FCC Commissioner Lauds DRM, ISP Filtering

snydeq writes "Ars Technica's Nate Anderson and InfoWorld's Paul Venezia provide worthwhile commentary on a recent speech by FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate (PDF), in which she praised DRM as 'very effective' and raised a flag in favor of ISP filtering. Anderson: 'Having commissioners who feel that the government has a duty to partner with and back educational classroom content from the RIAA; who really believe that ISP filtering is so unproblematic we can stop considering objections; and who think that universities worry about file-swapping because tuition might be raised to pay for the needed "expansion of storage capabilities" (huh?) isn't good for the FCC and isn't good for America.' Venezia: 'Leave the ISPs out of it — it's not their job to protect a failing business model, and a movement toward a tiered and filtered Internet will do nothing to stem the tide of piracy, but will result in great restrictions on innovation, freedoms, and the general use of the Internet. There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies.'"

Comments

Her email address

[Tubal-Cain]

dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov

Re:Her email address

[Killer Orca]

Anyone who is going to email her should also do so before she leaves in '09, not after.

Re:Her email address

[Afforess]

I wrote her an email. Thanks for the address. It follows, verbatim: "Dear Deborah Taylor Tate, I recently became aware of your support of DRM (Digital Rights Management) and ISP (Internet Service Provider) filtering. I am deeply disappointed in your decision and will factor your policies choices, among other things, in with my vote in the next national election. In any case, I urge you to drop your support of DRM and ISP filtering because of the numerous economic and constitutional issues they raise. ISP filtering is akin to having the USPS read all of your mail before delivering it to you, "For national security purposes." Is that really necessary? Is the average American guilty until proven innocent? DRM is a sneaky way of saying "Ha, I lied, you only rented that movie, you don't really own that copy." When they decide that not enough people care about the product (This decision is completely arbitrary, by the way), they end DRM support. This has happened time and time again, and one merely has to look as far as Wikipedia for numerous examples. Although, on a more positive note, I am glad that you at least make decisions at all, and don't equivocate, like some politicians we know. A discontented American Citizen, Cameron McAvoy."

Re:Her email address

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Great, because after reading the tags on the story, I am /positive/ that she'll get plenty of insightful, well-thought-out email from the slashdot crowd.

DRM is effective

[Anthony_Cargile]

pshyeah, tell that to the pirate bay!

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Former FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate has announced she is retiring in 2009 and is looking forward to serving on the board of the RIAA as their new "Token Ex-Government Paid Mouthpiece" Director.

Hitting the Nail Headwise

[DynaSoar]

"...There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies."

That's precisely the reason the government would back it. Governments have created corporations and have conducted wars for exactly that reason.

Re:Hitting the Nail Headwise

[Anonymous Coward]

I've really come to believe that some of this is an ideological problem. Some people seem to believe the rich people and successful businesses, by being successful, have shown themselves to be smarter and to have better judgment than the rest of us. "After all", they think, "If I were smart enough to make massive amounts of money, I would!"

For as long as the wealthy are doing well, the people who think this way also think that, ideally, we should hope that the rich get richer. Since the wealthy are so smart and have such great judgment when it comes to financial matters, they're best equipped to manage money. Society will be most benefited by having as much money as possible concentrated in the hands of the greatest financial geniuses.

And then when the wealthy start to fail, they think, "Well these people are the best of the best. If the smartest people with the best judgement are failing, then it must mean that the system has been broken by someone. We need to fix this! Whoever is ruining things, we should stop them!"

I may be stating the obvious, but I've only recently discovered that this is how some people think. Crazy, huh?

I need to get out of here.

[Tubal-Cain]

Are people allowed to settle on Antartica?

It's almost as if

[sleeponthemic]

We're entering some sort of technological dark ages - the honeymoon period is now over.

The mainstream regulation committees have taken interest in these type of subjects and as usual, the ignorance/commercial interests is/are beginning to shine through.

Has he seen how successful it's been in Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in .au the government is scaling back it's plans for filtering due to being laughed at by anyone who knows anything about the internet.

In a recent call for ISPs to participate in live tests of their system the biggest ISP here said no, it's stupid. The second biggest said OK, but we won't block all that you want us to, and the third biggest said we'll participate fully just to show you how dumb you're being.

It seems that the point was finally driven home and now the government is trying to back down without losing face.

Maybe another K-Street restriction needed

[ishmalius]

Maybe with the new administration it could be a rule that an FCC employee who is involved in regulation cannot work for a telecommunications company or one of their contractors or agents, for 10 years prior, or 10 years after employment.

It's reaching, I know, but it's a dream I have. Real honesty, and no more corporate ass-kissing.

The CTIA and their minions have a special place in Hell.

