He is for net-neutrality and non-interference with specific applications and services like BitTorrent, but his new VP is the co-founder and chair of the Congressional Anti-Piracy Caucus.
With Barack Hussein Obama now elected to become the 44th President of the United States it’s important that we take stock of what his comments and positions have been on important technology and file-sharing related issues.
From BitTorrent throttling to network neutrality it’s important to see where our new President stands so that we know what to expect in the future. I’ve been sort of worried about what a Democrat President may hold in store being that it usually has much stronger ties to Hollywood and other entertainment industry interests, but so far his rhetoric has made me hopeful.
BitTorrent Throttling
In November of last year an aide to Barack Obama was asked to clarify the Senator’s technology policy and whether or not he would have made it illegal for Comcast to throttle BitTorrent. According to the aide he would, but that traffic shaping in general would be something he’d have to take a closer look at before addressing.
“Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment,” reads his positions as outlined in his Barack Obama on Technology and Innovation. “This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers.”
Exactly. The federal gov’ts so-called “deregulation” of the telecommunications industry has done little to give consumers choice of services when most, myself included, have but a single broadband ISP or cable provider to choose from.
“Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others,” the paper continues. “This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences.”
So moreover, it appears that Obama is firmly on the side of an Internet that doesn’t single out certain sites or applications simply because they may use more bandwidth than others. This good news for BitTorrent and other P2P users.
Net-Neutrality
Barack Obama has been pretty clear on this point and it’s certainly a much better position than that of the Republican candidate John McCain who previously argued against net-neutrality and for a piracy crackdown.
From Senator Obama’s site: “Protect the Openness of the Internet – A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet.”
Exactly. The Internet really is just a “series of tubes” that Sen. Stevens of Alaska took so much flak for in his reference some time back. It’s a vital connection to the outside world much like a highway or other public thoroughfare that allows a person to travel from place to place. By allowing private businesses to control how people access it is an unjust limitation of their freedom of association, speech, and expression.
It’s one thing to manage network traffic, but it’s another thing entirely to begin making judgement calls on who and how people are able use it.
Obama’s VP
Joseph Biden has been a longtime fanboy of entertainment industry cartels, most notably in 2002, when he asked the Justice Department to take a tougher stance on copyright infringers. His other more noteworthy efforts included the PROTECT Act of 2003 which made it a felony to forge keys to force players to play unauthorized computer programs, or to use forged keys to use counterfeited software. Another bill sponsored by Biden last year would limit how consumers would be able to record and play back digital content.
Most telling of all is that he co-founded and co-chairs the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus, which includes over 70 members from both houses of Congress, including former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
With Biden as VP it could be that Obama will have a voice whispering in his ear that will soon grow tough to ignore, especially with all of the President-elects rhetoric about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
If the MPAA and RIAA are able to get him to believe that Hollywood and the music industry are bleeding American jobs then Obama’s opinion that “Intellectual property is to the digital age what physical goods were to the industrial age” may mean something entirely different. It could be interpreted that file-shares are then in fact stealing to the extant of a 1:1 loss, in that every illegally traded movie or song equates to lost a sale in real dollars.
Conclusions?
It’s going to be quite interesting to see how Obama lives up to his promises and how he’ll shape the executive branch in his own image over the next 4 years. He certainly can’t do any worse than his predecessor.
As a friend of mine just pointed out in morning conversation, the real test of where our country’s technology policies are headed and to what extant Obama will fulfill his campaign pledges will be exemplified through the cabinet appointments he makes after taking his oath of office.
He noted: “Just wait to see what his cabinet appointments are, that will tell you what this presidency is going to be like. What would be great is if he hires the best minds in their respective fields to fill the respective positions. But, if he just uses the positions as political bargaining chips, and puts in random fools with only political connections, well there’s no real change with Obama and we were scammed. The Cabinet appointments will tell the tale.”
With the new President getting to appoint a new “Piracy Czar” thanks to the recently enacted Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (PRO-IP Act) we can only hope that Obama doesn’t put in “random fools” as seemed to always be the case with President Bush and instead chooses the “best minds in their respective fields.”
