SOPA
-
I was just wondering everyone's take on the U.S. bill. I have actually been worrying more and more about it, but it seems like no one knows anything. I have been telling everyone to look it up.. it surprises me how many people haven't even heard of it. What does everyone think? I believe it will pass, just because I don't think they care what everyone says. It will be interesting to see what we come up with for the new internet , once they get their grubby hands on this one. I can't believe they are even considering passing the bill at all.. bunch of tards. I think they will blacklist my ip and throw me in prison once they do the deep read on this packet. I'm either a threat to the nation, or doing some sort of copywrong here I'm sure of it. -edited title-
loctrice wrote:
but it seems like no one knows anything
Well for one, if you call it SO'A'PA that would definately cause confusion. SOPA is and acronym for 'Stop Online Piracy Act' not sure where you got the extra 'A' from... It is also known as HR3261[^] And as for you being blacklisted, I am pretty sure that is for sites that are posting copywritten material illegally. Are you hosting some such sites?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
loctrice wrote:
but it seems like no one knows anything
Well for one, if you call it SO'A'PA that would definately cause confusion. SOPA is and acronym for 'Stop Online Piracy Act' not sure where you got the extra 'A' from... It is also known as HR3261[^] And as for you being blacklisted, I am pretty sure that is for sites that are posting copywritten material illegally. Are you hosting some such sites?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
not sure where you got the extra 'A' from...
I fixed it for people who can't read typo.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Well for one, if you call it SO'A'PA that would definately cause confusion.
I call it "stop online piracy act" when I talk to others about it. Besides, if you pronounce the acronym there is little difference.. still sounds like soap with an a on it.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Depends on how you want to interpret "Known". It's actually known as SOPA.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And as for you being blacklisted, I am pretty sure that is for sites that are posting copywritten material illegally.
Transparency is not part of the act. It may or may not actually matter if you have posted copywritten copywrong someone. Have you seen the criteria for being thrown in jail as a terrorist? Your response reminds me a bit of when I was playing NWN online. Some people used to correct my speech in roll play because of typo's... not really very effective if your not just picking.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Are you hosting some such sites?
I... uh... no >,<
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And as for you being blacklisted, I am pretty sure that is for sites that are posting copywritten material illegally.
It's not just that, aside from the fact that they could black out more then just one lil website in their target. It also targets ISP's, search engines, software developers, etc. I think the reach is a bit farther then you think. Goodbye youtube Goodbye information relay Goodbye facebook ... wait no, I don't use facebook Goodbye any site that lets users post content Goodbye any site that can't possible poll all the pages for links to some place that got accidently blacked out Goodbye free internet information and unbiased user filtered web searches for *
-
I was just wondering everyone's take on the U.S. bill. I have actually been worrying more and more about it, but it seems like no one knows anything. I have been telling everyone to look it up.. it surprises me how many people haven't even heard of it. What does everyone think? I believe it will pass, just because I don't think they care what everyone says. It will be interesting to see what we come up with for the new internet , once they get their grubby hands on this one. I can't believe they are even considering passing the bill at all.. bunch of tards. I think they will blacklist my ip and throw me in prison once they do the deep read on this packet. I'm either a threat to the nation, or doing some sort of copywrong here I'm sure of it. -edited title-
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
not sure where you got the extra 'A' from...
I fixed it for people who can't read typo.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Well for one, if you call it SO'A'PA that would definately cause confusion.
I call it "stop online piracy act" when I talk to others about it. Besides, if you pronounce the acronym there is little difference.. still sounds like soap with an a on it.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Depends on how you want to interpret "Known". It's actually known as SOPA.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And as for you being blacklisted, I am pretty sure that is for sites that are posting copywritten material illegally.
Transparency is not part of the act. It may or may not actually matter if you have posted copywritten copywrong someone. Have you seen the criteria for being thrown in jail as a terrorist? Your response reminds me a bit of when I was playing NWN online. Some people used to correct my speech in roll play because of typo's... not really very effective if your not just picking.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Are you hosting some such sites?
I... uh... no >,<
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And as for you being blacklisted, I am pretty sure that is for sites that are posting copywritten material illegally.
