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
When did Verizon become the "good guy"?
Did something happen in Hell?
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.
As much as I like to bash telcos, I gotta admit, Verizon and their lawyers are earning some respect.
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.
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.
It's "DMCA." Not "DCMA."
/. editors will fix it shortly, but I must assume that a lot of Slashdotters don't know what its correct name is. I'll repeat it.
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!
qslack.com
"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
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
watch this
I used to have Verizon for my phone line, them being the incumbent in Massachusetts. I've never seen a worse company! I call up their customer service, wait half an hour, get somebody who doesn't know anything they're talking about; rarely could I accomplish anything constructive. Phone lines having a problem? Just have to wait it out, until the problems pass.
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.
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.
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 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
Satan is staring incredulously at the ceiling, as icicles begin to form. He calls over one of his assistants and asks, "What happened? Did the Cubs win the penant?" "No", his assistant replies, "Worse, Verizon is on the other side now." Stunned, Satan picks up the phone and dials. "Hello, Mr. Powell, I have a problem I need you to solve." A smile comes to his face, as he places the handset down.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
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
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
You'll have to put in some default caps too...
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 an interesting proposal on copyright time allocation. And some nice counterpounts 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.)
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"
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
The thing that interests me most about this whole war is that it throws harsh daylight on our make-believe democracy. Given that my opinion and the opinion of everybody reading this doesn't mean shit to the representatives we elected, it's kind of satisfying to see the people actually do run the government bashing away at each other like battlebots.
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.