Policy Blog

Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps has managed the art of saying much in a few words.  His latest salvo came in a 245-word letter to the editor in the Washington Post, in which he not only savaged yet another misbegotten Washington Post editorial about Internet policy, but also took on the Verizon-Google joint policy “recommendation” and then noted the cruel reality of the agency to which he has devoted almost nine years of his professional career.

He, and others, recognize that this is a unique time in the history of the FCC, and perhaps of regulation and politics.  It happens from time to time in Congress that a legislator will vote against a bill that he or she has introduced, usually after an amendment has been added that drastically changes the bill, or in the case of some shift in the political dynamic.

Ken Freedman is the station manager of WFMU, a pioneering freeform, listener-supported radio station in Jersey City. We discussed technology, copyright, and the future of broadcasting.

A transcript is available here. You can download and listen to the audio by clicking here (MP3) or stream it using the player below:

Want to subscribe to our podcast? Click here for the MP3 feed and here for the mixed audio/video feed.

Tom Tauke, Verizon’s erudite executive vice president for public affairs, made a valiant attempt the other day to try to salvage the policy deal his company made with Google.  In a speech at the Technology Policy Institute’s telecom forum in Aspen, he brought out arguments old and new to argue why it was that an agreement forged between two big companies to their benefit should be accepted.

Our hearts are heavy today, having learned of the passing yesterday morning of our beloved colleague, Public Knowledge Staff Attorney Adam Thomas.  Adam was a rare individual in this town - willing to take on any task no matter how small, always upbeat, eager for feedback be it positive or negative.  But what really set Adam apart was his courage.  Just 30 years old and thrice afflicted with Medulloblastoma - a rare and highly malignant form of brain cancer - he fought and beat it each time, until it returned a fourth time just a few weeks ago with a force too strong to overcome.  

While some ISPs are busy arguing to the FCC that the First Amendment makes net neutrality rules illegal, Congress is considering a bill (HR 3817) that would exempt ISPs from liability for providing fraudulent information to their customers. ISPs, of course, love this. Limitations from liability are great!

When Federal Communications Commissioner (FCC) Michael Copps issued a brief, two-sentence reaction to the news of a policy agreement between Verizon and Google over Net Neutrality, he deliberately emphasized one word.  In bold face and italics, Copps said that a “decision” had to be made, to guarantee an open Internet.

"Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward.  That’s one of its many problems.  It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”

I occassionally suspect my colleagues in the Public Interest community lack a sense of humor -- although perhaps it is simply that I am in a more relaxed frame of mind after my annual vacation from the 21st Century. I am neither surprised nor outraged at the recent news that members of the Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC) are picking up where the FCC "secret meetings" left off and trying to come up with a net neutrality consensus framework. To me, it seems rather sad and funny. My only surprise is that even in Washington, the notion of an industry trade association working with its members is anything unusual or significant. I mean, that's what industry trade associations do after all.

There’s an absolutely ridiculous story making the rounds—apparently the NAB and the RIAA have come to an agreement whereby the NAB will support broadcasters paying performance royalties, in exchange for the RIAA supporting a legal requirement that cell phones, mp3 players, and the like have FM receivers built in.

It's that time of year once again when geeks, music industry insiders and filmmakers of all stripes resort to shameless self-promotion in an attempt to be chosen to present at the annual South by Southwest (SXSW) conference in Austin, Texas. We here at Public Knowledge are no exception and we ask that you take a minute out of your day to vote for our two panels (using the stupidly large buttons embedded below), so that we can educate music bloggers about their rights and share ideas about new business models and revenue streams with professional musicians:

In my last post, I discussed the implications of Mattel v. MGA Entertainment on the idea-expression dichotomy in copyright law.  Even before getting to the issue of what was copyrighted and whether there was infringement in the case, however, the Ninth Circuit first had to address who owned the copyrights, trademarks, and other concepts underlying the Bratz doll line.