It's not just that, aside from the fact that they could black out more then just one lil website in their target. It also targets ISP's, search engines, software developers, etc. I think the reach is a bit farther then you think. Goodbye youtube Goodbye information relay Goodbye facebook ... wait no, I don't use facebook Goodbye any site that lets users post content Goodbye any site that can't possible poll all the pages for links to some place that got accidently blacked out Goodbye free internet information and unbiased user filtered web searches for *
Now wait a minute, they could just relocate to Iceland, ditch their .com or .org, and say "well screw you then, 'country of freedom'". Sites reluctant to relocate may disappear, and the landscape of the www may change a lot as a result, but it doesn't necessarily kill the internet.
-
I wonder if they'll still have the gall to call themselves the country of freedom. By the way, why is the link to the backroom in "general discussions" gone?
-
I wonder if they'll still have the gall to call themselves the country of freedom. By the way, why is the link to the backroom in "general discussions" gone?
-
Now wait a minute, they could just relocate to Iceland, ditch their .com or .org, and say "well screw you then, 'country of freedom'". Sites reluctant to relocate may disappear, and the landscape of the www may change a lot as a result, but it doesn't necessarily kill the internet.
I've read some about that. Dns servers moving out of their reach, and sites relocating as well. Either way, "Big Brother" isn't going to even effect the pirate sites. Those sites will be back up in no time somewhere else. I saw the firefox add on that will link you automatically if that happens :D
-
I wonder if they'll still have the gall to call themselves the country of freedom. By the way, why is the link to the backroom in "general discussions" gone?
We have not had the right of freedom of speech for several years. "Free" is a also a relative term in that if you want to do something chances are you will pay a tax. (Example: Put a storage shed in my back yard $100 not counting the cost of the shed.)
-
We have not had the right of freedom of speech for several years. "Free" is a also a relative term in that if you want to do something chances are you will pay a tax. (Example: Put a storage shed in my back yard $100 not counting the cost of the shed.)
djj55 wrote:
We have not had the right of freedom of speech for several years.
Must be someplace besides the US.
djj55 wrote:
"Free" is a also a relative term in that if you want to do something chances are you will pay a tax. (Example: Put a storage shed in my back yard $100 not counting the cost of the shed.)
Freedom of course is something that extends to every individual in the community which means that the freedom of one person must be balanced against the freedoms of others. Naturally there are many "freedoms" that are curtailed. Such as the ability to punch or kill ones neighbor. Or to have sex with a 5 year old. I know there are people that are advocating for the latter and rather certain that individuals at least would claim that the former is a right. In the US that is. In the US if you live in a neighborhood with an HOA (Home Owner Association) then ones freedom extends to not buying a house with such an agreement in the first place. And one is free to read or not read it before signing it. But just as with any other contract ones freedom to disregard the terms of a contract does not allow one to infringe on the other parties right to expect that terms of the contract are upheld.
-
djj55 wrote:
We have not had the right of freedom of speech for several years.
Must be someplace besides the US.
djj55 wrote:
"Free" is a also a relative term in that if you want to do something chances are you will pay a tax. (Example: Put a storage shed in my back yard $100 not counting the cost of the shed.)
Freedom of course is something that extends to every individual in the community which means that the freedom of one person must be balanced against the freedoms of others. Naturally there are many "freedoms" that are curtailed. Such as the ability to punch or kill ones neighbor. Or to have sex with a 5 year old. I know there are people that are advocating for the latter and rather certain that individuals at least would claim that the former is a right. In the US that is. In the US if you live in a neighborhood with an HOA (Home Owner Association) then ones freedom extends to not buying a house with such an agreement in the first place. And one is free to read or not read it before signing it. But just as with any other contract ones freedom to disregard the terms of a contract does not allow one to infringe on the other parties right to expect that terms of the contract are upheld.
There have been several discussions on what can and cannot be said. Example, I cannot say I hate ... (fill in ethnic group of choice) as it is my offend one or two people, so their right trumps my right. As to the shed I cannot see why I can not put a shed where I want as long as it is structually sound. My neighbors can not see it as I live in a rural area (although it is within city limits). I know I have the right to NOT do something. But I do not see why if I want to live some place that I have to join the HOA. Same with paying union dues even if not a union memeber because it is a union State agency.
