On Friday, IGN reviewed GTA IV, giving it a highly elusive perfect score. Calling it “masterful” and an “American dream,” IGN says GTA IV is the greatest game in nearly a decade. Since the press embargo ended this morning, many other reviewers are reaching similar conclusions.

No real surprises there. What’s surprising, however, is that unlike its somewhat one-dimensional predecessors, GTA IV offers unprecedented character depth along with an “Oscar-caliber” storyline. And it also depicts the ugly downside of crime in the same vein as epic films like Goodfellas and Scarface, retelling the classic story of a struggling immigrant coming to America in search of fortune, haunted by the experiences of a past life.

Naturally, Grand Theft Auto’s release has re-ignited public debate over how games affect kids and whether new laws are needed to protect children from the gratuitous violence found in many video games. GTA has been a favorite target of politicians for the past eight years, and the usual suspects like Jack Thompson and Tim Winter have predictably spoken out against GTA IV. But parental controls are more robust than ever, as Adam has documented, and some have even suggested that kids should be playing Grand Theft Auto. Despite the recent explosion in hyper-realistic violent games, violent crime rates have been dropping across the board. Maybe games like GTA are just another harmless outlet for kids to express violent behavior, much like playing cops and robbers.

As game budgets have swelled and public interest in gaming has expanded, more games than ever transcend the stereotype of gaming as a juvenile pursuit with little artistic merit, reminding us that games can be artistic expressions on par with books, movies, or songs. Critics whose gaming experience consists of having played Pacman in an arcade may belittle gaming as a trivial pastime, but anybody who has played Bioshock or Gears of War or Oblivion knows better. Games can critique the harsh realities of modern society and offer insight into the nature of the human soul in ways that less interactive forms of media cannot. Likewise, games deserve both critical admiration and legal protection.

Of course, GTA IV is no Mona Lisa. But the way things are going, it’s entirely possible that the next timeless masterpiece of artistic expression will be created not with a brush or pen, but with lines of code.

Naturally, the “Save the Internet” crowd isn’t satisfied with Comcast’s declaration. Being protocol-agnostic wasn’t enough for them, and neither is a consumer bill of rights. Customers will only be safe from evil ISPs, they say, with aggressive neutrality mandates like Rep. Markey’s proposed legislation.

On one hand, Comcast’s declaration is good news for Bittorrent users, and illustrates the responsiveness of market forces. And as a Comcast subscriber, I’m all for non-discriminatory networks. (Though I seed torrents quite rarely, it’s nice to know the option exists.)

But declaring a consumer “Bill of Rights” is a risky approach. Comcast is ceding key ground to interventionists by implicitly admitting that consumers have some inherent right to unfiltered, unmanaged networks. They don’t—despite what lawmakers like Byron Dorgan have suggested.

Essentially, Comcast is saying “If we have to be neutral, then so should all the other guys. Otherwise, they’re violating consumer rights.”

Yet some ISPs are making just the opposite argument, identifying the benefits of curbing bandwidth-intensive applications.  In comments filed last week, Bell Canada contended that throttling is in the public interest, explaining that 95% of subscribers suffer on account of file sharing. GigaOM posted a story yesterday that lends further credence to claims that peer-to-peer traffic is a major culprit of network congestion.

Perhaps we shall see a competing bill of rights—one holding that customers have the right to affordable broadband access free from file sharing-induced slowdowns.

As bandwidth demand continues to grow, ISPs must make tough choices. Between price increases, bandwidth caps, and protocol discrimination, it is far from clear what’s best for the average user. If AT&T’s prediction is correct that in three years time, 20 typical households will consume as much bandwidth as the entire Internet does today, then carriers will need to invest billions upgrading both the backbone and last-mile. Discouraging investment through regulation poses a far greater threat to the Internet’s future than hypothetical neutrality violations.

If neutrality truly is as virtuous as its proponents suggest (and I suspect it is) then it will ultimately triumph on its own merits, without the need for government intervention. Still, exclusionary, proprietary networks may yet play an invaluable role in propelling connectivity, despite closed systems’ shortcomings.  Who knows what will work out best in the long run? Market experimentation is the only way to find out.

