Tag: Policy Blog

You may remember that in March 2006, when the FCC had only four commissioners, a Verizon petition to have all common-carriage-type requirements lifted from its relationships with businesses was “deemed granted” by the Commission’s silence — split 2-2, the Commission said nothing by the deadline for action on that petition. This non-action was part of a steady, incremental removal of rules from highspeed access in the U.S. that is still going on.

There were a couple of news items recently that relate to this subject. First, the D.C. Circuit today heard argument on a challenge to the notion that “deemed granted” could be the end of the story. According to Blair Levin and his team (sorry, no link), the panel seemed skeptical that silence meant denial of the petition. But the judges also weren’t sure how to review a record of silence, and may send the thing back to the Commission for something a little noisier.

Also, AT&T’s petition for “forbearance” from common carriage obligations for many of its business relationships (excusing AT&T from having to state what its fees will be for internet access services provided to businesses, and avoiding rate of return regulation generally for these relationships), was largely granted by the Commission last week. This forbearance applies to most of the services AT&T offers to businesses, including its very-high-capacity “OCn” (optical carrier lines, involving thousands of voice grade equivalents) fiber-optic interoffice transport connections, packetized broadband, Frame Relay services, ATM services, LAN services, Ethernet-based services, video transmission services, and wave-based services, but not traditional DS1 and DS3 special-access circuits.

Just a few moments ago, YouTube introduced the beta version of its “video identification” system, the purpose of which is to control the amount of infringing material that appears on the site. Under enormous pressure from movie studios and record labels and their friends on Capitol Hill to filter out copyrighted material, and with the Viacom lawsuit looming, You Tube’s parent Google has developed a tool that will likely restrict the flow of legal content over the Internet, and absolutely raises the bar for each and every entity that serves as a conduit for copyrighted works.

Here is how the system works: A copyright holder uploads its works into a reference database, which then generates identification files by which uploaded videos are matched. When a user uploads a video onto YouTube, that video is matched with the identification file. If there is a “match” (more on that later), then the video is subject to whatever action the rights holder has decided to apply to it; for example, it could be blocked, “tracked” or “monetized.” If the video is blocked, the user will be notified, and can immediately contest the claim by clicking onto a link. Once YouTube receives the user contest, it will put the video back on the site. At that point, notice and takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) would kick in. If the copyright holder continues to want the video removed, it would have to send a takedown notice required by the DMCA. The user can send a counter-notice, whereupon the video would be reinstated, etc.

As Fox News and the rest of the conservative media/blog machine have happily crowed unto the skies, Google Ads dropped a set of ads from Senator Susan Collins (R-Me) critical of Moveon.org Collins is rnning for reelection, and apparently Moveon has now become the favorite bloody shirt to rouse the otherwise dispirited base. Apparently, Google informed Collins that because her ad used the trademark of someone else (here, Moveon.org, because these days everyone trademarks everything out of sheer self-defense), which Google bans under its advertising policy.

Brian Dudley, a columnist at the Seattle Times, has noted that just because Amazon’s mp3 downloads are DRM-free doesn’t mean they aren’t restricted. They’re just restricted legally, by contract.

The terms of service allow for some types of fair use. (Um, yay. You’re letting me do what the law already says I can. Though that’s above par for the course, so far.):

2.1 License. Upon your payment of our fees for Digital Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Digital Content for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to and in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. You may copy, store, transfer and burn the Digital Content only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use.

Last night’s debate among Republican presidential candidates was supposed to be about “the economic issues facing the American people,” as moderator Maria Bartiromo described the festivities.

The discussion meandered to and fro on the usual topics - taxes, trade, immigration, health care. Yet in all of these discussions of “economic” issues, there is a glaring omission — the telecommunications/Internet sector of our economy. Perhaps there is a perception that telecom and Internet policy is too complicated for public discussion, or only suitable for a select group of geeks and/or wonks.

There's been no shortage of discussion and debate on the $220,000 judgment against Jammie Thomas last week. Among the major questions is whether or not making a song available was a violation of copyright, even without any showing that the song actually was downloaded. This would be a dangerous trend, if the mere possibility of infringement is treated as an infringement. But what keeps grabbing the headlines are the numbers. And with good reason.

This case also shows the lunacy of the current statutory damages limits. The trial court found Thomas liable for violating the copyrights of 24 songs, at a rate of $9,250 per song. Contrast this with the actual loss to the record company, and the absurdity is clear.

Ian Rogers of Yahoo Music has a fascinating blog post containing a talk he gave to an audience of music industry folks. Basically, his point is that the user experiences provided by record labels and retailers are what’s losing them massive opportunities in online sales. The gist of the presentation is nicely summed up in its title: “Convenience Wins, Hubris Loses, and Content vs. Context, a Presentation for Some Music Industry Friends.”

DRM is one major example he gives of customer inconvenience:

While running “New Media” at Grand Royal I released the first day/date digital/physical release with At The Drive-In’s “Relationship of Command” . Thanks to EMI requirements (hi Ted! hi Melissa!) it was DRM’d WMA and we sold about 12 copies in the first month, probably all to journalists.

There appears to be a dropped connection between Verizon Executive Vice President Thomas Tauke, who talks with members of Congress and policymakers, and Verizon’s’ customer service representatives, who talk to the populace at large.

The dispute is over the most slender of media - a thin strand of glass, but its impact is immense — the future of telecommunications competition in this country.

At a hearing of the House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee Oct. 2, Tauke was asked by Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) about the Japanese policy of keeping copper wire in service, while Verizon discontinues the use of the copper network when it connects a customer to the FIOS, fiber-based service.

The Open Internet Coalition, of which PK is a proud member, today asked leading senators and members of Congress to take a closer look at some of the anti-consumer behavior recently exhibited by Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.

The litany of behavior is familiar — the blocking of NARAL’s text-messaging program, the censoring of Pearl Jam, the cutting off of customers.

All of that comes at a time when the telephone and cable industries have some heavy-duty requests pending on Capitol Hill and at the FCC. They want the Internet tax moratorium extended, as a way of keeping their rates down. They want protection from lawsuits for their spying activities. They want the last regulations requiring them to share lines in major markets eliminated.

Shouldn’t we get something in return? We think so. Here’s the letter:

The Honorable John D. Dingell, Jr. Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Thanks to reports from our allies in Geneva, we’ve learned that the WIPO General Assembly has decided that there will be no Diplomatic Conference on the Broadcast Treaty this year.

In my last post on the topic, I noted that the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), the subset of WIPO that was drafting the Broadcast Treaty, failed to reach an agreement, and reported this back to the General Assembly.

The General Assembly, keep in mind, was the body that had ordered the SCCR to come up with a draft treaty over the past year. Since the SCCR couldn’t, as a body, decide upon the terms of the treaty, it recommended that the GA make the following statement:

1. The General assembly is invited to