-
There have been several discussions on what can and cannot be said. Example, I cannot say I hate ... (fill in ethnic group of choice) as it is my offend one or two people, so their right trumps my right. As to the shed I cannot see why I can not put a shed where I want as long as it is structually sound. My neighbors can not see it as I live in a rural area (although it is within city limits). I know I have the right to NOT do something. But I do not see why if I want to live some place that I have to join the HOA. Same with paying union dues even if not a union memeber because it is a union State agency.
-
We have not had the right of freedom of speech for several years. "Free" is a also a relative term in that if you want to do something chances are you will pay a tax. (Example: Put a storage shed in my back yard $100 not counting the cost of the shed.)
I think information should be free. The internet made an avenue for that. Relatively free of coarse. You have to pay for the internet connection. Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies. It happens that way when companies find a way to own it. Now the lines we transmit the internet on are not enough, they have to find new ways to own the internet itself.
-
djj55 wrote:
We have not had the right of freedom of speech for several years.
Must be someplace besides the US.
djj55 wrote:
"Free" is a also a relative term in that if you want to do something chances are you will pay a tax. (Example: Put a storage shed in my back yard $100 not counting the cost of the shed.)
Freedom of course is something that extends to every individual in the community which means that the freedom of one person must be balanced against the freedoms of others. Naturally there are many "freedoms" that are curtailed. Such as the ability to punch or kill ones neighbor. Or to have sex with a 5 year old. I know there are people that are advocating for the latter and rather certain that individuals at least would claim that the former is a right. In the US that is. In the US if you live in a neighborhood with an HOA (Home Owner Association) then ones freedom extends to not buying a house with such an agreement in the first place. And one is free to read or not read it before signing it. But just as with any other contract ones freedom to disregard the terms of a contract does not allow one to infringe on the other parties right to expect that terms of the contract are upheld.
-
There have been several discussions on what can and cannot be said. Example, I cannot say I hate ... (fill in ethnic group of choice) as it is my offend one or two people, so their right trumps my right. As to the shed I cannot see why I can not put a shed where I want as long as it is structually sound. My neighbors can not see it as I live in a rural area (although it is within city limits). I know I have the right to NOT do something. But I do not see why if I want to live some place that I have to join the HOA. Same with paying union dues even if not a union memeber because it is a union State agency.
djj55 wrote:
There have been several discussions on what can and cannot be said. Example, I cannot say I hate ... (fill in ethnic group of choice) as it is my offend one or two people, so their right trumps my right.
Not sure what context you are referring to. But in the US I can go onto any street corner and state, loudly, exactly that. If however you then follow it up with "I am going to kill ..." or "Everyone should go out right now and kill ..." then that is a different matter.
djj55 wrote:
As to the shed I cannot see why I can not put a shed where I want as long as it is structually sound. My neighbors can not see it as I live in a rural area (although it is within city limits).
Because the city has restrictions that says you can't. And if you disagree with that, in the US, then the solution is to get involved in the political process and enact a change that allows that for that city. Or move outside the city. As for why you are where you are in the first place either the law was in place when you moved in or it was enacted after that. And it is not the states responsibility to inform you of every law that might or might not impact you. It is your responsibility to learn those. You are free to do that or not do that. But it isn't the states fault when you don't.
djj55 wrote:
But I do not see why if I want to live some place that I have to join the HOA. Same with paying union dues even if not a union memeber because it is a union State agency.
Then don't live in areas with them. Or don't join organizations with unions. Myself I see benefits to the fact that my neighbors can't build ramshackle collections of whatever they want. Nor can they do things like turn their yards into auto junk yards. Without an HOA or city ordinances exactly that is allowed to happen. When one lives in a neighborhood/city then the individuals of those areas should have the right to collectively agree on what is permitted within that area when there is a potential to impact others in that area. Some examples of unlimited freedom associated with property rights follows and you should consider if you want to allow your neighbors to do these. And if they can't then neither can you. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06211/709125-37.stm[
-
When I was driving an oil truck we had to pay the union for the right to haul oil. We did not belong, were not members, and got no benefits. We just had to pay the dues anyway.
loctrice wrote:
When I was driving an oil truck we had to pay the union for the right to haul oil. We did not belong, were not members, and got no benefits. We just had to pay the dues anyway.
