Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Lawyer Explains Telecoms' DMCA Position
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."
It's nice seeing a telco standing up for its users. The individual ISPs are too small to make a big difference, but Verizon is an 800 lb. gorilla in the field.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
A lot of non-profits, once they get major industry backing, ally themselves with industry.
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.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
But this move is largely designed for two reasons. With massive control over media, the reasons for having broadband start widdling their way down to nothing. Sure, you have a small minority that likes to download linux iso images for fun, but he majority of people have broadband for online gaming, mp3s, divx, p0rn, etc. The ISPs have to fight to make sure they don't lose the very reason for the existance of broadband. These ISPs are not the good guys, they just know that if they don't fight this, that they'll lose money.
Read the article. Specifically the second to last question. This isn't an act of philanthropy, it's just that Verizon's interests are shared with ours. None-the-less, they deserve to be congratulated for this effort. Corporate America isn't _all_ bad.
Good to see more weight behind individual rights, but what a way to bias a reader.
"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.
I think the biggest hurdle the telecoms and cable are going to have revolves around the above question. Telcos are used to smart networks and want them so they can charge for quality of service, premium content, etc. (Hence a lot of the articles about why business doesn't understand Internet.) Here they want to say "Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. I can't know what my users are doing!" By pushing for smarter networks, the telecoms open themselves up to the type of pressure the RIAA is applying.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
"Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., wants to implant copy-protection technology in software and hardware devices, and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., hopes to let copyright holders hack into and disrupt peer-to-peer networks."
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?
As usual, we only get anything when the giants are busy beating one another up, instead of focusing their fists and feet on us.
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!
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
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? Why not just avoid the process completely in the first place!
She seems surprised that ISPs couldn't negotiate an exception to the DRM bill. I can't imagine why. The reason for that refusal to compromise is pretty easy to deduce:
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.
"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...
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
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...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
That looks like a possessive to me. "A lot of Slashdotters don't know what the correct name of it is." Not "A lot of Slashdotters don't know what it is correct name is," which is how you'd have to read the sentence if it were a contraction.
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
Right there, that is the whole point. Consumers aren't happy, and DRM, DMCA, Hollings et al are not making them any happier.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Actualy, in my opinion, Music should be copyright by the original group, for as long as that group is in buisiness. For example, Beatles music should be public domain, the Beatles as a group are no more. Chicago music on the otherhand remains in copywrite because the group is still together and still performing.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Sure, we all know they are only against these laws because it hurts their bottom line, but I think it proves something that big Business seems to have forgotten:
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*
The longer I'm a member of the Human Race, the more I believe Apocalypse is a valid solution.
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff