[ Inaudible Discussion ] ^M00:00:21 >> Okay, thank you for being here today. My name is Paul Brigner, I'm the Regional Bureau Director of North America for the Internet Society. And this is the 2012 New York INET and we have a nice crowd here, but we have a very nice crowd online, too. So, everything we do today is about getting your input and--as well as getting input from our remote channel. I just want to first welcome you all, thank you for being here. I've got a couple of thank yous I have to say. I've had some great support from the New York Chapter in doing these events. We've worked together on this for a long time now, and in particular, David Solomonoff as the president, he deserves some credit for this and also Joly MacFie deserves a lot of credit because he helped publicized this event. I need to thank our ISOC staff in particular Nicole is here, Nicole Armstrong. She did a great work in helping organize this event. So--And the New York Law School, 'cause this is an awesome venue for this event. So that's that. So we're here for an INET, but I think it's--whenever an event for the Internet Society, I always like to start off by making sure that everyone knows who we are and what our mission is, so let me just read that to you briefly. We are a global nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution, and use of the benefit for all people around the world. Since 1992, ISOC has served as a global clearinghouse for technically sound, unbiased information about the internet as an educator, and as a focal point for a broad-based community of interest engaged in internet-related initiatives around the world. We provide the organizational home for the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, and the Internet Research Task Force. As well, we just launched the Internet Hall of Fame this year. So there're a lot of good things going on at the Internet Society and if you are not a member and I suspect all of you are, but if you are not, I highly encourage you to join because you will be supporting the internet and events like this. So please do so. There's free membership option, so there--really, there's no reason not to join if you're a believer in this initiative. See, I also wanted to mention that we have more than 55,000 members around the world and 90 chapters over 130 organizational members. So we are very active globally. Speaking of our activities around the world, we actually are having another INET in Singapore, tomorrow and the next day, and I thought that was kind of interesting to mention because that might be more of a characteristic type of INET that we have. I just want to mention that real quick. I thought the topic was kind of interesting. It's about SoLoMo. And it's the first I've heard this acronym, but it's about social, local, and mobile highlighting the convergence of social media, location-aware technology and mobile devices. So it gives you an idea of what we might do at some INETs. And I think that this INET is particularly interesting because it's a little different than covering a broad topic. It's covering digital content as an issue, but in particular, it's covering the copyright alert system which is a very interesting system that is launching soon. We're going to learn all about it today. So I'm not even going to try to describe it to you because I would probably get it wrong and we have all the experts here who are going to tell us exactly what it is. But it is unprecedented to have internet service providers, content providers, and others working together to help the internet content be delivered in a way that hopefully is beneficial to the internet ecosystem, and that's what we're going to learn and be able to possibly determine for ourselves. So, as a personal note, I like to address difficult questions head on. We're addressing some difficult questions here today. But, personally, I'm very interested in this topic as well. I think a lot of you know that I have a background of having worked Verizon as well as the Motion Picture Association of America and now at the Internet Society. So, I kind of blend a lot of the different topics that are being discussed today and I want to make it clear that, well, this is a topic that is very much of interest in me. The Internet Society does not have a position on the Copyright Alert System. So we are also not encouraged by any of the organizations here to do this event as a service to them. We are doing this is a service to the internet community. And first and foremost, we're doing it at the encouragement of our New York City Chapter. So, if there's any question about that, I hope that that puts that to rest because this is about keeping you informed and making sure that when there is a significant activity that's happening on the internet, we know what it is and we know what kind of effect it's going to have. So with that, I would like to invite David Solomonoff, the president of the New York Chapter to come up and say a few comments to help kick us off, so David. >> Thank you. ^M00:06:01 [ Pause ] ^M00:06:14 Hi, I'm David Solomonoff, President of the Internet Society New York Chapter. I'd like to welcome everybody here to the INET New York Open Forum on the Copyright Alert System. Sometimes it's called the "Six Strikes" Program which will kick off on November 28th. Internet access is a necessity of modern life and is being seen as a human right at some countries now, that's obviously the trend. Intellectual property has become an economic asset that is at least or more valuable than physical property. So in this context, where strictly removing internet access for a person as punishment for copyright infringement is analogous to the loss of freedom due to incarceration. Therefore, an internet copyright enforcement regimen that includes restricting or blocking internet access must be effective and minimize harm. To be effective, it must provide equal protection for--to all. So not only protect big media or contact creators of media companies, but other contact creators with more limited financial and legal resources must be protected as well. Also contact creators who choose to share their works with specific requirements and restrictions on the