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."
In a battle of the titans which is bigger and has more govermental protection, the RIAA or Verizon? I know that Verizon is essentally a state sponsered monopoly, whereas the RIAA just kinda pushes laws through like the NRA and other industry type groups.
So which one do you think has more weight in the govermental arenas?
As much as I like to bash telcos, I gotta admit, Verizon and their lawyers are earning some respect.
Maybe except for Gandhi / Mother Theresa or Hitler / Barney the Dinosaur (pure evil!), nothing is ever an absolute. Some days one thing may be a strong shade of gray, the next it will be a light shade of gray. It will never be 0x000000 or 0xffffff.
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
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
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.
Its nice to see that the opponents of these bills have some sort of group of large compaines on their side. Though I wouldn't exactly say that Verizon is sticking up for the rights of the people. What they are fighting for is the protection of their networks and revenue streams. Looking at the responses to the questions, I don't doubt that Verizon et al. would exit the arena if they were given some sort of comfy loophole to sit in. Such as, they have to monitor and report on users, but they have no liability, and get some sort of content broadcast concessions from the media companies. Consider the following:
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.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
The DMCA is not a compromise. It is a free-for-all for IP interests.
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.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
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?
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.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
We all know "piracy" is the killer app for broadband.
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...
All that stuff is in their terms of use because it's all still illegal. Expecting an ISP to openly countenance or advocate any illegal activity is a bit like asking a private toll road operator to put up signs saying "Feel Free to Speed. Everyone else does it."
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.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
but it can't be much different than the royalty you pay on Audio CD-Rs
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..)