Net Neutrality

Net neutrality in the broadest sense is open Internet. More specifically though, net neutrality is the principle that internet providers should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis. This means that they should not favor some sources or block others. It also prohibits Internet providers from charging a fee to deliver their content faster and/or slowing down content from other competing providers.

Many people argue that because customers are already paying for connectivity they deserve to get a quality experience. Among these people are Apple and Google. They believe that they should be able to do whatever they want with their Internet (if it is legal) and not be discriminated based on what websites they visit. They also think that not having net neutrality might give Internet service providers too much power that could easily be abused then. This is because they can easily increase the fee for accessing a popular website and therefore they can make a profit. Another problem is that while big services like Netflix could, in theory, afford to pay Comcast for using extra bandwidth, the small, lesser-known services can’t. Really great web sites or Internet services might never gain popularity merely because ISPs would have control over what kind of access users have to that service. That could greatly stifle innovation.

Some people argue that the new rules are too heavy-handed and could prohibit investment and innovation. But the majority of these people are the companies that would otherwise be profiting; they are the AT&Ts and Comcasts. These providers also believe that they should be able to distribute bandwidth differently depending on the service, according to one article. Or if they aren’t going to distribute it differently then someone should be paying more money for it. For example, if Netflix is sucking up all their bandwidth, they should be the ones to pay for the necessary updates that Comcast’s systems will require because of it.

I am for net neutrality. Although I understand the other side I think that it giving the Internet service providers is too much of a risk. I also believe that I should not be judged for the different websites I access. It is part of their job to provide those to me. I am paying them for that. I should not have to worry about if others are accessing those same websites and now they became popular, that is why the other people are also paying them. And on the topic of innovation, the Internet service providers could potentially block out new websites that have innovative ideas and solutions and are being blocked because they just do not have the money to be accessed. So I am not worried about preventing innovation.

Based on the readings and my opinion I think that the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right.

 

 

Project 3

https://drive.google.com/a/nd.edu/file/d/0B4Qv8QbkzEaMTGoxUzNHV0JYUmc/view?usp=sharing

I believe that citizens should be allowed to have technology that completely locks out the government. It is our right to have our private information for our use only. Even if you do not have anything to hide you might still want to protect your information. Why should the government have a right to your information. I understand that they want to protect people, but unless they have reasonable suspicion of dangerous behavior, there is no reason for them to be snooping around your information.

Encryption is not that big of a deal in my life. To be honest I do not know how to encrypt my devices and I am not doing things that are so bad that I do not want others to see. Of course I want my information to be protected, but at the same point I feel that it is too much of a hassle for me to go through protecting it all than to have them snoop through my useless stuff.

I believe that national security will win. I think the government and others have too much power and money for it not to win. I don’t necessarily agree with it winning out. In the case of Apple, I am more on Apple’s side.  I think a lot of danger comes when start making codes that can unlock things. I only think harm will come from the government having such software. I also think that there is a lot to be said for personal privacy. By not having any I think the people are giving the government too much power and they will abuse and it will not create a better future. I do not know how much fighting I will do on this front but I definitely know that I stand on the personal privacy side.

Arrgg… (Reading 09)

The DMCA claims that it is illegal to provide in any way copyrighted materials. If such material is found the owner of the material is allowed to have the content holder remove the material. In which case the provider should remove the material and then notify the person who uploaded the illegal material. If the uploader feels that this is unfair they have a chance to dispute this and bring it to court. The DMCA also deals with infringement through “safe-harbor” provisions. Such provisions protect service providers from monetary damages for the infringing activities of their users and other third parties on the net. The DMCA hopes to limit piracy through these two provisions.

I personally do no think it is ethical for users to download or share copyrighted material. The owners worked hard to create the material and deserve to be recognized and benefit from their handwork and effort. There are other ways to sample or test the material. Specifically for music, iTunes offers 90 seconds of songs, that give you enough amount of time to decide if you like it enough to buy it. These change to 90 seconds happened in the last couple of years. iTunes responded to users claiming that their previous 60 second samples did not offer enough time to music listeners to get a jist of the song. Customers now have no reason to complain or pirate material. If a person truly likes the song or movie they are trying to get they will be happy enough to pay for the version of it. For example, Taylor Swift is my favorite artist and many people were very angry when she decided not to offer her music on Spotify. However, because she is my favorite I was not enraged. Instead, I was happy to buy her most recent album, 1989, to show that I support her and appreciate the music she produces.

That being said, I have participated in the sharing of copyrighted material. I do get the majority of my music from a youtube to mp3 download website. And when I do find the time to watch movies there are some times that I go to free websites and stream the movie. I didn’t really justify my actions. I just cared more about being cheap and not paying $1.29 for a song than breaking the law. This probably came about because I think that I will never get caught doing what I am doing. However, I do recognize that what I am doing is not fair to the artists and associates and I have tried to limit my piracy behavior. I think a lot of people engage in this behavior for the same reason. Teenagers many times have the mind set that just because people have been caught before they don’t think it will ever happen to them.

In the past few years though, I have heard of less people using pirate sites to get their music or movies. When I was in grade school, everyone used LimeWire, now the popular thing is to use Spotify, whether you have premium or not. The same goes for Netflix. I do think that these services have helped the piracy issue but I do not think they can ever completely solve the problem. That is mainly because I think that in general the problem can never be solved. People will always supply these sites and there will most likely always be a demand for them. I honestly think the government should try to limit the piracy use, but should not try to eliminate it. It is not worth their effort or money to try to eliminate. The few people that do pirate will continue to decrease with the rise of Spotify and Netflix and the such and the piracy group will become so little that it will become insignificant.

Patent Laws

From the readings, what exactly are patents? What are the ethical, moral, From the readings and my experience of having a dad has a patent lawyer, a patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention-a product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem. It essentially provides patent owners with protection for their invention.

There are a number of reasons why granting patents can be helpful to society. The first is that the very essence of granting someone a patent gives merit to these people for their idea’s and protects them from being stolen. Therefore, people can actually benefit from their contributions and innovations.

In addition to the rewarding people for their new ideas, having the concept of a patten provides an incentive to individuals because the patents recognize their creativity and offers the possibility of material reward for their marketable invention. Patents fuel the progress of humankind by motivating people to take action when they see something that can be fixed. Overall, patents are necessary and definitely promote innovation. However this might just be my biased side speaking. Working at the law firm my dad works at and seeing patent applications and talking to my dad about what he does presents patents in a positive light.

There are challenges to patents, specifically in the technology world. The people making the patent rules are government officials. However the problem with this is that they are making rules on everything, software and technology included. However, the government does not fully understand what software means and thus cannot make the best policies in terms of patents for software and other technology.

Finally, I must address the notion of patent trolls and if they are good or bad. This is of course  a difficult question to answer. To start off, the readings refer to a patent troll as “a person or business who takes advantage of the patent law stating that most patents are “twenty-year federally mandated monopolies on a novel, non obvious, useful invention” by filing for patents of which they have no intention of using”. These patent holders then sue corporations or businesses that develop the product or a similar product, sometimes without the knowledge that a patent for the technology already exists. Obviously this puts patent trolls in a bad light. However, on the flip side, one can argue that the trolls help the entrepreneurs, the little guys in the industry who would have their ideas stolen by big corporations. So, overall I am not sure if patent trolls are good or bad. I would need to delve deeper into the research and read about more cases to make a concrete, educated answer.