And my property taxes are used to fund schools even though I have no kids. And my state taxes are used to regulate industries that I do not use, do not work for and never will. And my state taxes are used to enforce laws that I disagree with. I am rather certain that I shop at any number of stores where the spending habits of the owners of those stores (based on the profit from my purchases) would be either frivolous or even offensive to me. And it is unfair that some people have way more money than I do. However when one lives in a society one must compromise to facilitate the needs of living in that society. At least in the US there is in fact some freedom to escape from society almost entirely. There are remote places in Alaska and probably Wyoming and the Dakotas where one can pretty much do what one wants (including for example dying in an accident that would not happen in a city where there is timely access to medical facilities.) And the US is a paradise compared to some places in the world where almost any business deal must be accompanied by a bribe.
-
I think information should be free. The internet made an avenue for that. Relatively free of coarse. You have to pay for the internet connection. Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies. It happens that way when companies find a way to own it. Now the lines we transmit the internet on are not enough, they have to find new ways to own the internet itself.
loctrice wrote:
I think information should be free.
Ok. However I get no information magically. It all arrives via some medium like books, magazines, TV, CDs, internet. And mediums cost money.
loctrice wrote:
Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies.
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money. Any commodity in a capitalistic society is open to the profit. And at least where I live the utility company does make money. And the internet is not a necessity.
loctrice wrote:
It happens that way when companies find a way to own it. Now the lines we transmit the internet on are not enough, they have to find new ways to own the internet itself.
Which is at best simplistic. The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it. Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
-
loctrice wrote:
I think information should be free.
Ok. However I get no information magically. It all arrives via some medium like books, magazines, TV, CDs, internet. And mediums cost money.
loctrice wrote:
Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies.
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money. Any commodity in a capitalistic society is open to the profit. And at least where I live the utility company does make money. And the internet is not a necessity.
loctrice wrote:
It happens that way when companies find a way to own it. Now the lines we transmit the internet on are not enough, they have to find new ways to own the internet itself.
Which is at best simplistic. The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it. Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
jschell wrote:
However I get no information magically. It all arrives via some medium like books, magazines, TV, CDs, internet.
I did say, directly after the part you quoted, that the internet was an avenue for that.
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money.
Correct, but Tesla did not. Edison did not create/invent electricity.
jschell wrote:
Any commodity in a capitalistic society is open to the profit. And at least where I live the utility company does make money.
And the internet is not a necessity.This is subject to a good many things. The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your kids away if they do not have direct access to both electricity and running water. However, they will shut your utilities off if you do not have the $.
jschell wrote:
The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it.
Off the backs of those people who actually created it. (much like Edison). Many of the technologies used in the internet are open source, and/or were created as open source. I think you will have a harder time trying to find something that people are trying to make money off of that did NOT come from someone/some group who did not have money as their main goal.
jschell wrote:
Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
I find that a loaded question, possibly because I am viewing things from another angle. You can take something like open source projects (linux for instance). They did not start, or get created with money as a goal at all. After OTHER people saw a way to gain from it, they could begin funding it, but that doesn't mean that the people actually creating it are in it for the money. In the case of linux, we got lucky and it was protected and remained open. Also, trying to name a tangible item that I own does not fit well in the conversation. If you thin
-
jschell wrote:
However I get no information magically. It all arrives via some medium like books, magazines, TV, CDs, internet.
I did say, directly after the part you quoted, that the internet was an avenue for that.
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money.
Correct, but Tesla did not. Edison did not create/invent electricity.
jschell wrote:
Any commodity in a capitalistic society is open to the profit. And at least where I live the utility company does make money.
And the internet is not a necessity.This is subject to a good many things. The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your kids away if they do not have direct access to both electricity and running water. However, they will shut your utilities off if you do not have the $.
jschell wrote:
The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it.
