jpete wrote:This doesn't sound like "neutrality" to me.
That's because it has nothing to do with net neutrality, that article is about copyright.
* * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
Depends on how an ISP is defined, they may just be referring to the service provider and not the content provider. As of right now providers such as myself fall under what is called the "Safe Harbor" provision in the DMCA which holds that the ISP will not be held accountable for how their services are used. e.g if someone uploads infringing material here it is their responsibility and not mine. My responsibility begins and ends with removing the infringing material when and if I become aware of it.
This is a double edged sword though as many site owners are reluctant to actively pursue it, the lawyer will argue since they were actively engaged in policing the site the owner should have known his/her service could be used for infringement. I believe that was successfully used as argument hence the reason sites are reluctant to actively get involved.
Any change in that could have vast consequences for sites like this. Even if I put everything that was to be uploaded here in a moderation queue before it goes public determing if something is copyrighted is impossible. A popular song or movie is no brainer however if it's some obscure text the resources needed to determine if it were copyrighted may not even be available.
* * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
I wouldn't call it a disaster, the person that requests the take down better have firm ground to stand on as they can be held responsible if its bogus claim.
* * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
This I can absolutely agree with, how the auhtor decides to distribute and protect his/her materiel is completely up to them. I certainly don't agree with many of the ways it used but that's the way it is. If you don;t agree with the terms they have set down for the use of the content don't buy it.