Filtering

If you haven’t read about it, the New York Times reported yesterday that: Microsoft May Build a Copyright Cop Into Every Zune. Essentially, the large content provider would withhold their content from a distributor unless the distributor put in effective measures to prevent against piracy. We’re not talking about DRM here, we’re talking about filtering software, whether it resides on the playback device like a Zune or iPod, or in the software on a syncing computer that stores the consumers’ library of music and movies like the Zune or iTunes software. This software would troll your library checking for content that was somehow infringing or unauthorized. It may even be spyware that could report back to someone about the contents of your media library.

NOTE: My original blog post on this topic stated that the Tennessee state legislature was on the verge of passing SB 3974, a copyright industry-supported higher ed filtering bill. As discussed below, SB 3974 has been replaced with a different (and weaker) version. I regret the error.

Alan Davidson visited Yale Law School today, speaking to my Internet Law class and to a large lunchtime group. Key takeaway for me: the center of gravity of internet policy is not so much in Washington any more. Discussions of Issues like ISP filtering and data retention are taking place in Europe with enormous energy. There things we might take for granted here — like avoiding online content regulation, or the undesirability of using ISPs as private police — are actively considered.

At the same time, Alan points out, architectural constraints that we also used to take for granted, like “it’s too difficult to look at the packets that are crossing our networks,” or “we can’t know with any reliability where people are coming from who visit our sites” are melting away.

Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society
Palo Alto, CA

The Commission will hear from expert panelists regarding broadband network management practices and Internet-related issues. The hearing at Stanford Universityis open to the public, and seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Additional details on this hearing will be forthcoming.

For additional information please visit: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5729

OK. Hopefully you all realized that S. 4108, the APRIL Act of 2008, was a joke. After all, there were a few excesses in there that would indicate how ludicrous the bill is.

On March 19, I was invited to a symposium at Penn Law entitled “Copyright and the Internet: Solutions for a Digital World.” The panel before mine was dedicated to reconciling copyright and the first amendment in the areas of filtering, takedown notices, and fair use.

The panel discussion was fascinating, and covered more ground than I can do justice to here. What I want to focus on was a particular point addressed by Jannifer Pariser, Senior Vice President of Sony BMG’s Litigation and Anti-Piracy department.

Please join Public Knowledge, Harvard’s Berkman Center, Google, and the Family Online Safety Institute for a discussion featuring Professor Jonathan Zittrain previewing his forthcoming book, The Future of the Internet—And How To Stop It, with a response by Professor Larry Lessig.

Google D.C.
1101 New York Avenue NW, Entrance on I (Eye) Street
Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005

To RSVP please visit: http://services.google.com/events/dc_futureinternet

The House Commerce committee investigation of the FCC continues. According to the Washington Post, a detailed letter signed by Rep. Dingell has gone out to the FCC asking for a host of documents that (among other things) relate to “management practices that may adversely affect the Commission’s ability both to discharge effectively its statutory duties and to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse.” This is serious - business as usual at the Commission must be under severe pressure, and the idea of real structural reform of the Commission (and perhaps a new telecommunications act) can now be talked about with some confidence. This won’t happen now, but it could be happening a year from now.

Yesterday’s House Judiciary hearing (witness statements and archived video here) had a deeply political angle - what committee should have jurisdiction over network neutrality issues - but also revealed to me that:

We’re seeing the moment when Hollywood, law enforcement, and the network access providers publicly attempt to join hands in favor of monitored/monetized network access.

Last month, Public Knowledge submitted comments to the European Commission in response to this communication on online creative content. The Commission was asking for input about a variety of topics, including making DRM interoperable, creating licenses that would work across national boundaries within the EU, and how to deal with online piracy.

PK’s comments focused on just two of the 11 separate questions put for the by the Commission, about potential enforcement mechanisms against online infringement. Those questions were:

10) Do you consider the Memorandum of Understanding, recently adopted in France, as an example to followed?

11) Do you consider that applying filtering measures would be an effective way to prevent online copyright infringements?