Verizon Lawyer Explains Telecoms' DMCA Position 216
CheapBrew writes: "Sarah Deutsch, a vice president and associate general counsel at Verizon, is interviewed by Declan McCullagh on CNet's News.com. She argues against the DCMA, anti-P2P bill, and the broadcast flag, and notes that Verizon is teaming with other telecoms and groups like the EFF to fight the 300 pound gorilla."
Well good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well good (Score:2)
For shame... (Score:2)
Re:Well good (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh? From the interview it looks like they're eager to avoid corporate liability and interference with new services. The closest thing to standing up for a user was their resistance to a subpoena, and that was on procedural grounds.
Re:Well good (Score:2)
Re:Well good (Score:2, Interesting)
I might not have a problem with that. IF, and this is a rather big if, it's designed in such a way that it is subject to market pressures (no monopolies), and if there is some way to be SURE that the money actually gets back to the artists. The problem with the Audio-CD Tax/CHS tax is that there is little if any evidence that it actually gets back to the "little guys" (artists in the case of music - I don't know who in terms of VHS). With Audio-CDR and VHS, it's technically impossible to get it to go back all the way to the individual creators, because you have no idea who/what they are. But if there were some kind of file-sharing tax, then it could be ascertained to whom the money should actually go to.
Of course, this opens up a very large can of worms with regard to how it's done. If it's going to be a file-sharing tax, then that basically means that Verizon gets into competition with PressPlay, MusicNet et al. A centralized source for all the files is the easiest way to do this (from a tracking license tracking POV) but is less than optimal for bandwidth considerations (10 redundant stores is better than 1). Video is even more of a problem than audio because it's bigger (as of yet, barring any really nify new compression algorithms..)
Re:Well good (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon sells broadband services.
Therefore, Verizon supports piracy as it helps to sell its broadbad service. In addition, the number o subpeonas that they would have to handle if they allowed this to go through would cost a large ammount of money and possibly open them up to a lawsuit from their own users for giving out information to the RIAA.
First question you always have to ask yourself when you are listening to some lawyer or marketing droid or corporate executive speak is "Where's the money". Verizon supports "piracy" because A) it increases their money and B) preventing it will increase their costs.
Simple cost benefit analysis shows Verizon has nothing to gain from giving the RIAA what they want and something to lose. The fact that the computer hardware, internet service providers, and computer software sellers have bigger checkbooks than the RIAA means they wont be pushed around. Heck I wouldnt be surprised if Microsoft bought the entire recording industry...
Poor AOL Time Warner (Score:2)
Serves them right for merging a content company and a service provider.
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
When did Verizon become the "good guy"?
Did something happen in Hell?
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
This brings an idea though. Someone (read "I'm too lazy") should create a karma system for companies! It would be a website that would have people rate companies actions on a day by day basis on important events that occur that involve that specific company and assign an ever changing value correlating to what we consider good or bad.
This would be kinda like a BBB / e-pinions combination. Has someone alread seen/created this before? Just a thought
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone (read "I'm too lazy") should create a karma system for companies!
Nah. You shouldn't worry about any of that when you decide what product to buy. Buy from the company which charges the least, and donate the savings to charity if you really want to help the world.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
What if a company has lower prices because it "exploits" people in 3rd world countries, and you buy their product because it is cheaper? At the same time, if you give to a charity helping these same exploited people, would that make a helluva lotta sense?
Yes.
Why not just avoid the process completely in the first place!
That goes without saying. But buying one fewer pair of sneakers isn't going to stop the process whatsoever. Only a law or a tariff will do that.
Re:savings? (Score:2)
compared to ... the most expensive version? the average?
The next least expensive, presumably. Obviously it's not something you're supposed to do specifically every time you buy a product. But my point is the amount of good you do by boycotting is likely vastly outshadowed by the amount of good you do by donating even just a few pennies to charity.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
>
> Did something happen in Hell?
Yeah, but look at the competition - RIAA, MPAA, Hollings (D-Disney). The plans they have for the 'net make Bernie Ebbers of WCOM look ethical by comparison :)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
No, they'll just say that they would have won it if they hadn't been forced to go on strike. Shame, that...
Sorry, this is Slashdot. I forgot I wasn't supposed to know about current sporting events. Heck I was just listening to NPR, it's ok!
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Declan McCullagh (Score:1)
Which is bigger? (Score:2, Interesting)
So which one do you think has more weight in the govermental arenas?
