Creative Commons an alternative to Net Neutrality?

[eyeamjames]

Creative Commons an alternative to Net Neutrality?

I'm working on a paper for my English class on the subject, and I've come up with an idea:

Could Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons become an alternative (safer) form of Net Neutrality?

I once considered myself to be a strong supporter of Net Neutrality until I discovered the world of Creative Commons. I feel that Creative Commons is ,in a way, branching off from the idea of Net Neutrality, but is a way to keep the internet an open democracy without placing regulations like Net Neutrality does.

Creative Commons if expanded on the same level as Net Neutrality, could do some of the same things that Net Neutrality sets out to do, such as make any page on the internet accessible to anyone, anywhere, for free. No rule book needed, just a small "cc" logo on the bottom of the page, "some" rights reserved. It seems like a solution that might be worth looking into?

Anyone agree or disagree?

Any input would be greatly accepted

thanks,

J

 

[Diuretic]

I don't understand what Net Neutrality is. But Creative Commons I've seen quite a bit as I use open source software mainly (I run Ubunty Gutsy) and while I do have some software that's not open source (eg Opera) I prefer to use open source if I can. I'm not up to speed with the details of the CC licence as I'm not a programmer. But I can see the benefits of CC where the creator can define the terms of use.

Sorry I can't add more substance.

 

[eyeamjames]

Thanks for your reply. It's greatly appreciated.

Net Neutrality is simply the idea that the internet needs goverment (FCC) regulation of the Media Networking giants (Powerful ISBs; such as Comcast.) so to avoid any form of discrimination.

This idea of net neutrality has been going on for a quite some time, but has taken ablaze as of recently with the whole Comcast scandal hitting the mainstream media news circuit. Comcast got caught slowing certain users speeds who were downloading peer-to-peer content and using excessive bandwidth. Therefore, creating 'slow lanes' and 'fast lanes' biased upon it's users. This kind of treatment of the public goes against the foundation of a democratic and free internet for all.

The only problem with Net Neutrality is that it wants to regulate a system that isn't meant to be regulated. Once a set of rules are established things are going to change. By limiting the power of networks, the public is really limiting themselves, and limiting the public is limiting the future googles and youtubes from ever succeeding.

But something does need to be done.

That's where the idea of Creative Commons comes in.

Creative Commons is the idea of making web content (wether it's music, art, writings, etc.) free for all to use. Instead of copywriting your work as "all rights reserved." it becomes "some rights reserved." Which created tremendous democracy across the internet. Information is able to be shared anywhere in the world, at any time, by any one, with no worry of limitation.

My thinking is that if we can take this idea of Creative Common and expand it to more forms throughout the whole internet world, we will be able to restore democracy.

It's a little idea which needs a lot of work, but I'm thinking it might be a good alternative to Net Neutrality.

It will create freedom, without regulations. Create opportunity, without limitations.

-J

 

[Diuretic]

I can return the appreciation for that information, thank you, I'm a better informed netizen.

Now I need to see if I've got the idea right. I pay for my internet access and I'm happy to do so because I have a really good ISP (here in Australia our internet access is relatively - as against some countries - expensive and it's slower then some countries but I'd like to put that side for a moment). My ISP actually offers free wireless in various places downtown, I don't have a laptop so I can't take advantage of it, but apparently it works well (they also have it at the airport). The owner of the company and he is the owner, it's not publicly listed, is an internet evangelist and while he makes a pretty good living he does give back. I have even been helped by him on an internet forum when I had a minor technical problem. He's that type of bloke. He is not the common or garden CEO. His company's business ethos tends to reflect some of what you've posted. However I don't know if I've given a relevant example.