<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 30.8.2011 г. 21:27 ч., Paul Lehto wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1Ovd0MXuXJPKEYXfgS+=mJKZ3Z2yP8A_qNY82TBHnkiSp-g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
McTim <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com"><dogwallah@gmail.com></a> wrote/replied:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think you missed my point. TCP/IP is ~40 years old. It has never
been enshrined in any laws AFAIK. Would you seek to regulate it now?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
TCP/IP is useless without the computer networks attached to it which
it allows to communicate with each other, so it is misleading to call
TCP/IP standing alone as the "heart" of the internet.</pre>
</blockquote>
There have been other networks, besides the Internet based on
different protocols, without regulation or government imposed laws.<br>
TCP/IP as such is of course regulated. Just not by governments.<br>
It is regulated more or less by consent and agreement. Which is cast
in many protocol specifications, the low-level laws of the
Internet. In order to create these protocols, one needs
understanding and vision.<br>
The network, based on TCP/IP that we know as the Internet is
regulated too. At higher level.<br>
What regulates the Internet is the law of Common Sense.<br>
<br>
No Government regulates the Common Sense, because it is incompatible
with Governments.<br>
It is a private thing. Shared by billions of humans.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1Ovd0MXuXJPKEYXfgS+=mJKZ3Z2yP8A_qNY82TBHnkiSp-g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Communication has always been regulated, and its regulation supported
EVEN by the vast majority of "free speech" advocates.</pre>
</blockquote>
Not neccesarily by Governments. Not neccesarily by public law.<br>
<br>
Most people do not care about these things (communication), and
therefore do not see a poin tto have laws regulating them.<br>
<br>
If you trully believe in democracy, you need to recognize that those
elected are in fact servants of the people who elected them. In an
ideal democracy, laws are created to regulate the areas that concern
most people. <br>
If say, I have an argument with my neighbor Paul Letho, do you
consider it appropriate for the government to step in and regulate
our relationip? Pass a specific Paul-Daniel law? (*) <- read this
at the end :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1Ovd0MXuXJPKEYXfgS+=mJKZ3Z2yP8A_qNY82TBHnkiSp-g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The reason regulatory issues concern "epiphenomenon" and not TCP/IP itself is
that TCP/IP is irrelevant and useless without the *communicating*
computer networks it connects.</pre>
</blockquote>
There is no point for government imposed law to regulate computers.
Laws exists to regulate humans.<br>
<br>
By the way, in your previous example, with the Guttenberg press, no
law regulated the press, as such. All related laws regulated the
human's use of the press and the products of that use.<br>
<br>
By the way, none of the 'copyright' laws has nothing to do with the
printing press as such, but more with the preserving of the status
quo and protecting the investment --- 'folow the money'.<br>
<br>
Then, I am curious how one prosecutes a Guttenberg press. Burn it in
fire? Chip it in pieces? Or order the press to produce prints for
free for the rest of it's life? Or pay one print to the government
for every five prints it produces?<br>
<br>
How one prosecutes an immaterial subject like the Internet, for not
obeying the law someone made?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1Ovd0MXuXJPKEYXfgS+=mJKZ3Z2yP8A_qNY82TBHnkiSp-g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And regulation of communication has always been supported by even free speech advocates, the issue being one of how much regulation is appropriate, not IF there should be
regulation at all.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is fundamental conflict between 'free speech' and
'regulation'.<br>
<br>
Reminds me of <br>
<br>
<b>Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.
~Abbott Joseph Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" New
Yorker, 4 May 1960<br>
</b><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1Ovd0MXuXJPKEYXfgS+=mJKZ3Z2yP8A_qNY82TBHnkiSp-g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In fact, even where free speech advocates *win* they still claim the
law should be involved in regulation in the broadest sense because
free speech advocates invoke the *protection* of the law to insist
that courts enforce limits on governmental action where the limits are
exceeded. <b>But courts are government, too.</b>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Very interesting revelation.<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
(*) Here is a true case of the first 'road law' in Bulgaria. As you
probably know, in he beginnig of 20th century Bulgaria was a
monarchy. At that time in Sofia there were exactly two cars. The car
of the Tzar and the car of the richest banker. One day, in a funny
twist of fate, both cars collided at the center of the town. The
Tzar was very angry, and forced the 'Parliament' to pass a law, that
amounted to: "When the car of the Tzar is on the road, the car of
mr. Burov stays at it's garage."<br>
<br>
Was it a law? Yes. Was it made by the Government? Definitely. Was is
'democratic' -- well, that depends -- those who voted the law, were
in fact 'democratically' elected by the people -- they only chose to
obey the desire of the more powerful party (after all, mr. Burov did
not have his own private army). <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>