Re:Which is bigger? (Score:2)
Huh? Where I live, you can't buy services from Verizon for any amount of money.
Verizon is a (big) regional supplier that owes its existence to the court-ordered breakup of AT&T a number of years ago. It's no more state-sponsored than, say, MCI.
Photo? (Score:1, Redundant)
I know... (Score:2)
Hehe... her photo is like RIGHT at the top... although I was thinking "Is she cute?" before I clicked. Kinda sexy, rich smart geek-wannabe chick. If I were a tad older... :)
Photoshop, here we come! (Score:2)
Kinda sexy, rich smart geek-wannabe chick.
So which one of us is gonna paste her face onto a pornstar's body and digitially add a PDA in one hand and a laptop in her other?
GMD
Re:Photoshop, here we come! (Score:2)
>
> So which one of us is gonna paste her face onto a pornstar's body and digitially add a PDA in one hand and a laptop in her other?
Didn't Palm [com.com] already get in trouble with this with their "Simply pr0n^H^H^H^HPalm" campaign? (Obligatory parodies here [peterme.com] :)
Re:I know... (Score:2)
Older Women make better lovers anyway.
You keep telling yourself that, mom.
Corrupt the EFF? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad that Verizon is sticking up for their bottom line in this case - since it will help to keep our society healthy - but that is all they are doing. There is no altruistic component of this action WHATSOEVER; I'm not criticising them for that, 95% of US companies work that way, I'm just saying. If the EFF starts taking Verizon's money - or, even, if they just accept logistical assistance or cooperate in education or lobbying with Verizon, might the EFF be reluctant to raise a holler when Verizon tries something scummy?
You can say that companies ought to be able to build political capital for doing the right thing. To a certain extent, I agree with that - but not in this case, and never with corporate watchdog groups like the EFF.
Re:Corrupt the EFF? (Score:2)
example:
Re:Corrupt the EFF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe, but that can happen to any organization at anytime. I think it just all depends on the individuals involved and their level of integrity. Also, organizations naturally tend to become less radical over time and almost by definition they become more mainstream as they become more successful, so yeah, it may be that the EFF will be less apt to rock the boat one day but I think that day's still a ways away.
In this case I think its important that not only are Verizon and the telcos on the same side as the EFF but that they're also giving due credit to them. Until recently, this whole debate has been pretty well off the radar screen for most people and considered to be on the fringe by others. The battle between large corporate players now gives the entire debate better visibility while the EFF gives their side some underdog/grassroots type credibility that should appeal to the public. I hope they can use this opportunity to raise their profile as a voice for consumers and society. The media certainly likes to put a David vs. Goliath spin on an issue and the EFF vs. Disney should fit the bill better than Verizon vs. Mickey Mouse.
Re:Corrupt the EFF? (Score:2)
Re:Corrupt the EFF? (Score:2)
Re:Corrupt the EFF? (Score:2)
What seems to be a new concept for a lot of other slashdot readers is this: Sometimes, your best interest != the most narrowly defined, selfish interest. Sometimes, doing something for the general good -- even if it has costs, short-term -- is in your own long-term interest. For example, consider the largest of the colonies that eventually became the US, such as Virgina or New York. By economics and by population, they could have bullied the surrounding states and fought hard for a political system that enshrined their features of dominance. But they compromised, because the leaders at that time recognized that a strong US -- even one that costs some of the sovereignty of the states -- was better (even for VA or NY) than a collection of weak states.
Likewise, businesses could adopt ethic that says, long-term investment in the community is better for everyone... including the business itself. It doesn't require a stockholder revolution or a change in the laws. It requires a larger horizon and a reduced focused on the next-moment profit.
The problem with capitalism is not that it is intrinsically inhumane. Capitalism is just an engine that, history indicates, is the most wildly successful method to attain the goods people value. The problem is, too many capitalists fail to set "the good of community" as a good they value. Capitalism tells you how to maximize efficiency to attain what you desire. It does not tell you what to desire -- it does not set a moral worth on anything. Too many modern business decide "Oh, the market tells me what I should want", which is insane. Human wants and needs are the inputs to the market, along with natural resources, labor, etc.
Re:Corrupt the EFF? (Score:2)
(Remember, too, that many people honestly believe that individual decisions to maximize short-term gain act, collectively, to maximize the long-term interests of the entire community. I think that's debatable given historical eviddence, but so is the notion that the majority will start to behave altruistically, sacrificing their short-term needs to the long-term community good.)