Note to Obama: I think either one of Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) founder’s Mitch Kapor, John Gilmore, or John Perry Barlow would be a perfect selection.
Update….
It’s been brought to my attention that this past September the Obama campaign somewhat revised it’s technology positions after announcing that Joseph Biden (D-DE) would be his running mate. A statement from an Obama campaign rep apparently released a statement saying that points out that the revisions “aren’t the whole story,” but as is usually the case, the devil is always in the details.
THX to Dustin Miller for the heads up!
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- Obama Aide: P2P Throttling Would Be Illegal
- Obama, Hillary Favor Network Neutrality, McCain Prefers ‘Market Forces’
- Google and Lessig Vs. The Wall Street Journal – The Network Neutrality Story
- Cox to Begin Throttling FTP, P2P, and Usenet Next Month
- Democrats push ‘Net neutrality
Loading ...
This was my question exactly as soon as he was crowned king. I mean president.
Are you fucking kidding me? This guy was supported HEAVILY by actors and studio execs. He has no intention of stopping the lawsuits against private citizens.
I think Obama has a more enlightened view of the internet especially since much of his success is due to how he used the internet to communicate and raise money. But Hollywood and the Dems tend to be best of friends so I am not too hopeful that a lot will change.
I think it would be wiser to form opinions about HOW he will go about things after he actually becomes president and we see WHAT he does…
Not trying to start a debate or anything here but his entire family lives in poverty. He does nothing to help them out at all what makes you think he gives a shit about a rich company suing the pants off of someone? Especially when those rich companies gave him asstons of money?
Now you guys are complaining about him wasnt more then a day ago you were all for obama bin biden.
Haha yeah right. I didn’t vote for Obama.
Check out the voting record of the your false Messiah’s second in command Joe Biden. Not a friend to P2P at all. But that’s OK because he’s for like change and that kinda cool stuff.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html
The fact is this they are the most anti-2nd amendment government ever coming into power all our freedoms you all take for granted are based on the fact we have the right to bear arms. look at nazi germany once they took all the guns away. once they take our guns 1 of 2 things will happen civil war or the rest of our rights starting with free speech will be taken away and our biggest form of free speech is the internet your on right now the liberals already control the news media. think about it.
MPAA Already Lobbying Obama:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/mpaa-already-lo.html
So all those young gullible college kids who registered to vote for him in multiple states are about to get sued.
Oh the irony!
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3446/an-obama-administration-may-favor-net-neutrality
VAMPYRE BLADE the right the bear arms means nothing in modern warfare and is nothing more than some mixed up ideology you Americans seem to have about what will keep you safe in civil unrest. Even back in Nazi Germany it would of done nothing for the people living in Europe to own their own firearm. But hey keep believing that the general European population would of been a match for an army that was a challenge for the rest of the worlds trained army.
If you are that concerned about your constitutional rights you should be relieved at this point. Bush not only ignored the constitution with his wiretapping policy but threatened to change it. But hey keep following your messed up ideologies thinking gun control will ruin America. Keep believing its the most important thing in the world the full unrestricted right to bear a weapon.
The right we have to own firearms protects us from our own government abusing us as well you need to look around this plant and see how other governments mistreat and kill their own people because they cant protect themselves when their own governments going bad. So where are you from Mountain rage that things are so prefect.
I am with Vampyre on this one. I mean the idea of making guns illegal will only mean that the law abiding citizens won’t have anything to protect themselves with. I mean do you think gangs or murders go into gun stores and buy them? Hell no. They get them off the street where it will be untraceable. Don’t be dumb. I mean drugs are illegal look at how many people still do drugs. Guns will always be rampant in the crime stricken community. The only purpose to outlawing guns is to take the right away for the American people to have the right to protect themselves. But hey you seem to know best right?
So when the military comes knocking at your door with a tank you are going to stop them with your .22 caliber??? Good luck with that.
I’m Canadian Vampyre Blade and I don’t pretend that our system is perfect but we would never expect our military personnel to turn on us they are more honorable than that. We also don’t hold this mentality that a gun can offer any form of protection from government they are held mainly for hunting. As far as our gun control is concerned it does have allot of flaws that need to be worked out but it does help police officers protect themselves in situations of domestic violence. Unlike others however I do not feel that it offers any advantage when it comes to controlling illegal firearms which are mainly stolen or smuggled for the U.S.