Off the backs of those people who actually created it. (much like Edison). Many of the technologies used in the internet are open source, and/or were created as open source. I think you will have a harder time trying to find something that people are trying to make money off of that did NOT come from someone/some group who did not have money as their main goal.
jschell wrote:
Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
I find that a loaded question, possibly because I am viewing things from another angle. You can take something like open source projects (linux for instance). They did not start, or get created with money as a goal at all. After OTHER people saw a way to gain from it, they could begin funding it, but that doesn't mean that the people actually creating it are in it for the money. In the case of linux, we got lucky and it was protected and remained open. Also, trying to name a tangible item that I own does not fit well in the conversation. If you thin
loctrice wrote:
Correct, but Tesla did not. Edison did not create/invent electricity.
No. The system that is in place now, was driven by Edison's business decisions then. The fact that you can hand wrap a core and then use a hand crank to generate electricity has nothing to do with the world wide availability and uses for electricity which came about due to the business of selling it.
loctrice wrote:
This is subject to a good many things. The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your kids away if they do not have direct access to both electricity and running water. However, they will shut your utilities off if you do not have the $.
I don't see how any of that is relevant. The same thing happens if you don't feed your children. But stores do not give away food free because of that.
loctrice wrote:
You can take something like open source projects (linux for instance). They did not start, or get created with money as a goal at all.
You do realize that most, and perhaps all, of the existing Linux functionality came about through a need/desire to duplicate existing functionality in commercial applications?
loctrice wrote:
I could also answer: my daughter
Obviously specious to the scope of this argument. You might as well go out to a park and build a mud castle and then improve it an hour later and then "claim" that that proves your point. Pick something that has had an impact on people not just a person (you.) To make it easy and clear, I will only accept examples that have impacted more than 100,000 people.
loctrice wrote:
My point is information should be free.
And my point, again, is that 1. Much information is not free. Never has been. If I write a book of fiction I don't want you copying it just because you think that my intellectual product doesn't have at least some value as compared to a non-intellectual product (like a house.) 2. Information does NOT exist without a medium. And the internet is a medium. It isn't information.
loctrice wrote:
There are non profit groups that have community wifi and other
-
loctrice wrote:
Correct, but Tesla did not. Edison did not create/invent electricity.
No. The system that is in place now, was driven by Edison's business decisions then. The fact that you can hand wrap a core and then use a hand crank to generate electricity has nothing to do with the world wide availability and uses for electricity which came about due to the business of selling it.
loctrice wrote:
This is subject to a good many things. The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your kids away if they do not have direct access to both electricity and running water. However, they will shut your utilities off if you do not have the $.
I don't see how any of that is relevant. The same thing happens if you don't feed your children. But stores do not give away food free because of that.
loctrice wrote:
You can take something like open source projects (linux for instance). They did not start, or get created with money as a goal at all.
You do realize that most, and perhaps all, of the existing Linux functionality came about through a need/desire to duplicate existing functionality in commercial applications?
loctrice wrote:
I could also answer: my daughter
Obviously specious to the scope of this argument. You might as well go out to a park and build a mud castle and then improve it an hour later and then "claim" that that proves your point. Pick something that has had an impact on people not just a person (you.) To make it easy and clear, I will only accept examples that have impacted more than 100,000 people.
loctrice wrote:
My point is information should be free.
And my point, again, is that 1. Much information is not free. Never has been. If I write a book of fiction I don't want you copying it just because you think that my intellectual product doesn't have at least some value as compared to a non-intellectual product (like a house.) 2. Information does NOT exist without a medium. And the internet is a medium. It isn't information.
loctrice wrote:
There are non profit groups that have community wifi and other
jschell wrote:
You do realize that most, and perhaps all, of the existing Linux functionality came about through a need/desire to duplicate improve/share existing functionality in commercial applications? That were origionally black boxed and/or proprietary
Fixed that statement. But no, I don't agree completely with that. Even so, that very statement goes to me I think. Break open commercial software, as most open source people I know believe that information should be shared. Even if you do choose to use it to make money.
jschell wrote:
The system that is in place now, was driven by Edison's business decisions then.