In the context of the current discussion, I think there is a conflict between a focus on the political effort to change the legislation controlling use of copyright, and a more millenial attempt to change the way corporations do business. Concentrating on the latter puts the former at risk. Supporters of the former need to get some of their own legislation into the mix, rather than simply working to defeat Hollings, etc.
Re:Corrupt the EFF? (Score:2)
Wow, some lawyers rock! (Score:3, Interesting)
As much as I like to bash telcos, I gotta admit, Verizon and their lawyers are earning some respect.
Re:Wow, some lawyers rock! (Score:2)
Correct me if i'm wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Correct me if i'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why I'm very glad they're fighting this.
Fundamentally, what the Hollings bill, the bill authorizing RIAA/MPAA to DDOS your box, and all the rest of Hollywood's laws are about is killing the $600B technology industry to preserve the $10-20B entertainment industry.
You and I can't convince Hollings that the CBDTPA doesn't "promote" broadband, it kills it, because Hollings won't listen to us. We, after all, don't own broadband providers, we're merely customers.
Verizon can, and will, make that case.
If Hollywood kills broadband by buying Congress, we're inconvenienced, but our lives aren't over. Like the story about a ham and egg breakfast, wherein the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed -- when it comes to saving the 'net from Hollywood, we're involved, but the few remaining telcos are most definitely committed.
Re:Correct me if i'm wrong... (Score:2)
New York Stock Exchange (Score:2)
We, after all, don't own broadband providers, we're merely customers.
Some of us do own (a small piece of) Verizon Communications [google.com].
Re:Correct me if i'm wrong... (Score:2)
But they must know what sells broadband to the masses today, and they must also fear what kind of support calls they will be getting if ever the RIAA do start attacking P2P networks. Nobody wants support calls, especially of the type 'All my files are missing, replaced with the text 'RIAAMPAA' again and again and again'.
Re:Correct me if i'm wrong... (Score:2)
Um... the future of OSS could also be endangered by some of these laws. So much for that minority.
A good start but... (Score:2)
Love the article's title (Score:4, Insightful)
"Why telecoms back the pirate cause"
Gee, I'm not a pirate, and I think the ability to freely make backup copies of my movies/music/files is a fair and just one. But since I'm _not_ a pirate, the actions of Verizon obviously won't affect me, right? It's not my cause they are fighting for.
Now time to actually read the article and see if it's worth my time.
Re:Love the article's title (Score:2)
Then don't dignify that silly term. Copyright infringement is one crime. Plundering ships at sea is another.
"Copyright infringement" makes you stop and go: "Wait, isn't that something only publishers get charged with?"
While "piracy" or "theft" sound like foregone conclusions.
Always remember, it isn't what you say, its how you say it that matters.
Re:Love the article's title (Score:2, Insightful)
So does this article reflect how Verizon's stance will directly affect my 'rights' to fair use? I don't know if you meant to do so, but your response highlights that question perfectly. The article has almost nothing to do with my original post. The Verizon person, Sarah Deutsch, goes into great detail about why they and other backbone providers should not be the target of the next round of laws. But as for the average individual, that is another matter.
The main thing Ms. Deutsch says they are fighting against is responsibility as a connection provider or conduit for others' data. There is the mention of RIAA wanting to hack users computers, but no real argument against it. Only a weak "That's just wrong" sentiment. She mentions "users would want to receive some increased security in the area of fair use...." But that is only a bargaining chip, not a demand.
So I guess my original post has little to do with the article, because as I said, I am not a pirate. The title says it all.
Is the Network Samrt or Dumb? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is the Network Samrt or Dumb? (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed.
Before the CDA was struck down [epic.org], one of the few defenses for an ISP was claiming a "common carrier" status. One of the key points to this defense was a lack of control or intelligence of the specific data being transferred over a network. If data passed harmlessly through a network, the legality of that data was ultimately the end user's (sender and/or receiver) responsiblity.
Now that the CDA is a nice, cozy, warm memory of a threat past... we have the DMCA. And it seems that telcos and ISPs in general area a bit slow to begin a "common carrier" defense. Of course, it might be that they know something.
I've noticed how the larger ISPs have began to take steps away from being a "common carrier". Controlling user use (ie: "no servers"), increaseing priority for local multimedia feeds, etc. all imply much more control over that network's data. One has to wonder if the "common carrier" defense is no longer available.