Re:Maybe another K-Street restriction needed

[syzler]

So you want people who know nothing about the internal workings of the Internet to decide whether or not to regulate parts of the internet? How exactly does this help the US people? My experience from working at an ISP/Telecommunications company is that the actual engineer types usually are against regulations, filtering, DRM, etc; and it is the bean MBA types that push this type of thing down our throats. By forbidding the engineering types from working for the FCC until their knowledge is horribly out of date, you would be effectively making the FCC rely on outside "expert" witnesses put forth by the MBA types of the companies with agendas.

Perhaps another meme from the Reagan era

[smchris]

Remember, managers don't have to know anything about their field; they just need to know "management stuff".

National Bailout

[iVasto]

In recent news, the RIAA has appealed to congress for a national bailout. Congress realizes that they have a failing business model, but believe that if the industry was given a "couple" billion dollars everything would change.

The FCC is another out-of-touch bureau

[damn_registrars]

I have had the unfortunate need to try to contact the friendly FCC lately, due to unwanted phone calls (they are the communications commission, after all). I can tell you that they are every bit as frustrating to work with as the DMV, minus the efficiency and courteous service.

Though the most frustrating aspect of the FCC, from my vantage point, is their lack of concern for accountability of phone customers. If you compare phone registration to domain name registration, you'll find that phone registration has all the built-in obfuscation that computer spammers have dreamed about. Toll-free numbers, in particular, have protected identity information.

If you get a call from a toll-free number, you have no good mechanism to determine the owner of the number. There is no central whois-like registry for this number, and the companies that sell the numbers are under no obligation to share information on who is using the numbers they sell.

Want to lodge a complaint with the FCC? Fill out their automated form, and you'll see an automated response later. It won't likely address your complaint. And if you call their own number (888-call-fcc), you'll wait for some time and then receive no help.

Frankly, KMart is a shining example of customer service in contrast to the FCC.

welcome to the age of the internet

[circletimessquare]

bureacracy is just damage to route around

block the servers, we make it p2p

block the ports, we make it http

sniff the packets, we mask it as as form gets and posts

throttle our connection, we just download slower fractional pieces and assemble in alternative channels

a billion media hungry, poor, and, most importantly, technically astute young people. far more technically astute, far more numberous, and a lot more motivated than your hired tech guns. you can't pay someone to do well enough what we do for free from passion

go ahead, sue us. if you can find us. go ahead, bankrupt some poor dumb college kids. like those you catch are anything but dumband clueless. go ahead, reap the bad pr. nothing stops, full steam ahead

game on, ignorant dinosaurs. its the extinction of your outmoded business models and your laws based on philosophies from the 1800s understanding of media

whether your realize it, or fight it, or whatever, you lose, no matter what you do. you just don't know it yet

Four points as response

[Anonymous Coward]

Sent via Fax: 1-866-418-0232

Dear Commissioner Taylor Tate:

As president of a small software company in New Hampshire I am quite aware of the critical place that copyright law plays in protecting my company's software and intellectual property.

I just read the PDF of your speech last week at Penn (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287150A1.pdf), and I must say that this it is a striking piece of work.

It seems laden with misinformation, half truths, fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's hard to see where to begin, but I will raise four points:

1) You spend a good third of the speech citing truly frightening statistics about the losses borne by creators of intellectual property. I would appreciate support for the numbers that you mention - the US Chamber of Commerce figure is particularly suspect, as it appears to refer to various other studies that ultimately rely on that original CoC figure.

As a taxpayer, I ask you to provide the raw data for these statistics your argument relies on.

2) I'm astonished that you include auto and fashion industry losses as ones of copyright. Certainly counterfeit products could be guilty of trademark infringement or outright fraud, and drug counterfeiting might be criminal.

But it seems sloppy rhetoric to use such a broad brush in your talk.

3) You then go on to cite efforts to use technology to minimize copyright violations. These watermarking and fingerprinting measures allow copyright holders to easily and reliably identify their content on public web sites. This, too, strikes me as a good way to make effective use of the current DMCA to take down the offending material.

However, these seem to undermine the thesis of your talk that, "We have to do something about this!"

4) The final part of your speech goes on to stump for greater education, at the expense of scaring the bejesus out of the audience, and completely ignoring (or worse, trampling) the right of Fair Use.

In short, this was a red-meat speech that strives to stir up all the bogeymen of the "bad Internet".

As a taxpayer and small-C conservative, I was hopeful that a federal government employee might present a more balanced view, especially to a university audience who could understand the nuances, of the current state of the law and a more thoughtful view of the national policy might be.

I would appreciate a response, especially on the raw data for the statistics you cite.

Best regards,

Rich Brown
Hanover, NH USA