The Fairness Doctrine mandated that controversial issues of public importance be presented in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. Though Localism isn’t concerned with political speech, both sets of rules interfere with the editorial process, both control and compel speech, and neither passes Constitutional muster.

The FCC has reasons to believe that Localism is a concern, but those reasons lack the weightiness and depth of well-conducted policy research needed for rule making. Commisioner Copps has stated that:

We have witnessed the number of statehouse and city hall reporters declining decade after decade, despite an explosion in state and local lobbying. The number of channels have indeed multiplied, but there is far less local programming and reporting being produced.

Yet only a few short years ago former FCC Chairman Michael Powell made this statement on the issue of localism:

Local newscasts have become the staple of any successful local broadcast tele

vision station, demonstrating that serving the needs and wants of your local community does not just fulfill their public obligations, but also simply make good business sense.

Powell also stated in 2004 that Americans today “have access to more local content than at any time in our nation’s history.” But still, commissioners like Michael Copps don’t approve of how that local news is produced or what it contains.

But events of national and international importance do not occur in accordance with regulators’ preconceived notions of how much coverage ought to be allotted to them. Local news outlets should not be wary of reporting on wars overseas, famine in the developing world, or other non-local issues they deem important for fear of neglecting to comply with bureaucratic dictates.

The Fairness Doctrine had the arguably worse effect of making many broadcasters shy away from political coverage altogether, for fear that–try as they may–their coverage would be considered “unbalanced.” Twenty years after instituting this misguided rule, the FCC finally acknowledged this fact in the wake of a 1985 Supreme Court decision (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364) which found that the rule was “chilling speech.”

The result was an explosion in talk radio content beginning most famously with conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh, but also creating new space for left-liberal voices like Thom Hartmann and Al Franken.

Where the Fairness Doctrine chilled all speech, Localism will compel speech of which FCC Commissioners like Copps approve. In a world of limited broadcast hours, compelling one sort of speech means sacrificing speech of another, effectively censoring speech.

Should we be content to let the FCC tell us what we have to say when we’d never stand for it telling us what we can’t say? Oh wait, I suppose we do let it tell us what we can’t say.

Giant media companies are accused of silencing independent voices and depriving communities of diverse news coverage. Yet not everyone agrees that local content is suffering. FCC Commissioner Michael Powell recently argued that community-driven programming is thriving, especially since the Internet has taken off.

Local stations have it tough these days. FCC rules run the risk of putting the nail in the coffin for struggling broadcasters. We need more choices, not fewer ones, and dictating mediocrity on the airwaves will only push media companies away from radio and television. 

Groups like Free Press warn that media consolidation threatens the fabric of American democracy. But there’s nothing democratic about unelected Washington bureaucrats deciding what radio and TV stations should air. Contrary to interventionists’ claims, the financial interest of media companies and the public interest go hand in hand. Firms select programs based on ratings, a direct measure of audience size.  If a show isn’t attracting enough viewers, it gets axed. If that’s not democracy at work, what is?  

Speaking of democracy, regulators ignore how the game has changed since the blogosphere has emerged. It’s the new public forum, allowing millions of Americans to voice in on hot political topics and local legislative contests. From Instapundit to DailyKos, popular blogs with independent perspectives offer vigorous intellectual discussion on an Athenian scale, unimaginable to democratic observers of the past. Some of these independent sites are even usurping traditional news outlets, and citizen journalists cover news both on a national and local scale.  

The Internet has also brought us myriad new ways of getting news and commentary. Mobile browsing is expected to explode to 1.5 billion devices in just a few years, and broadband Internet now reaches 99% of U.S. zip codes. RSS news feeds let readers hear about the latest events as they unfold, from virtually any source imaginable. It’s only a matter of time before we’ll be able to get news and video anywhere, anytime.  

The localism debate reminds us of the FCC’s increasing irrelevance. The digital age has dawned, and Americans no longer rely on a small handful of media sources for local news, but the FCC still wants to regulate “traditional” media companies as if the Internet had never existed. The airwaves should stay free and open, or broadcasters may soon become a distant memory.