Point was, the system that is in place now is not what was meant. The fact that someone who found a way to make money off of it , and was allowed to, was/is the problem. Would you actually be complaining if it had gone off as planned? I don't think so.
jschell wrote:
Pick something that has had an impact on people not just a person (you.) To make it easy and clear, I will only accept examples that have impacted more than 100,000 people.
My point was you are asking for something obviously tangible, and I'm talking about intellectual products. You don't own the idea of dns, and the internet itself isn't something you can put in your pocket.
jschell wrote:
1. Much information is not free. Never has been.
I don't think that is true. Information usually starts out free.
jschell wrote:
They don't "circumvent it". No more than a soup kitchen 'circumvents' buying food.
Circumvent the rule that says they cannot share the connection. Just like if a soup kitchen was told it could only give food to and they find a way to give it to anyone in need.
jschell wrote:
But don't insist that everyone do it.
I never did insist that everyone do it. And, I might point out , that there is a differnce in paying a reasonable amount for something that should be common, and that same thing not being available beacause of greed.
jschell wrote:
No idea what that is supposed to mean.
-
jschell wrote:
You do realize that most, and perhaps all, of the existing Linux functionality came about through a need/desire to duplicate improve/share existing functionality in commercial applications? That were origionally black boxed and/or proprietary
Fixed that statement. But no, I don't agree completely with that. Even so, that very statement goes to me I think. Break open commercial software, as most open source people I know believe that information should be shared. Even if you do choose to use it to make money.
jschell wrote:
The system that is in place now, was driven by Edison's business decisions then.
Point was, the system that is in place now is not what was meant. The fact that someone who found a way to make money off of it , and was allowed to, was/is the problem. Would you actually be complaining if it had gone off as planned? I don't think so.
jschell wrote:
Pick something that has had an impact on people not just a person (you.) To make it easy and clear, I will only accept examples that have impacted more than 100,000 people.
My point was you are asking for something obviously tangible, and I'm talking about intellectual products. You don't own the idea of dns, and the internet itself isn't something you can put in your pocket.
jschell wrote:
1. Much information is not free. Never has been.
I don't think that is true. Information usually starts out free.
jschell wrote:
They don't "circumvent it". No more than a soup kitchen 'circumvents' buying food.
Circumvent the rule that says they cannot share the connection. Just like if a soup kitchen was told it could only give food to and they find a way to give it to anyone in need.
jschell wrote:
But don't insist that everyone do it.
I never did insist that everyone do it. And, I might point out , that there is a differnce in paying a reasonable amount for something that should be common, and that same thing not being available beacause of greed.
jschell wrote:
No idea what that is supposed to mean.
loctrice wrote:
Fixed that statement.
You fixed it incorrectly. The drive was to make a free version by duplicating the existing functionality. Period. No one 'improved' the command line command cat. Nor was there a substantial drive to improve the IP stack. The drive was to duplicate it. Matter of fact some implementations, although usable, were for a long time substandard in functionality. Threads is a recent example of that.
loctrice wrote:
Point was, the system that is in place now is not what was meant. The fact that someone who found a way to make money off of it , and was allowed to, was/is the problem. Would you actually be complaining if it had gone off as planned? I don't think so.
The fact that it evolved is exactly my point. If the internet had remained in its original form no one would use it. At best it would have been used for limited email and cell phones would have eliminated it completely.
loctrice wrote:
My point was you are asking for something obviously tangible, and I'm talking about intellectual products. You don't own the idea of dns, and the internet itself isn't something you can put in your pocket.
Wrong. A cell phone doesn't work without a cell network. It also doesn't work with out contractual agreements between different service providers. Grocery stores don't work without a vast infrastructure based on thousands of contractual agreements. And the "internet" doesn't work in its present form without the vast and hugely expensive internet backbone and local networks. All of those systems work and work well because of the business associated with it based on tangible and intangible characteristics.
loctrice wrote:
I don't think that is true. Information usually starts out free.
Wrong. Currently in the US any original material that is written down is implicitly copyrighted. Companies are creating more patents now in a year then used to be created in decades. There are vastly more processes in place to protect trade secrets and vastly more lawsuits when that is breached. The fact that there is more free information now than 100 years ago is because there is vastly more information. Even your internet protocol examples were often created using specific support from companies