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."

Comments

Well good

[MaxVlast]

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.

Re:Well good

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>It's nice seeing a telco standing up for its users

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.

Corrupt the EFF?

[sam_handelman]

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.

Correct me if i'm wrong...

[Critical_]

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.

Re:Correct me if i'm wrong...

[Tackhead]

> 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.

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:Huh?

[infornogr]

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.

Love the article's title

[charon_on_acheron]

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.

Is the Network Samrt or Dumb?

[robkill]

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.

Re:Is the Network Samrt or Dumb?

[_Sprocket_]

By pushing for smarter networks, the telecoms open themselves up to the type of pressure the RIAA is applying.

Indeed.

Before the CDA was struck down, 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?

I never thought about it this way, but...

[Ieshan]

"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?

Scraps from the giants' table

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

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!

Rights of consumers? Don't think so

[El]

The fact the Verizon and EFF are on the same side means that in this case, the interests of Verizon and the interests of the consumer just happen to coincide. Verizon wants to fend off 2 things: 1) Being forced to filter all content, detect and eliminate unauthorized copyrighted material. (Verizon understands that this is in fact impossible) and 2) Being forced to stand idly by while anyone claiming to be a "copyright holder" is allowed to launch DoS attacks bringing down their network.

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...

The one quote that says it all....

[MoneyT]

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.

Re:DMCA a compromise?

[MoneyT]

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.

Keep an eye on this

[alizard]

We are not saved. Look for RIAA/MPAA to try to cut a deal with the telecoms that gives them enough to cover their asses and leaves the end users out in the cold. However, it's difficult to see this situation as anything but good news.

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.