America’s two largest phone companies, AT&T and Verizon, recently filed forbearance petitions asking the FCC for relief from various regulations. Verizon is asking for the freedom to set prices on wholesale connections to competitive local carriers, and AT&T has requested exemption from certain FCC audit requirements and service quality reporting mandates.  

The real question is, why should Verizon have to ask permission from bureaucrats to decide how much to charge for its products? And why must AT&T spend millions of dollars to fill out intricate paperwork just to prove to the FCC its product is good enough for customers? 

Interventionists say this is because phone companies won’t ensure service quality unless they are subject to government oversight. But this claim ignores market conditions. With competition intensifying between phone providers and new wireless networks on the verge of completion, the market will discipline any communications company that skimps on service or price. Sprint and Comcast have learned this lesson the hard way.  

Because of the FCC’s price caps and audit requirements, incumbent providers face substantial costs to comply with detailed accounting procedures. And price caps reduce the incentive to invest, ultimately hurting consumers. Instead of entrenching the status-quo through network price controls, government should reward private sector risk-taking by letting companies establish prices and service guidelines without government supervision. 

As voice, video, and data all move toward IP-based transit, telephone and cable lines are converging. Soon, both will basically function as alternative vehicles for delivering the same set of services. But the FCC, oblivious to this paradigm shift in telecommunications technology, subjects phone companies to a totally different set of regulations from cable competitors. This is one of many examples of the FCC’s unfair regulatory treatment toward competing broadband operators—Kevin Martin has imposed similarly unreasonable rules on cable companies, abrogating apartment TV contracts and barring cable providers from attracting too many subscribers. 

Succeeding in the marketplace shouldn’t be about dodging obsolete regulations, but about competing to offer consumers the best quality and value. 

Whenever the topic of deregulating telcos is brought up, big-government types argue that FCC rules are justified because phone companies were supposedly given billions in public money after promising to build an advanced, national fiber optic network that never materialized. Yet this oft-repeated assertion is a myth. What actually happened is that during the 90s, state lawmakers relieved telcos from certain restrictions like price ceilings, and allowed companies to depreciate capital investment on an accelerated basis. Though eliminating unfair price controls and taxes may count as a book loss for government coffers, it’s entirely different than granting public subsidies to private producers. 

Baby Bells didn’t secure taxpayer funds to build next-generation networks; rather, America owes its infrastructure wealth to private investment.  To be sure, some in the communications industry have at times offered overly optimistic predictions, but the underlying argument against price controls holds true to this day. Infringing on the property rights of telecommunications companies curtails freedom and innovation.  

Thanks to Verizon FiOS, fiber to the home is now reality for millions, and AT&T and Qwest are rapidly deploying advanced VDSL services like U-Verse. As cable competitors begin upgrading networks to a faster, newer standard (DOCSIS 3.0), further deregulation of telecommunications services is needed to foster network investment and faster connectivity. 

Getting rid of burdensome audit rules and price caps is the first step towards stimulating broadband competition. Until then, network operators’ hands will be tied in upgrading services to meet growing demand for bandwidth. For consumers, FCC rules are all pain, no gain.

“You know who owns your pipes? Your customers. You have no right to set up a tollbooth.”

- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), September 17, 2007

Sen. Dorgan’s statement refers to the broadband infrastructure built up by the telcos and their rivals. It lays the “net neutrality” issue bare: if you’re an infrastructure owner or Internet service provider, government people like him shall dictate your relationships with the world at large.

Welcome to infrastructure socialism, 21st century style.

Online activists teamed with superstars like Google seek a perpetual “open access” business model imposed on Internet service. Last summer’s master stroke: to link future wireless spectrum auctions to accommodating the policy.

Comcast recently received letters of inquiry from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to a petition filed by a coalition averse to what it regards as unjustified data discrimination against file-sharers. They seek fines in the millions.

Barack Obama, unveiling his “innovation agenda” late last year, pledged, “I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality. Because once providers start to privilege some applications or web sites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose.”