Has the big corporate providers abandoned a protective strategy for short-term attempts at increased profit?
Re:Is the Network Samrt or Dumb? (Score:2)
Thought for the day: What's "premium content"?
If MPAA and RIAA won't release movies and music for online distribution, where will "premium content" (meaning "stuff that people will pay Verizon money to get access to") come from?
It will have to come from other users of the network.
Now, it may be transmitted in violation of copyrights, but as long as Verizon acts as a common carrier, and conforms to the DMCA takedown requirements, Verizon can allow its users to do whatever they want.
So - suppose you have a "smart network" - fine.
You could say that "live streaming video from mpaa.com gets priority" - but mpaa.com doesn't offer live streaming video.
So instead, you say "P2P file-sharing packets get higher QOS when they travel from a Verizon user to another Verizon user that's 'close' on Verizon's internal network". (Lower load on the internal network, and because it's internal, there are no per-gigabit transit charges or peering issues to work out with other backbones.)
Voila - if you're Verizon, you've just created a real incentive for your existing customer to get his buddy down the street to sign up with you instead of AOL/TW ("D00d! No bandwidth quota charges if the guy you share filez with is also a customer!").
Finally - unlike AOL's "The Internet Is Like TV!" business model, the "content" that your customers sign up to access costs you nothing to create. Yes, it comes with legal risks if that content's infringing, but those risks land entirely on your customers, not you.
If that view can stand up in court (and there are two reasons it should - first, because Napster died because it ran the P2P network but here, the ISP isn't involved -- and second, because that telco lawyers are paid more than Napster lawyers and RIAA lawyers combined, and will therefore win the case regardless of the merits :-), it's a huge win/win for broadband development and Internet users.
DMCA DMCA DMCA (Score:3, Informative)
It looks like it was fixed in the title but not in the body text. I expect that
It's the DMCA. Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Not DCMA!
Are you sure? (Score:2)
Let's not kid ourselves... (Score:2, Informative)
If DMCA service provider liability is found to apply to people running their own servers through an ISP- Verizon and other ISPs will lose a lot of customers as they shift around. Users won't necessarily *want* to shift around, but they will have to move ISPs as they get their accounts terminated under the DMCA for distributing the latest music or movies through their p2p app of choice.
Verizon has a pure profit motive here, nothing more. Of course the profit motive in this instance is in our favor....so it feels a bit different than most.
Re:Let's not kid ourselves... (Score:2)
Idea for a subscription-based music service: "Buy a $20 account, l33ch Kazaa for a month, get DMCA'd. Call the sales department the next morning and buy another $20 account for next month!"
(Hey, spammers have used throwaway accounts for years... oh, the irony :-)
I never thought about it this way, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Those are *their* networks. Verizon and the other telecoms operate those networks, regardless of the stuff that goes on within them. Who's to say that the 'copyright holders' wouldn't cause serious damage to the Verizon network in the name of security?
It's a bit troubling to think that Verizon would be absolutely forced by the government to allow *hacking* (illegal) by a large media corporation. Why wouldn't the Senator simply order Verizon to police their own networks? Isn't it a bit absurd to allow someone else to gain unauthorized (sorta) access to do it for them?
Re:not a police state (Score:2)
Scraps from the giants' table (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an old concept, and one that those who would promote change of any sort have long understood and espoused. Separation of powers, anyone?
Hurrah for disagreement among behemoths!
Against the DMCA? (Score:2)
Re:Against the DMCA? (Score:2)
Re:Against the DMCA? (Score:2)
Re:Against the DMCA? (Score:2)
When it was being formed, they (Verizon & Telcos) fought against the DMCA until it was in a form which they deemed acceptable to their networks, their user interests and their own interests. Then they agreed.
So in other words they are not against the DMCA, in the form that it was enacted into law. They may have been against some of the original drafts of the DMCA, but surely the DMCA was significantly altered since then.
SInce the implimentation of the DMCA, the world, and the internet has changed, and now the CW industries are looking to expand the DMCA. However, Verizon and the telcos do not see the expansion as a legitimate defense of the copyrights, therefore they are fighting against it again, though perhaps this time with more force.
They are, however, against the expansion of the DMCA.
Again, I fail to see how anything in that article implied that they are against the DMCA, as enacted.