reuse must also be protected. So open source software developers or creative content license, you know, artistic works that require specific types of attribution although they are allowed to be shared, that type of, you know, license must be enforced as well. It's necessary to minimize harm. So we must assume innocence until guilt is proven and as we do in our current legal system, we must have due process, we must provide adequate means of redress including recompense of damage caused by false accusations of copyrighting infringement. But some types of loss, damage, injury or even death may be impossible to compensate or if a species or abusive accusation of infringement cause even a brief delay in the dissemination of time-sensitive information. So examples would be a whistleblower, warning of negligence, an infrastructure maintenance before a storm, a political dissident piloting a mass protester, warning of possible voter fraud before an election, the failure of internet-connected burglar alarms, fire alarms, and medical devices, time-sensitive financial transactions which cannot be completed in a timely manner. The few accusation for infringement must also not have a chilling effect on innovation or free expression including fair reviews, [inaudible], transformative creative use such as mash-ups, remixes and so forth. So today, we're going to have a multistakeholder dialogue about these issues which includes media companies, ISPs, internets, civil liberties activists that determine how the Copyright Alert System meets its requirements and if it doesn't, how it could be changed to do so. Thank you. >> Thank you very much David, appreciate that. So, I have a big favor to ask you. We already have a large group of people online watching right now. But if you're online in the room and--for those of you that are online, please take a moment to tweet for us and let others know that this event is happening. If you're trying to get on the internet here in the room, there is a password that--username-password is visitor, visitor, okay? So that would get you on. By the way, since we're talking about in the room logistics, we do a lot of input from the room but when you push the buttons for the microphone, you have to push it to speak and then you have to push it to turn it off. Okay, because if you do not turn it off, then the next person can't activate their microphone. All right? All right, so our hashtag for today is INETNY or Copyright. ^M00:10:05 So please use those hashtags. We are having a back channel question system that's available for you to either submit questions or to vote up and down questions which is that inetny.backchan.nl, so it's backchannel, B-A-C-K-C-H-A-N- dot N-L. And finally, when you do tweet, make sure you put in the livestream video which is bit.ly/isoctv, B-I-T dot L-Y slash ISOCTV. So enough of that, I would like to now turnover to my colleague Konstantinos Komaitis. He came all the way from Geneva. He is part of our public policy team at Internet Society and he is going to talk a little bit about some of our--he's going to frame, I should say, some of the public policy issues that are going to be addressed here and I think that will be very helpful to us all. So Konstantinos. >> Thank you Paul and good afternoon to all of you. So in 2009, France introduced HADOPI, a law especially designed to carve online copyright piracy. HADOPI was the first of a subsequent wave of legislation across the world to take the extreme position of disconnecting people from the internet, essentially cutting them off from what Former US President Bill Clinton has characterized an integral part of economic, political and social life. Since then, various jurisdictions around the world have began to look into ways to address copyright infringement, the former of unauthorized downloading of copyrighted materials through peer-to-peer networks. What makes these laws interesting is that although they all seek to address the same issue, they do so at different degrees and levels. Some, like HADOPI, are purely public in nature and have to adhere to basic constitutional imperatives. Others, like the self-regulatory system enforced by Eircom in Ireland are--take a more or less fair approach and have been criticized for liking the necessary constitutional or other due process safeguards. In fact, Frank La Rue, UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has frequently stated his distress by proposals to disconnect users from internet access if they violate intellectual property rights citing 3 strikes law specifically and condemning such frameworks as human rights violations. All this indicate part of the struggles the internet community has been facing in trying to identify ways to address the tension that appears to exist between intellectual property rights and the way they are expressed in the internet space. These, as we are all witnessing, has turned out to be a much more difficult task than any of us originally anticipated. So at the one side of the spectrum, the content industry in the form of producers and everyone else involved in the process of creating content have--are asserting that copyright infringement is having a significant impact on business models and the economy. Users in civil society, on the other hand, have raised their voice on the impact strict copyright regimes are having on basic fundamental rights and civil liberties such as freedom of expression, free speech, and due process. Somewhere in the middle are technology companies which have taken the view that laws, regulations, and policies should not use the internet, its technologies and platforms in order to cure copyright infringement. Another approaches necessary they argue if the internet is to continue to evolve organically. In a similar vein, internet service providers have so far resist legislative attempts that seek to unconditionally turn them into supervisors of content, but this resistant is always wearing thing--is also wearing thing. And so here we are, the unsuccessful attempt of the United States to pass copyright legislation in the form of SOPA and PIPA last year, as well as the overwhelming rejection of ACTA by the European Parliament in July manifested