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

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

When did Verizon become the "good guy"?

Did something happen in Hell?

Re:300 pound gorilla???

[GuyMannDude]

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

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.

DMCA a compromise?

[dh003i]

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.