Re:Against the DMCA? (Score:2)
They are not against the DMCA "as enacted". They are beginning to ramp up opposition to the DMCA as enforced. Just as there is many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip, there is much room for creative "interpretation" of a law once passed. How it plays out in the courts is a vital thing... and maybe the telcos are beginning to realize they bought into a viper's nest by agreeing to the DMCA. What the Content Cartel wishes to do with the law is far beyond what the telcos thought would be done.
Remember, the DMCA "would never be used to silence research"... until Felton.
Re:Against the DMCA? (Score:2)
They are not against the DMCA "as enacted". They are beginning to ramp up opposition to the DMCA as enforced.
I fail to see where they stated that. Further, I fail to see where the DMCA was "enforced" in a way against how it was "enacted".
Just as there is many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip, there is much room for creative "interpretation" of a law once passed.
I find the EFF to be leading the way in the misinterpretation of the DMCA.
How it plays out in the courts is a vital thing... and maybe the telcos are beginning to realize they bought into a viper's nest by agreeing to the DMCA.
I fail to see this in the article, and I fail to see how the DMCA hurts the ISPs. If anything, it seems to help them, by limiting their liability for copyright infringment.
Remember, the DMCA "would never be used to silence research"... until Felton.
Just because a law can be used in bad ways doesn't make it a bad law. You wouldn't want to ban butter knives just because they can be used to stab people, would you? Plus, the DMCA didn't silence Felton. In fact, Felton wasn't even silenced. Some lawyer wrote him a letter saying that presenting his research might break a few laws, only one of which was the DMCA.
that's weird. (Score:2)
Or is it the verizon who provides T-1 width DSL to my friends in Washington DC for $25/mo? That verizon which that has the best USENET server I've seen out of several broadband providers? (We're talking ZERO dropped binaries.)
I am confused. Think I'll lie down for awhile...
Great combination (Score:2)
Whether or not you believe that Verizon will go to bat for consumers (to me it sounds like they'll go as far as they can cautiously go), they are taking a conciliatory rather than an accusatory stance, and that's sorely needed in this debate.
300lb gorilla? (Score:2)
Hang on a sec... (Score:2)
Verizon? (Score:4, Informative)
At the time, Continental Cablevision was my incumbent cable company. As cable doesn't require many support calls, I can't comment about them.
Suddenly, Continental Cablevision, which engaged in a merger a couple of years before, merged with US West's cable operations to form MediaOne. And they started offering MediaOne Express, one of the first broadband connections around, with unprecedented T1 downstream speeds. I went over to the nearest MediaOne center in Beverly, tried the service out, loved it, and ordered it the next day. Often, I end up having to call MediaOne tech support; they're much more responsive than Verizon.
So now, MediaOne starts offering digital phone service. And better yet, they offer a combo package; digital cable (400 channels), broadband, and digital phone service with all optional features included on the first line (and a second bare line), for $100 a month, no more. This is an incredible deal. I call up, order this package, and three days later, I don't have any services from Verizon. Every time I call up MediaOne for tech support, it's *amazing* how fast they respond.
So now I hear that Verizon's standing up "for the consumer", and that AT&T Broadband (which bought MediaOne) is pushing in the other direction. Whoop-de-doo. AT&T Broadband provides me a damn good quality service. Verizon doesn't. Until Verizon improves their quality, I'm going with the company that gives me a good service. After all, in the end, all either one cares about is their bottom line.
Re:Verizon? (Score:2)
Baaaaa! (Score:2)
And, apparently, that's all you care about, too -- your own bottom line.
This is why the Bad Guys win: People willing to make decisions of fundamental and lasting import based essentially on "What cool toy comes in this box today?"
I'm not saying you have to go out and subscribe to Verizon just because they seem to be on the side of goodness and nice here. I'm just saying, it's odd to whine about how Verizon is focused only on what it can get, while establishing that that's your motive, too. If Verizon is on the side of consumers in this fight -- even if the alliance is more along the lines of US/USSR vs. the Nazis -- then, on this matter, let's support them. Don't let your local contretemps make your decisions for you.
Re:Baaaaa! (Score:2)
Working Assets is a good company. They care more about providing a good service than making money. Most notable about these good companies is that they're all private; not a single one is on NYSE, Nasdaq, or Amex, and the majority of them don't even trade over-the-counter. Other companies in this category include Malden Mills, LL Bean... and I can't think of any more right now. The list, of course, is very short.
