Obama, IP Enforcement and Net Neutrality
Thursday, November 5th, 2009 by Patrick RossEncouraging words yesterday from Victoria Espinel at her Senate hearing to be the first IP Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) in the White House, a position created last year by the PRO-IP Act. (See my general take on the hearing here.)
She was questioned by the newest member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Al Franken, the only non-lawyer on the committee. (As a non-lawyer in a sea of lawyers here in D.C., I can empathize.) Senator Franken is a major advocate of net neutrality regulations, as he made clear recently when speaking at the Future of Music Summit. But in that same speech he also said it’s essential that copyright be enforced, and noted his background in TV and as an author.
Mentioning the recent notice of proposed rulemaking put out by the FCC on net neutrality, Mr. Franken asked Ms. Espinel how we ensure an open Internet while at the same time “we also want to prevent piracy.” “Openness does not apply to lawful content,” Ms. Espinel replied, echoing FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski when he also appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as an Obama Administration nominee. Her role as IPEC will be to work across the government coordinating IP enforcement, and she said she would certainly be working with the FCC “to develop strategies to stop intellectual property theft… consistent with” Obama Administration positions on transparency and an open Internet. This is hardly surprising, since President Obama selected Ms. Espinel to be the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.
Mr. Franken asked how “tensions” could be resolved between an open Internet and copyright enforcement, but Ms. Espinel said “I don’t know that there necessarily have to be those tensions.” An open Internet is not benefited when filled with infringing material, she added. “It’s one of the issues I would grapple with” if confirmed, she said.
That approach is entirely consistent with the testimony the Copyright Alliance gave at a September 17th FCC Workshop. However policymakers approach regulating the Internet to ensure openness, they (1) must make a meaningful distinction between legal and illegal traffic, and (2) must regulate behavior, not technology, to allow new tools to reduce infringement while respecting legal traffic and user privacy.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Not impressed by the things you quoted. As somebody in the engineering side of the computer industry, this sounds like just another “Let’s do both!” from a politician when asked which of two mutually exclusive but good options they advocate. Effectively enforcing copyright on an open and free internet while preserving the inalienable rights of citizens is a very hard (perhaps even impossible) problem, a declaration I make based on my technical knowledge. As such I can only regard such claims with a highly skeptical “I’ll believe it when I see it”.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Oh, and on an unrelated note that I’ve been meaning to mention for some time, (part of) your color scheme is despicable. Gray text on white background = well-paid optometrist.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Justin, it would be a matter of priorities…..”Effectively enforcing copyright on an open and free internet while preserving the inalienable rights of citizens is a very hard (perhaps even impossible) problem, a declaration I make based on my technical knowledge. As such I can only regard such claims with a highly skeptical “I’ll believe it when I see it”.
Rights of creators should prevail over “open Internet”. Besides, “open Internet” is a very broad term and its not “free” for the most part. In fact, the point of access, (ISPs) should have been the point of accountability for rights holders before people’s copyrighted works became considered a part of the “open Internet”.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Max, you’ve rather efficiently proved Justin’s point: when “an open internet for all legitimate use” and “creators maintaining all their rights” come into conflict, you want the second to prevail. Justin is saying that this is (rightly) inevitable. I find it hard to believe you would be in favor of eliminating so much of the value in the internet (eliminating private communications or forcing constant inspections, structuring all new technology around a system of constant checks for possible infringement). This leads me to think that you may not fully understand the implications of what you’re asking for!
November 13th, 2009 at 10:14 am
SteveAK, Well I don’t see where I mentioned eliminating anything except the undermining of a Creator’s rights.
I know exactly what we want to implement and it has nothing to do with overkill like constant checks for infringement, DRM and other futile attempts at curbing piracy. We don’t even think that it is piracy so much as preferred methods of obtaining content.
To understand how smoothly and justly statutory rates are to society as a whole, you will first have to do your homework on what a statutory rate is. After that you and I may have a productive conversation. Until then…………..
December 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Max, I’ve looked on this sight and done some searching but I was wondering if you could either give a brief explanation of statutory rates or point me in the right direction.
If I follow what your saying then you don’t see any reason for someones right to privacy to but heads with someones copyrights.