Your link did not seem to work, but after some searching I found one that did:<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/289289-1">http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/289289-1</a></div><div><br></div>
<div><br></div><div>- Nicolas</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Glenn Kerbein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:glenn.kerbein@pirate-party.us">glenn.kerbein@pirate-party.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I think that you're misinterpreting what the document is stipulating. Al<br>
Franken, during a summit with the Future of Music Coalition, elaborated<br>
on the subject (as did Mike Mills of REM):<br>
<a href="http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/05/HP/A/23996/The+Future+of+Music+Policy+Summit+2009.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/05/HP/A/23996/The+Future+of+Music+Policy+Summit+2009.aspx</a><br>
. It's 50 minutes long, but it's a great watch.<br>
However, the inverse is being pushed through congress (mostly by<br>
Republican Senators). The inappropriately named "Internet freedom act"<br>
[S.1836] would prohibit the FCC from proposing regulations on ISPs to<br>
/not/ favor one type or source of traffic over another. The law must be<br>
upheld, and the FCC is making that clear: illicit activity (like willful<br>
copyright infringement) must not be sanctioned.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
Nicolas Sahlqvist wrote:<br>
> I did a further analyze of the US standpoint towards net neutrality and<br>
> in the 2nd FCC document I found a interesting playing with the word<br>
> "lawful":<br>
><br>
> "-The draft nondiscrimination principle would require that, subject to<br>
> reasonable<br>
> network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must<br>
> treat<br>
> lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner."<br>
><br>
> "– Prevent unlawful transfers of content<br>
> (copyright infringement)"<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/fcc-presentation.pdf?tag=col1;post-26475" target="_blank">http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/fcc-presentation.pdf?tag=col1;post-26475</a><br>
><br>
> We (PPUS etc.) could argue that checking if something is "lawful" or not<br>
> requires breaking net neutrality and privacy.<br>
><br>
><br>
> - Nicolas<br>
> PPI / PPSE member<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Nicolas Sahlqvist <<a href="mailto:nicco77@gmail.com">nicco77@gmail.com</a><br>
</div><div class="im">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nicco77@gmail.com">nicco77@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Ok, trying to get back to topic, it seems like US are more open in<br>
> there ideas towards net neutrality:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=26475" target="_blank">http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=26475</a><br>
><br>
> And the spokes (MI5 etc.) does not seem to be interested in<br>
> Political ideas of shutting down internet connections etc. since<br>
> that would even make their work harder, people tend to enable<br>
> encryption then..<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6885923.ece" target="_blank">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6885923.ece</a><br>
><br>
> So there are some bright light at the tunnel it seems with support<br>
> from the strangest places.<br>
><br>
><br>
> - Nicolas<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Nicolas Sahlqvist<br>
</div><div class="im">> <<a href="mailto:nicco77@gmail.com">nicco77@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nicco77@gmail.com">nicco77@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Ahh, OpenEurope (the think-tank) has a 40 pages report I missed<br>
> to link here:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/howtheeuiswatchingyou.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/howtheeuiswatchingyou.pdf</a><br>
><br>
> Seems interesting, need to read it through..<br>
><br>
><br>
> - Nicolas<br>
> PPI / PPSE member<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Nicolas Sahlqvist<br>
</div><div class="im">> <<a href="mailto:nicco77@gmail.com">nicco77@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nicco77@gmail.com">nicco77@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> A UK think-thank has a somewhat gloomier picture:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6440812/Lisbon-Treaty-will-usher-in-European-surveillance-state.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6440812/Lisbon-Treaty-will-usher-in-European-surveillance-state.html</a><br>
><br>
> I am sure the other governments follows UK's example..<br>
><br>
><br>
> - Nicolas<br>
> PPI / PPSE member<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Amelia Andersdotter<br>
</div><div class="im">> <<a href="mailto:teirdes@gmail.com">teirdes@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:teirdes@gmail.com">teirdes@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 2009/10/23 Nicolas Sahlqvist <<a href="mailto:nicco77@gmail.com">nicco77@gmail.com</a><br>
</div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nicco77@gmail.com">nicco77@gmail.com</a>>><br>
<div class="im">><br>
> Does the treaty of Lisbon have any effect on this?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> For the UK in particular, the EU at large has meant a<br>
> massive influx of legislation. Up until the early 1990s<br>
> the UK government passed about 18 legislative acts per<br>
> year, after 1997 more than a thousand.<br>
><br>
> But this is because of the clash between<br>
> Napoleonic/Germanic law and the Common Law systems:<br>
> Common Law is based on case law, whereas the rest of<br>
> Europe relies on legislative acts (that are of course<br>
> also interpreted in case law).<br>
><br>
> The Lisbon Treaty will likely force the UK to continue<br>
> passing legislative acts, unless they give directives<br>
> direct effect (presumably) in UK courts. However,<br>
> legislative acts aren't necessarily a bad thing: for<br>
> one, it is easier for me as a citizen to look of the<br>
> state regulations on sewers than try to locate<br>
> sewer-related case law in the official journal of the<br>
> high court.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> - Nicolas<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:22 AM, El Tres<br>
</div><div class="im">> <<a href="mailto:pirat@eltres.de">pirat@eltres.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:pirat@eltres.de">pirat@eltres.de</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Am 23.10.2009 um 00:16 schrieb Eric Priezkalns<br>
> <<a href="mailto:eric.priezkalns@pirateparty.org.uk">eric.priezkalns@pirateparty.org.uk</a><br>
</div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:eric.priezkalns@pirateparty.org.uk">eric.priezkalns@pirateparty.org.uk</a>>>:<br>
<div class="im">><br>
><br>
> [UK] A constitution may exist, even if it<br>
> is unwritten. Such a constitution may be<br>
> stronger than one written on a piece of<br>
> paper, but where people don't do what the<br>
> words on the paper say.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Hear, Hear!<br>
><br>
> El Tres<br>
><br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________<br>
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
> <a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
</div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a>><br>
<div class="im">> <a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________<br>
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
> <a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
</div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a>><br>
<div class="im">> <a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Amelia Andersdotter<br>
> Kommunikationansvarig UPF<br>
> Lissabon-MEP<br>
> +46 738436779<br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________<br>
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
> <a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
</div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a>><br>
<div class="im">> <a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________<br>
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
> <a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
<br>
--<br>
</div>Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein<br>
United States Pirate Party<br>
"Burn, Hollywood, Burn"<br>
<a href="http://www.pirate-party.us/" target="_blank">http://www.pirate-party.us/</a><br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">____________________________________________________<br>
Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>