Aside from those companies, every company will do whatever it can to better its bottom line. This means that Microsoft will continue making Mac software as long as it doesn't halt sales of Windows, nVidia will continue making Linux drivers, and AMD will make sure Palladium can be disabled on chips for Linux users. Say all you want about alliances, but no company is going to purposely block a large constituency from buying its product.
Both Verizon and AT&T Broadband, in this sense, fall into the same boat. They both run ISPs, and they both want to make as much money from those ISPs as possible. If people weren't able to download multimedia off the Internet, then many of them would have no incentive to get broadband; meaning both companies have every incentive to make sure those users don't lose service. Verizon happens to be a bigger company than AT&T Broadband. Their size means that, in this case, their opinion has weight; but Verizon could start offering MusicNet tomorrow, and then they would have an incentive to at least make it harder to download music from third parties off the Internet.
It's like with Philips. Remember when they announced that the CD-DA logo was restricted for true, Red Book audio CDs? Everyone cheered, but the next day, Philips was pushing their own copy-control technology.
There are very few good companies. Verizon seems to be "fighting the good fight" today; Microsoft did at one point too, and AT&T Broadband also seems to have come out on our side. But not a single one of these companies is going to do this if it means a penny of loss. And therefore, there's no motive whatsoever for me to act any differently.
Maybe you just got unlucky... (Score:2)
A month or so later, BAM bought the rest, and I was now a BAM customer.
Later, BAM merged with Airtouch and a few others to form Verizon Wireless.
The end result? With each buyout/merger, I was better off and felt more at ease (Moving? Hey, no problem, I can get a service relo now!)
Also, with the exception of the Verizon strike period 2 years or so ago, I have been an EXTREMELY happy VZW customer. Their customer service reps are (for the most part) intelligent and courteos, and a pleasure to deal with.
Re:Verizon? (Score:2)
Suddenly it doesn't feel like I'm David with a pea-shooter facing down Goliath with a BFG9000. Good to see that we geeks have some big swingin' corporate friends. Thanks, Verizon.
I can see/hear it now... (Score:4, Funny)
Next up on the 11 o'clock news: Verizon cuts off Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti's cell, home, and office phone service due to some miscommunication problems. Verizon pleads innocent.
How about (Score:2)
Kinda Good News (Score:3, Interesting)
So you tried to fix Biden's bill?
We sat down with the content community, with (Capitol) Hill staffers, and offered up several different alternatives to get the service provider out of the bill. We proposed, for instance, that it apply only to the party initiating the transmission. That was rejected. We tried definitional approaches that made it clear the bill did not apply to an intermediary. That was rejected.
Did you try to work with the bill's sponsors directly? How about with Sen. Biden?
We've had a difficult time obtaining a carve-out. We think it's a very simple issue. The bill is intended to target the bad guys. There shouldn't be a controversy over exempting an intermediary.
When you lobby people on Capitol Hill, what do you tell politicians?
On the Hollings bill, we've discussed our concerns and talked about how the bill undermines our longstanding compromise (in the DMCA).
The ISPs would be happy to get a comprimise that would get the out of harms way. Sure they are currently against these bills, but as soon as they come up with some sort of DMCAesq comprimise, they'll shift sides.
For now they are just playing it up for PR, that's what the last response is, pure PR spin.
Though if Verizon and other telecommunications firms get what you want, you'd bow out of the debate. Since your interests are not exactly the same as consumers, wouldn't you be parting ways if that happens?
Not necessarily. We also want to see a law that's balanced and that the user community will also accept. The copyright community has to understand the reality that if consumers are not happy with the compromise...many of these illegal activities are going to continue.
No exceptions for ISPs (Score:2, Insightful)
Money.
If the content industry can hold the ISPs liable for anything that crosses their network, they can shift the cost of enforcement onto the ISP, rather than having to pay for it themselves (and the cost of the enforcement is prohibitive, so the content providers can't pay it themselves). They can also try to shift the blame to the ISPs in the public's eye. But money - the cost of enforcement - is the real issue. If the ISP cancels the account, the ISP is the one who gets sued, not the content provider. No court battle is necessary to subpoena the user's identity, and the cost of researching that identity falls on the ISP, rather then the content provider.
It's all about money. It's always all about money.
Re:No exceptions for ISPs (Score:2)
An accurate assessment, but you almost seem surprised. Businesses are created to make money. If they happen to sell something socially useful, so much the better, but a business that neglects to make money is eventually called a failure.
