Add U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-MN) to the list of Washington policymakers insisting that there should be avenues for copyright owners and ISPs to target infringement on networks. It’s kind of hard to say we should build into law or regulations a safe harbor for illegal behavior, but it’s always nice when politicos here in town reinforce the obvious.

Franken spoke this week at the Future of Music summit in Georgetown (see his video on FoM’s site here, and here’s Copyright Alliance intern Chelsea Richardson’s take on the conference). I spoke there, too, but far more interesting was Franken and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Genachowski repeated his previous statements in his Senate confirmation hearing and in his recent announcement of an upcoming net neutrality rulemaking that there must be reasonable network management allowed to target illegal behavior online, including copyright infringement.

Franken spoke passionately in favor of net neutrality regulations, linking them to the First Amendment and even citing Iran as an example of, apparently, what we could face in the U.S. without regulations. (I think net neutrality rules are focused more on keeping corporations from controlling voices rather than the U.S. government, but I don’t think any of us want a government official deciding what we hear or read online).

But Franken also made clear that it was critical that copyright be enforced as well; he acknowledged he has profited from being a copyright owner as an author, and of course he has worked in television and radio much of his life. His career has been supported by copyright.

An audience member asked him what sort of technologies he’d permit in order to target online infringement. Franken, who earlier had been teasing former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) for comparing the Internet to a series of tubes, gave the right answer. He began by saying such a decision was either above or below his pay grade; he didn’t know how much a skilled engineer made in income relative to himself. But he then said he didn’t want to have a “tubes moment” by weighing in on something he didn’t truly understand.

The fact is, not even the most talented and brilliant technologist can tell us with certainty what technologies await five, ten, fifteen years from now that might provide robust efficiency in targeting the most egregious piracy online, the clearest cases, without threatening our privacy. What is clear, however, is that if we proactively place restrictions on technology itself — rather than behavior regarding the use of technology — those future technologies won’t exist, because there’s no incentive to develop technologies that can’t be used.

Franken sure sounded like he’s reluctant to lay down defined limits on technology, which any fan of the Internet, regardless of how they feel about copyright infringement, presumably should support. My argument in my panel presentation was that we should regulate behavior, not technology. Technology is neither good nor bad, and if it’s clear how one should conduct oneself, the technology is irrelevant. Dan Klein, a skilled technologist on my panel working in this space, agreed completely.

That is also the message I brought to the FCC in my testimony on September 17th, and it’s one I will continue to make on behalf of artists and creators everywhere.

Share this:

This entry was posted on Friday, October 9th, 2009 at 8:11 am by Patrick Ross and is filed under capitol hill, creators, events, internet, network neutrality, piracy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.