If you want to talk about firearms for protection well I hope to hell that our violent crime rates never reach the point where police can’t control criminals. To me thats a sign of social failure which would indicate a need for restructuring. Most violent crimes tend to be committed with knives from what I’ve seen and they are not that frequent. I’ve also yet to see a study that shows gun ownership lowers violent crime in most cases it perpetuates shoot outs.
Mountain rage there will always be crime and criminals will always find ways to kill people they dont use just guns and the police are only for clean up they rarely stop a crime they come after to investigate and hopefully find the person who commited the crime. your people let the government take your guns without even a fight and now look where you are both england and australia have higher gun crime rates now because the law abidding have been disarms and cant protect themselves. many times when a nut job goes on a killing rampage if one person would have been armed they could of stopped it all it takes is one armed citizen exercising their right to carry a gun legally. Thanks for the support IAMYOUR41
We are told what to drive eat wear how to vote think & what to believe by the extreme left. The ironic thing is they are the ones who always touted the banner of individual freedoms. Now they are attempting to taking them away. The scary thing is these people seriously believe in Aristotle’s teachings that there should be an intellectual aristocracy that should possess absolute control of political power over everyone else. The “do as I say not as I do” mentality of the Hollywood crowd is repulsive. Losing your right to own a gun is one thing (I personally don’t own one) but consider what it would be like to lose your right to free speech & religion the freedom from illegal search and seizure or the right to a civil trial by your peers. Seems as of individual rights apply only to those on the extreme left of the political spectrum nowadays. If a person makes a sexist or racist remark they are chastised (rightfully). HOWEVER if they make those same remarks about someone right of center its considered acceptable. If a liberal lawmaker gets caught in a sex scandal we’re supposed to forget about it and focus on all the “good” he did. A conservative in the same situation is not treated the same way. The so-called “pacifists” want world peace and the end of all wars but people like ELF Code Pink & Act Up have no qualms about tossing a Molitov cocktail or two burning buildings of holding violent demonstrations. So my left-wing friends If you really want to make the world a better place look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers.
Never said anything about the right of free speech or religion those rights I fully support. I’m not against the right to own a firearm either but there are certain reasons for owning one and certain people simply shouldn’t. There are even some countries such as Israel and Switzerland where ownership is mandatory and they have really low rates of gun crime. That is why I emphasized in my last post that I believe crime to be an indicator of social deficiencies and those deficiencies should be dealt with at the source. Its the only way to seriously prevent crime before it happens as all other methods are reactionary in nature. You owning a gun won’t stop someone from stabbing you or even going on a shooting spree. In fact there have been numerous shooting rampages in the U.S. and I have yet to hear about any of them ending in a citizen shooting the aggressor.
Mountain rage i am not trying to come down on you but many of those rampages happened in places were people werent allowed to carry their firearms one of course being virgina tech and i cant remember the name but it was a mall where guns werent allowed and after the fact people that were there made the comment that had they had their gun on them they could of stopped the rampage or lessened it. i am agree with the other rights but once you lose your right to have a gun how long before your other rights are taken away also.
Didn’t think anyone was coming down on me its a hot topic discussion all comments other than nukes have been towards the issue rather than character. Personally I don’t see a relationship between the right to bear arms and other rights. Many countries have gun control yet they still have the right to religion and free speech. My suggestion would be if you distrust your government that much than obviously there is a need to reform the election system as your politicians are no longer serving you.
Thats what the american revolution was all about distrust of england and their rule. there are countries where there gun control is strong and there is no freedom of speech either there is a fine line between being a free man and a subject our right to bear arms keeps that line from being crossed.
Suit yourself I don’t think your right to bear arms does anything to guarantee your other rights. Buts that is just an opinion.
Maybe if you had grown up here you might feel the same but i respect your right to disagree.
Maybe if you had grown up here you might feel the same but i respect your right to disagree.
Maybe if you had grown up here you might feel the same but i respect your right to disagree.
Maybe if you had grown up here you might feel the same but i respect your right to disagree.