AARGHH! (Score:2)
Re:AARGHH! (Score:2)
Translation (Score:2, Insightful)
"The copyright community has to understand the reality that if consumers are not happy with the compromise...many of these illegal activities are going to continue."
Ms. Deutsch is being disingenuous here. If she was being completely candid, she would have said,
"The copyright community has to understand the reality that if consumers are not happy with the what they can get with broadband, they won't subscribe to it."
Amen!
MjM
I only mod up...
Meanwhile, back in a place much like Newark (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Meanwhile, back in a place much like Newark (Score:3, Funny)
DMCA a compromise? (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been no compromises on the Intellectual Property issue since the beginning of 1900.
IP laws favor IP-owners more and more, and the public good less and less. There has never been a change in IP-laws which favors the public.
The last time IP-laws were balanced was when they were first created, and copyright terms lasted 14 years. Since then, copyright terms have been extended repeatedly and retro-actively, to life + 75 years. The effect is that copyright terms are infinite, because every time something is about to become public domain, a new law is passed retro-actively extending the terms of copyrights.
This is wrong. When the government retro-actively extends the terms of copyrights (or other IP), it is a VIOLATING a contract made with the people of the United States. The contract was that we would pay for this content for so many years and support the authors rights with our money, in exachange for it falling into the public domain after a specified number of years.
Retroactive laws are, in all cases, immoral and unconstitutional.
Here's what I propose for IP terms:
Patents -- 10 years max. The power of patents is to be reigned in, such that they can't be used in overly broad ways. All general patents are to be denied. All patents offering minor variations of already existing technologies are to be denied. All patents where there was prior art are to be denied. It is both the government's and the patenter's responsibility to search rigorously for prior art. The patenter should have to prove that there was no prior art. If a patent is granted and prior art is later shown, the patent-holder is to be held liable.
Copyrights -- again, the bredth of copyrights is to be reigned in, and the scope reduced.
* Software -- 5 years initial. An additional # of years may be granted. The number of years granted is to be calculated as follows: (profit in 5th year / profit in 1st years) * 5 years.
* Music -- 10 years initial. An additional # of yeas may be granted. The number of years granted is to be calculated as follows: (profit in 10th year / profit in 1st years) * 10 years
* Movies -- 20 years initial. An additional # of years may be granted. The number of years granted is to be calculated as follows: (profit in 20th year / profit in 1st years) * 20 years
* Books -- 30 years initial. An additional # of yeas may be granted. The number of years granted is to be calculated as follows: (profit in 30th year / profit in 1st years) * 30 years.
Trademarks -- trademarks are a different story from other forms of IP. I do not think that their length should be changed. What should, however, be changed is their scope. They should be reigned in. Trademarks should only apply to the particular area in which they were registered, and should need to be very unique to be registered.
Re:DMCA a compromise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright reform and self correcting alternatives (Score:3, Informative)
The (profit last year)/(total previous profit) * scaler.
If one applied for a SW copyright (before working on a projcet) and then brought it out on the last year. It would skew the ratio to some huge value.
Here's [overclockers.com] an interesting proposal on copyright time allocation. And some nice counterpounts [overclockers.com] from writers and others that need to live off copyrights.
I'm wondering if some sort of copyright/patent power limitation should imitate progressive taxation, where you'd pay higher premiums if you own more copyrights/patents. Companies would tend to split up their copyright ownership (to reduce fees) while at the same time they would then be exposed to more anti-trust laws (because their satellite [copyright-holder] companies would have "intra-company" cooperative behavior subject to anti-trust laws.)
Re:DMCA a compromise? (Score:2)
What your saying in supporting 25 years of software protection is that Microsoft will still be profiting from Windows 95 in 2020. That's simply daft.
Similarly, do you really think that Britney Spears latest album will be significantly profitable 25 years from now (I'm a big fan of hers, but I doubt it).
As for the no extensions, that's fine with me. But different types of copyrighted material should be protected by copyright for different periods of time. Software items which are big sellers today won't even be at the computer markets in 5 years. Similarly with most music albums in 10 years. Books tend to have a longer life-span. The point is that different types of material drop off in profitability at different rates (either "going out of style" or becoming "obsolte" at different rates).