two things. The first one was that intellectual properties are unequivocally part of a much larger discussion, a discussion that necessitates the inclusion of everybody who is concerned with or has vested interest on the internet. The second was the traditional forms of legislations--or legislation, regulations, directives, treaties, conventions are not always best suited to address the complexities and particularities of copyright law. Given these and seeking to address copyright piracy, 5 of the largest ISPs in the United States have entered a memorandum of understanding with trade groups representing major copyright owners. Among the various issues the MOU seeks to tackle, it was also authorized the creation of the center of copyright information, the body responsible for the micromanagement of the copyright alert system. Based on self-regulatory archetypes, the copyright alert system is a privately-designed and a means that enforcement mechanism which will be incorporating the contractual agreement between broadband providers and users. One of the key characteristics and a key difference of the copyright alert system is that it does not seek, at least explicitly, as an end goal to suspend users' internet connections, thus cutting them off the network. The Internet Society is generally in favor of industry-based initiatives to address various issues including those relating to intellectual property. A self-regulation refers to initiatives produced and enforced by dependent bodies or trade associations. We feel that such private entities could prove beneficial in overseeing market participant actions through different processes such as standard setting, certification, monitoring, brand approval, warranties, product evaluation and arbitration. For self-regulatory mechanisms to be successful, they should include standards for real consent, this way, setting in motion and contractual matrix of private regulation. In cases where consent is not present, public legal institutions are required to specify the criteria that entitled private regulatory regimes to acquiescence and immunity. But ultimately, it is important to understand that all initiatives based on self-regulation are expected to operate under minimum standards of justice and in fairness. Rules consequential to private regulatory efforts should provide equal opportunities to the distribution of institution shares. With this in mind, private regulation offers some notable advantages in ensuring that the fundamental values which normally are at stake in the construction of cyberspace can be protected by allowing interested parties to participate in the formation of rules and principles that are not subject to the cumbersome nature of traditional lawmaking. As Professor Post accurately put it, we don't need a plan but a multitude of plans from among which individuals can choose and the market is most likely to bring that plenitude to us. In a much similar vein, Robert Pitofsky, a former chair of the Federal Trade Commission, referring to industry-led regulation enumerated a couple--the following advantages. Self-regulatory groups may establish efficient product standards. Private standards setting can lower the cost of production. Private regulation helps consumers evaluate products and services. Self-regulation may detect contact that is universally considered undesirable but outside the purview of similar criminal law and finally self-regulation is more prompt, flexible, and effective than government regulation. However, industry regulation has also some significant disadvantages. In particular, some scholars have challenged the legitimacy of the authorities created to deal with issues emanating from cyberspace. Their main concern relates to the ability of such authorities to create policy and enforce rules to the traditionally fall within the democratic state. Given this understanding, one of the most worrying aspects of private regulation is arguably that many of its advantages are based on false premises in those criteria. Amongst other things, private regulation may easily fail to protect democratic values. It can neglect basic standards of justice. It is often less accountable compared to traditional governmental rulemaking and because of the internet, it is increasingly and mostly inflicted through computer code which by nature circumvents legal and political institutions that ideally ensured just and democratic values. On this basis, a consent of private regulation refers to issues of accountability or it's like thereof and to the fact that no mechanism be it governmental or self-regulatory can be allowed to wave around the imposition of duties of due process and equal protection through the creation of formally private intermediaries for policy making. Because of these challenges, the Internet Society believes that all issues of policy related to the internet should be deliberated and discussed under multistakeholder framework. Intellectual properties wants that issue. The experience of SOPA,PIPA, and ACTA have aided this understanding and have manifested the need for electors, government, civil society groups, businesses and the technical community to be part of the wider collective discussion. A discussion that seeks to find ways to address these issues without affecting the internet and its underlying technologies without sacrificing the existing rights of intellectual property owners or putting jeopardy hard-fought fundamental liberties. This was essentially the message communicated in 2005 during the World Summit on Information Society in Tunis where heads of states considered it important for all issues pertaining to the internet can be detached from traditional rulemaking and to become part of a new governance arrangement that is based on cooperation, collaboration and partnership. Under the Tunis agenda, internet governance is to unambiguously be conducted through a multistakeholder framework where each stakeholder participates on an equal footing offering different perspectives. We feel that the Tunis agenda [inaudible] should constitute the foundation and the basis for all future policy work in the space. And like Paul, I am very much waiting forward to a robust discussion and to learn more about this self-regulatory system. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Konstantinos. So without any further delay, I would like to invite our first moderator to come up, Declan McCullagh. He is the Chief Political Correspondent for CNET and he and our other moderator Jeff Jarvis had been selected because they are very vocal in their views, they are very independent in their views, and they always do a good job of informing internet community about what's going on and we appreciate their work so, Declan, thanks. ^M00:20:18 >> So hi and thanks for coming. My name is Declan McCullagh. I cover technology law public policy for CNET and I've spent 10 years in DC and I'm out in the West Coast and I've been covering copyrights for far too long since I actually remember some of the original digital millennium copyright activates from the 1990s. So we have 2 panels today and this one is probably more of a descriptive one. This is actually how the system works and the next one we're going to hear from some advocacy groups. There's--Now, everyone up here likes the system. Everyone in the next panel may not like it as much. So I--There's not going to be a whole lot of internal dissension I suspect unless I do a really good job in trying to provoke them. There's--Jill, I think it makes the most sense for you to go first unless we have a strong preference otherwise that you're going to be running this. You already are running this. So-- [Inaudible Remark] [laughter] In a few minutes, [inaudible], I'm sorry. How is this going to work at a high level? Is it 6 strikes, 6 complaints and then I get my internet connection hold or is it something more benign than that? >> You're just baiting me with [inaudible] [Multiple Speakers][laughter] We have to start there. So hello, I am Jill Lesser. I am the Executive Director of the Center for Copyright Information, which was set up under the Memorandum of Understanding to help manage the copyright alert system and also develop an educational program around copyright going forward. Just a bit about my background because one of the reasons why it's really interesting for me to sit here is because I spent most of my career on the internet side of policy and politics, being the first policy director at AOL starting in 1996 when the Communications Decency Act was first introduced. And then ended up at AOL Time Warner briefly since that merger was only briefly in place trying to meet in the middle between the content and the internet or distribution brands of that large company and so I've been around these issues for a long time and was intrigued by a coming together around trying to find some solutions in a narrow space around copyright issues and I am--I know there is certainly lot of skepticism out there but I am excited about what we're doing and I think pleasantly surprised by how much work and contemplation and commitment has gone into this process from both sides. So let me start by saying the copyright alert system in its--you know, sort of where we are today. So the MOU was announced in July of 2011 and we have been working for just over 15 months for implementation and the reason we've been working for 15 months towards implementation is because we primarily want to get this right and getting it right for us means a couple of things. It means number 1, trying to make sure that we are using technical methodologies and approaches that minimize the tagging of content that is not in fact copyrighted and is not in fact being shared, distributed over peer-to-peer networks without proper authorization. We also want to make sure that as the content owners are out there looking for their content and notifying the appropriate ISP as based on internet protocol addresses that the ISPs on the other side are appropriately and protecting--while protecting privacy, identifying the correct subscriber and then passing these alerts on to those people, onto the primary account holders and I think it's important to note that our notices are going to the primary account holders who may or may not be the person engaged in the activity. We are--So first and foremost is putting in a set of methodologies that minimize false positives and make sure that we're getting to the right people. The second thing and this really was something that came out of our putting together a consumer advisory board which was mandated in the MOU, but sort of having it come to life has given us an enormous amount of ability to really focus on what's important and that is to go out in a research-based environment and talk to consumers, you know. What does copyright even mean? Why do people regularly think it's fine to simply trade in copyrighted material-- >> Let me cut you off there because we have a good high level overview, but now it's switch to for Hollywood view, how about Ben from the MPAA. How are you going to actually track down people who--the users of these ISPs who are accused of violating copyright? There's a third party company, MarkMonitor, you're going outsource to them. They're going to flag--is a human going to review every instance of a complaint, independently review or just sort of represent. How is this going to work? >> Well, I've--thanks Declan for having us. The methodologies--although the copyright alert system in the form that it's about to launch is new. Really, the methodologies and the sort of means of enforcement and notices are really not new. Copyright owners, movie studies, or record companies have been doing this for really over a decade and at a very high level, what it means is--what it entails is joining publicly-accessible peer-to-peer networks and seeing what is in individual peers--individual users shared folder for which they voluntarily exposed to the world by joining peer-to-peer networks. You don't know their names but you know their IP addresses and you know the files that they're sharing with the world. From that, there are very--I'm not going to go into great details if all the stuff is publicly available through CCIs website, but basically, there are methodologies for downloading and verifying that the files are in the-- >> So then MarkMonitor connects to their shared folder, downloads