That sounds like "throttling" and in the particular way they're doing it, "fraud." I still fail to see how Net Neutrality comes in here.

Now there's an actual Net Neutrality violation. But...

You don't need legislation for that, isn't that called fraud?

That makes even less sense... How's that a problem unique to Internet providers, never mind routing rules on routers?

I doubt Net Neutrality is about "fast lanes". Isn't that called... you know, bandwidth? When I pay my Internet carrier per Mbps for a dedicated pipe, how is that not paying for a "fast(er) lane"?

Net Neutrality is a technically a routing policy that individual nodes in the network can comply with. My home router is most certainly not neutral, for instance, and that's a good thing, I like how I have traffic prioritized on my network.

Of course, that definition doesn't really make sense in this context. Perhaps you refer to enforcing a law that brings legal action against router operators that don't implement the routing policy. But that doesn't really make any sense either; the FCC never had any policy on the books to begin with. You can't end something by continuing to not have a law three decades after the fact.

(Fwiw, I'm totally down for not enacting more laws. The FCC is not your friend, and I doubt they'd be an effective packet police.)

Corporations have been around long before the 19th century and as legal entities managed and owned by us individuals, they most certainly do enjoy the same rights to own property and conduct trade, and are held accountable to not violate the law.

That last part is kind of important. Corporations are considered persons because they're expected to follow the law, too!

Really, what do you think corporations are made of, woodland critters and robots?

"Information wants to be free" is an obvious anthropomorphization; of course it can't literally "want" to be free, what's being referred to is the negative consequences that happen when we try to restrict resharing of information: you could almost imagine the information as a person being unhappy and protesting, whenever is censored.

A computer program is a literary work; not a song, audiovisual work, or similar. You don't "perform" a computer program, and executing it does not create a copy. If the concept as applied to literary works wasn't clear enough, the statute explicitly singles out computer programs as not infringing during the process of executing them.

They are terms for redistribution as required to legally make a copy under copyright law. It is not an EULA or other form of contract that must be agreed to prior to receiving a copy.

The GPL does this effectively: "You must include the source code (and other conditions) or you can't distribute a copy at all." This is the only restriction it can legally make, however. It can't restrict how you use the software in private when you don't make copies (including how you or others access it over the network).

But the source is free to the public, there's no terms and conditions I have to agree to. Indeed, it would no longer be Free Software, or at least it wouldn't be Open Source Software according to the Open Source Definition.

Please name the legal requirement that I accept the AGPL in order to use the software. In the US, there is:

* Copyright law
* Patent law

Patents aren't the issue here, and copyright law is not being invoked by merely making the software available on the network (and in fact, this use is explicitly defined as non-infringing).

This is incorrect. Songs are described differently than literary works in the copyright statute, software programs being literary works.

A performance of a song, as I listed, requires a license (and copyright law specifically singles out songs). However, the output of a software program is not copyrightable, and therefore no license is necessary.

Copyright law makes no distinction between using over the network and on your local monitor, and such usage is explicitly defined in US statute as non-infringing. How would you like it, or the FSF for that matter, if copyright law could be used to dictate that you sitting at your computer could be a copyright infringer by merely opening up the wrong application sitting at your desk? I suspect not very much.

Once I have a copy, you can't control what I do with that copy until I want to make another copy. This is defined by copyright law, and includes (among other things):

* Performing a stage play or audiovisual work
* A public performance of a song
* Remixing or arranging a song (a compulsory license can be acquired if the song is commercially released)
* Sending a copy of a novel, software program, or other literary work to another person

What's not on this list: Merely using a software program over the network, as no copy is being made. I don't need to accept the AGPL to legally download an AGPL'd program, put it on my server, and let the general public use it.

Except copyright law defines what distribution is, not the license. And the output of a software program is not copyrightable (by itself).

The AGPL may as well offer everyone a pony; if it's not being distributed (as defined by copyright law), the AGPL doesn't apply. Period.

Not all problems, it just causes fewer problems than any alternative.