As for your enthusiasm for no patents, I believe it is misplaced. If patents are eliminated, corporations will simply hide their latest innovations (i.e., trade secrets), meaning that the exact same wheel may be reinvented dozens of times. Perhaps a more lax standard for prior art should be used; however, after a patent is accepted, any prior art should invalidate it, and challenging patents should be easy and cheap, allowing anyone to do it.
Aside from prior art, there are some things which simply should not be patentable. Ideas obtained by biopiracy should not be patentable. Life-forms should not be patentable. Business methods should not be patentable. Etc.
maybe... (Score:2)
The one quote that says it all.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right there, that is the whole point. Consumers aren't happy, and DRM, DMCA, Hollings et al are not making them any happier.
Good Thing (Score:2, Insightful)
You CAN make money by giving people products they WANT.
You know, instead of, like, shoving worthless redundant clones down our throats... *cough*moviesandmusic*cough*
Support information? (Score:2)
Good business vs. bad business (Score:4, Insightful)
Though if Verizon and other telecommunications firms get what you want, you'd bow out of the debate. Since your interests are not exactly the same as consumers, wouldn't you be parting ways if that happens?
Not necessarily. We also want to see a law that's balanced and that the user community will also accept. The copyright community has to understand the reality that if consumers are not happy with the compromise...many of these illegal activities are going to continue.
English translation:
"We know that if we listen to what consumers want, we will make more money in the end."
The RIAA, on the other hand, sees consumers as the enemy, ultimately. This is the real reason why they are losing money right now: Their very livelihoods depend on people that they have chosen to view as foes.
This is the difference between a business that makes money and has a future, and one that does not. I present this as some evidence that the companies of the RIAA are digging their own grave.
What drives the music industry forward, ultimately, is innovation. Consolidation and mass-marketing such as we've seen, however, is an anathema to innovation. Thus, the RIAA will suffer until the rebels win a big battle -- and then the RIAA will co-opt the rebellion, as if they knew it all along, and make big money once again. That's what happened in the late 70's and 80's, at least.
"Backing the pirate cause" (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep an eye on this (Score:4, Insightful)
The 300 pound RIAA/MPAA alliance gorilla just ran into a tank with a crew which would as happily blow them into the weeds as look at them.
RIAA/MPAA have suddenly become the underdogs. The telecomms probably have 5 lobbyists or more to every lobbyist the RIAA/MPAA has and they do contribute in proportion. They have to, as regulated industries, they must buy political influence, if they leave the Feds to their own devices, they won't like the results any more than we did. They are also in the unusual position of having popular support as well as money.
The good news is that any deal that really screws us as users may be very difficult to cut, because the very reason why an ordinary user gets broadband is what Hollywood wants to unplug. The fact that the telecomms favor mandatory licensing (expect minor increases in what we pay for bandwidth and recording media) is a very good sign. This would protect nicely what Hollywood says its real interests are. Can they live without a monopoly on broadcast access to users? They may get to find out.
People aren't going to be buying the products Hollywood would like to see us, pay-per-view movies or CD-quality music tracks from content providers for a very long time, this requires not broadband as we know it but 2nd generation broadband... 10mbps to the curb.
We may have to organize to save our own asses yet if the telecomms and RIAA/MPAA cut a deal we can't live with.
So keep your eyes open and your powder dry. It ain't over until the fat lady sings.
Fat Cat Fight (Score:4, Funny)
What say we just drop the charade entirely, put Hilary and Sarah in thongs, pour some honey on them and let them settle this issue with a televised pillow fight? We would probably end up with the same legislation we're going to get anyway, and it would be a hell of a lot more entertaining than C-SPAN.
I've got friends that could beat that gorilla down (Score:2)
Re:300 pound gorilla??? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the phrase was supposed to be "800 pound gorilla"
300, 800, either way you gotta admit that makes Hilary Rosen one heavy, hairy chick!
GMD
Rights of consumers? Don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)
The point here is that the RIAA is egotistical enough to think that they constitute an important industry, but if the piss off the telecoms (who do a couple orders of magnitude more business) then they'll find out who the REAL 800 pound gorilla is! I, for one, would love to see the Internet backbone providers simply start filtering out all the RIAA constituents' IP address, and see how quickly they back down...
Re:This is good news?... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a political battle, not an ethical battle. It will take all the help the "community" can find to win this. (Problem One: Very few people outside the community even know there is one.) People should be happy that Verizon is speaking out, and stop quibbling about their motivations.