Replies

Stallman fiercely attacks the idea that intellectual property rights are one of the keystones of individual liberty, so important that patents and copyrights are affirmatively protected in the body of the Constitution.

Three things:

One, without Stallman, there would be no GNU/Linux.

Two, individual property rights are a good thing, but unlimited copyrights and patents (de jure monopolies) are not so good. That's why they are supposed to be limited to only certain types of information and granted for only certain periods of time.

Three, "net neutrality" is simply a maintenance of the present situation with regards to the Internet's architecture, that is, transit providers agree to pass each other's network traffic without preference or prejudice. Right now, folks running servers pay bandwidth charges, and so do individuals and businesses that access those servers. Without net neutrality, many ISPs have figured that they can introduce what is effectively variable-rate tolling on their networks as a means of extracting additional revenue from either server operators or end users. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "net neutrality" on principle; and yes, Obama's implementation of "net neutrality" could be full of Marxist booby traps.

Three, "net neutrality" is simply a maintenance of the present situation with regards to the Internet's architecture, that is, transit providers agree to pass each other's network traffic without preference or prejudice.

Net neutrality is government control over operation of the Internet by fiat. It's basically the FCC telling ISPs how to manage their networks. Okay, sure, right now it's just the FCC saying "keep things as they are now." But it's a foot in the door: what's stopping the FCC from later saying "under the authority legitimized by our net neutrality ruling, ISPs are hereby ordered to block traffic to the following conservative websites"? Hint: nothing.

As for Stallman, the guy's a wacko. Did some good things, but then fell off a cliff. The GPLv3 affair should tell you everything you need to know about Stallman.

Three things: without Stallman, there would be no GNU/Linux.

So what?

Two [patents and copyrights] are supposed to be limited to only certain types of information and granted for only certain periods of time.

And what patents or copyrights are you aware of that are unlimited in duration?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "net neutrality" on principle;

Sure there is. On principle, those parts of the Internet that are privately owned should on principle be allowed to charge whatever customers whatever they like for whatever traffic they pass at whatever volume, time of day, or other sales consideration they may come up with. Or do you disagree "on principle" with the idea of volume discounts or other kinds of sales devices? If so, under what "principle" of capitalism do you oppose them?

"One, without Stallman, there would be no GNU/Linux."

Please expand and explain why this is relevant.

"Two, individual property rights are a good thing, but unlimited copyrights and patents (de jure monopolies) are not so good. "

Which is why that are not observed. The object of discussion is vacuous.

"Three, "net neutrality" is simply a maintenance of the present situation with regards to the Internet's architecture, that is, transit providers agree to pass each other's network traffic without preference or prejudice... Without net neutrality, many ISPs have figured that they can introduce what is effectively variable-rate tolling"

Variable rates is a completely different issue from "preference or prejudice," and yet you speak of them in the same breadth.

Businesses routinely give volume discounts. This form of price discrimination has been studied and discussed ad nauseum, and there are absolutely no objections to it.

What makes bits and bytes different from prickles?

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with "net neutrality" on principle."

Well, it robs those that invested into infrastructure of fair return. You may see nothing wrong with that but it is wrong nonetheless.