon.
Paul
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote:
I am confused by what you just said. The common carrier principle does not apply here. AT least, the last time I checked no internet companies were considered under that principle. The reason, I believe, is that the internet is still not considered a necessity.
I'm not sure if that's the reason.
Antitrust laws definitely do, however. IANAL either, but collusion is collusion.
It could be clearly shown that Antitrust doens't apply here. After all, there is no 'illegal' profit to be made from censoring the RIA/MPAA. Apart from the fact that I think it's morally wrnog to censor as an ISP, no matter what reason, I think it would also set a bad example. We don't want to be (technically) seen to able to filter. As soon as that happens, even if it starts with a joke against RIA, would mean a truckload of requests/threats/lawsuits to censor/filter. Paul "I'm just an ISP" Wouters
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Paul Wouters wrote:
As soon as that happens, even if it starts with a joke against RIA, would mean a truckload of requests/threats/lawsuits to censor/filter.
Oh, like those 40 RIAA/BSA/etc. "requests" we get on bad days?
Paul "I'm just an ISP" Wouters
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Alif The Terrible -
Paul Wouters -
Pawlukiewicz Jane