Sen. Dorgan, naturally, spies an opening for his net neutrality legislation (co-sponsored with Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME). Representative Ed Markey has introduced legislation to investigate neutrality as well.

But net neutrality rests upon the fallacy that infrastructure and content companies are naturally at odds; that competition and customer service require political force.

Everybody agrees openness is good; nobody wants their favorite websites or activities blocked.

But it’s not OK to condemn the very possibility of adopting proprietary, exclusionary business models—especially at this critical point in business and communications history. It’s only 2008.

All wealth—infrastructure and content alike—must be created, often over decades. Net neutrality, by turning existing pipes into passive, regulated husks, is as fantastic as “Search Neutrality” imposed upon Google would be. (“All search results must appear first!”) It’s just not as obvious.

Elevating the principle of mandatory net neutrality above the principle of investor ownership and wealth creation in pipes and spectrum deflects market forces away from the infrastructure development that we need. And we do need it: recent news notes potential bottlenecks on the Internet caused, not by anyone’s blockage, but by escalating data and video. Growing hand-in-hand in response to market demand, private infrastructure companies can handle any traffic growth at all; with neutrality, it’s in no one’s interest to take the risk or bother.

If private ownership rights are proscribed simply because property is long and thin (or intangible, like spectrum), governments, commissions or heavily regulated utilities will dominate infrastructure rollout. I submit this is not a desirable state of affairs.

The neutrality movement’s demand for centralized management is all the more incomprehensible since enhanced power will render any dominant entry more vulnerable to future political predation. (Google’s recent hassle over the DoubleClick acquisition is only one example.) Plus, the balance of power between content and infrastructure can swing.

Precisely how neutrality proponents think government control over communications infrastructure squares with the First Amendment is another marvel.

In any event, for the FCC or Congress to advance net neutrality regulation is to discriminate in favor of one side in a battle of equals. Since Adam Smith we’ve known that governments that avoid taking sides in private disputes (here, infrastructure and content companies) enable more prosperity for all.

Ultimately, the Internet is too slow and needs to be transformed into (or replaced by) something better. Internet-type technologydead and boring,” Mark Cuban recently noted that we’ve “reached the point of diminishing returns” given today’s broadband capabilities. matters; not necessarily the Internet’s specific configuration today. Calling the Internet “

The idea of future multimedia-saturated generations getting by on the existing “pipes” inventory is absurd. Let’s boil it down. Competition in creation of core networks is as important as competition in the stuff we sell over the networks later.

We need to discard the idea that networks themselves cannot be regarded as a competitive unit. The religion that only the movement of bits from point A to point B on an existing network counts as “competition” must yield.

Neutrality advocates invoke the sanctity of “dumb pipes,” but we would more properly acknowledge a competitive dimension upholding the possibility of the “genius” of pipes. Price and service differentiation will become increasingly critical to well functioning network services. The very content providers now complaining will themselves likely seek “preferential” treatment, or to pay less for non-vital transmissions, down the road.

But such “discrimination” is perfectly consistent with even greater openness than we enjoy now; nothing about fostering smart pipes is incompatible with retaining “dumb” ones as consumers desire.

That’s because the “background hum” of today’s commodity Internet can also grow in concert with proprietary services that use Internet technology, but may or may not ride the same pipes as the “capital-I” Internet. Policy should not discourage the possible emergence of such a “Splinternet” by catering to the old-school model of infrastructure socialism and sleepy-headed “openness.”

Fostering infrastructure wealth—of both the proprietary and open kinds—is the only valid public policy goal, the only avenue to a constant escalation in the basic capabilities of the Internet as a whole, much as we’ve already witnessed without net neutrality interrupting the process. (Dialup, anybody?).

There’s already a colossal task at hand—to demolish regulatory silos to foster cross industry partnerships (power, water, rail, sewer) to fund cripplingly expensive national infrastructure development. This—and restraining FCC—should occupy policymakers.

Net neutrality, and similar predatory schemes like compulsory licensing, would never emerge in a free market, and is inoperable without a permanent, priestly regulatory commission.

