We’re HUGELY pro-oopyright. In fact, we think the artists should have more control over exploiting their own creative works for gain.

We’re also pro innovation, and the open internet is where that happens. Did you catch any of the numbers that Dan Ek of Spotify was offering up at our Policy Summit re: the switch to legal services in Europe?

Licensing and the ubiquity of quality, affordable broadband can help the industry. Neutrality needs to be part of that agenda, so all artists and entrepreneurs can have a shot at success in a legitimate digital music marketplace.

“The IFPI, which plays a role similar to that of the RIAA in European litigation, wants the ISP to start filtering traffic to scrub all illicitly uploaded and downloaded copyrighted material on its network.

Will be have two regimes, one for music and film from large studios, and another for photographs, text and everything else?

If SPI, DPI, and packet prioritization aren’t allowed then our communications networks (esp. wireless) will suffer dramatically.

Out here in the ordinary world apart from vested interests, there are folks who’ve been involved in online freedoms who just don’t want to see the growth of the ability to communicate limited by corporate beancounters.

We don’t wish to see the Web turn into America’s newspapers or network TV.

I’ve been online since 1983 and appreciated every step. I only download legally – but, I don’t care to trust my ability to do so to Comcast or the MPAA. I was a performing artist for a big chunk of my life and never hired goons to patrol a concert or public appearance to rip recorders from the hands of the audience.

Trusting in the corporate God of copyright has become a Disneyland farce – removing public domain from the possibilities of anyone but centenarians.

Though I’m getting closer every day.

What’s more, “network neutrality” regulation prevent ISPs from managing their networks by reining in P2P. P2P doesn’t just degrade the service of other users; it is also far and away the most common method of piracy (that’s what it was designed for — to make it difficult to stop piracy. It’s far less efficient at delivering content than other methods.)

In short, “network neutrality” regulation would do nothing to stop the privacy-invading practices you mention, but at the same time would facilitate piracy of intellectual property.

And will they inspect written text (or spoken versions of it) to be sure that excerpts and copies of copyrighted documents are legally owned or that any other use is “fair use” or one of the codified exemptions.

And don’t forget “Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited.” They’ll certainly have to stop people talking about their favorite game.

Since the internet is but one medium to protect they will of course be also inspecting cell phone calls, postal parcels and letters and pillow talk.

No musician who ever hopes to make a dime selling albums should be a member of this group.

It’s no surprise that Julius Genachowski didn’t say much about his intended regulation at the event. While no one knows what the proposed rules will say, the Chairman’s rush to regulate has already come under fire from many members of Congress, and runs counter to his own assertions the FCC will now be “data driven” and regulate only when markets do not work. One can only hope that the FCC will publish a Notice of Inquiry, rather than a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, at the upcoming meeting, and study the matter before proposing rules.