It’s so misguided that it would be worth Congress stepping in to prevent its mandatory application altogether via FCC’s “four principles”, not debate it as a live policy issue. Policymakers must acknowledge “discrimination’s” elemental role in infrastructure and bandwidth creation consumer welfare, and cybersecurity—all the desirables of content and service.

To hold in 2008 that pipes should henceforth be dumb exemplifies the blindness of political regulation, how the very ones in charge of communications policy can most threaten it.

Nothing important can be known today about proper pricing and routing of content on the networks of tomorrow; and nothing can be gained and a lot can be lost by prescribing it now. Reject “nut” neutrality, swear allegiance to tollbooths.

View more editions of C:\Spin at cei.org. Sign-up to receive C:\Spin in your inbox.

The right to speak anonymously is protected by the First Amendment, and the Kentucky proposal raises serious Constitutional questions. In Talley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Los Angeles ban on the distribution of anonymous handbills on First Amendment grounds. However, the Court has yet to directly address the question of anonymous speech on the Internet, as few existing laws target online anonymity.

The Kentucky bill comes on the heels of controversy over the growing popularity of JuicyCampus.com, a “Web 2.0 website focusing on gossip” where college students post lurid — and often fabricated — tales of fellow students’ sexual encounters. The website bills itself as a home for “anonymous free speech on college campuses,” and uses anonymous IP cloaking techniques to shield users’ identities. Backlash against the site has emerged, with Pepperdine University’s student government recently voting to ban the site on campus.

Under current law, websites like Juicy Campus cannot be sued for user-posted messages. As Adam Thierer mentions in a recent post, Daniel J. Solove of George Washington Law School has offered some insightful analysis on anonymity in the digital age. Solove points out that under the Safe Harbor provision found in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, providers are immunized from liability if they unknowingly distribute libelous messages so long as they remove libelous postings upon receiving a take-down request. This issue was further clarified in 2006 in Barrett v. Rosenthal, in which the Court found that website operators are immune from liability when distributing defamatory communications.

Normally, finding the perpetrator of libel on a website can be accomplished through subpoenaing the site’s owner. The website then turns over the IP address of the user who posted the offending content, and the ISP to which that IP address is assigned reveals the identity of the offending subscriber. Subsequently, the victim of defamation can file a lawsuit.

But with sites like JuicyCampus that help users shield their true identity, finding a libel perpetrator can be very challenging. If a poster spreads hurtful lies about you on JuicyCampus, you can have the offending material removed — but you may be left with no recourse against the guilty party. Subpoenaing sites that don’t maintain IP logs is unlikely to yield the offender’s actual IP address, so there is little to deter people from going online and defaming their enemies, hidden behind the veil of anonymity.

Despite the appeal of combating defamation by banning online anonymity, lawmakers should be wary about restricting anonymous speech in the name of fighting libel. The same laws designed to deter defamation can also be used to target political dissent or silence whistleblowers for whom the option of remaining anonymous is critical. While Mark Klein and Babak Pasdar elected to reveal their identities, they remind us that whistleblowers are crucial safeguards against government excesses. And as Chinese dissidents know all too well, governments around the world have a long history of suppressing political opinions that undermine state legitimacy.

Perhaps politicians can manage to craft a law that fights defamation without threatening legitimate anonymous speech. Still, living with the occasional bout of slander and libel seems like a worthy sacrifice if it means protecting individuals’ right to anonymous speech.

Canceling the Oscars extravaganza would have cost L.A.’s economy $130 million, according to an estimate by Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation. Disaster was averted at the last minute, with an agreement reached between the studios and the Writers Guild only 12 days before Hollywood’s big night out, which addressed some of the issues over online content distribution.

Now with the Screen Actors Guild facing new contract negotiations, there may yet be another such game of brinkmanship as just played out between the writers and the studios — with the attendant peril to California’s economy. And episodes like this are likely to play out again every time a contract is up and new methods of content distribution are developed. Is this any way to run an industry?

For the full article, see here.