everything and then determines whether it's a real copy? Is that-- >> Not everything. [Multiple Speakers] Is it going to do--is it going to be like an MV5 hash. Is it something like that? >> Basically, yes. They're now looking at-- >> It's a sha1 hash. >> Close enough okay. >> Yes, they're not looking with everything. You know, the copyright owners who you are participating in the system specified different files that they're actually looking for. Those who've been verified that they're actually are the files through a combination of human and technical means. At that point, the--our monitoring service sense along what we referred to as the copyright notice to the ISP. The ISP then matches the IP address with subscriber information and then they send what is known as the copyright alert from the ISP to the individual user. >> But Victoria, did you want to add anything? I mean, is this the same system that you're going to use MarkMonitor representing you as well and by you, I mean the Recording Industry Association of America and your member companies. >> Yes, but do I have to turn this on first? Or is it on already? >> It sounds like it's on. >> Yes, we are both MPAA and RIAA on behalf of our content, members are using MarkMonitor. The MarkMonitor system uses metadata to additionally initially identify a file that is publically available on the P-to-P network. If it suspects that file is a copied file that's owned by one of our member companies or the NDs or the--my NDs on my side, they will download the first instance of the file; check it to make sure it is in fact all--substantially all of the copyright issue. In our case, they run it through Audible Magic, what's called a type 3 monitoring through Audible Magic and a print which checks the entire file to make sure it matches on audio fingerprint basis with the copyrighted work. They take the hash value of that file and then they will check for hashes on a subsequent basis and as I'm sure many of you know, the sha1 hash is virtually unique to each particular file. >> So if I twiddle a bit, the whole purpose of a hash algorithm is if I change one beat in the file then the resulting hash is wildly different. If--So if I just change one bit of the file, if I'm a pirate and I'm going throw up your hash protection feature. >> That is absolutely right. If you take the same CD in our case and rip it on to different computers, the track that's on the 2 the different computers, the file will have a different hash. >> And so then--well, let's go in the counter measures from the pirate's perspective later, but Ron, your at Fox, I mean you love this system or do you really love this system? [laughter] What's the answer? ^M00:30:07 >> Let's see, I sort of really love it. [laughter] Actually, we--as Ben alluded to, we've been sending notices to ISPs as part of commercial arrangements and otherwise for many, many years. And so, we've developed these same methodologies for identifying with a high degree of confidence to files and at terms on which they will be forded to the subscribers for many years. Actually, the reason I said sort of really is under those commercial arrangements, frankly, we were allowed to send more files, more notices to the individual ISPs and our share--we haven't really talked about that yet, but there's actually an allocated share for I think it's divided by sectors, I recall, between the movie studios and the record companies and the other participants in the system. So we're actually having to reduce our share of notices, but in exchange, of course, we get a very broad adoption across more ISPs, more content owners, the overall number of notices sent by all the content owners will clearly be higher under this system. So, because it is primarily an educational system, if there will be more education of consumers as a result of this system, then our piecemeal approach afforded us in [inaudible] for that reason, we are willing to accept that fewer notices with regarding Fox movies and TV shows will be sent. >> Ron, can I get you to say that the ISPs aren't doing enough because it wasn't--maybe I can break up the system. [laughter] But then it wasn't that long ago that I remember Verizon was fighting content owners in court. This is before the DC circuit. This was a DMCA turbocharged subpoena process. Verizon was standing up, they said and the users liked it so the privacy of their users and the content owners said, "Come on Verizon, what are you doing? Turn over the user information." Should they be doing more, should it be like a 3 strikes--I know it's not really a 6 strikes, but are they not going far enough? >> Well, I think that dispute is, maybe everyone's aware of it, but just to briefly rely people or tell people to learn, that then involved the subpoena provision on the DMCA which was an effort for obtaining details for--versus the filing lawsuits against the subscribers, and Verizon obviously believed it was unconstitutional, I believe, was their claim and I think they prevailed, as I recall. This is not about suing users at all. This is a completely different system. >> So if any users get sued, they can take that to court and say, "Oh, this isn't supposed to be about suing." Will, I mean, users ever be sued as a result? >> I have no idea, but that seemed that the system is not designed to produce lawsuits. It's designed to produce education. >> Well, I think we can say pretty confidently that there would--nobody will be sued as part of this system. Suing anybody is not part of this system. >> But, you don't need the system to sue them. >> Of course. [Multiple Speakers] >> --the DC Circuit did not strike down old fashion john doe subpoenas, so those still exist. >> And I don't think this system is going to make it any easier for anyone to sue, so. >> And nor will make it any more difficult, I suspect. So let's refer to the sort of beginning of the process in terms of how allegedly fringing files were going to be identified. Let's hear the other end of the process, Link from Verizon can--when you get from Jill and her Center for Copyright Information, when you get a notice, how do you respond? Are you going to do any due diligence, any checking to see whether or not there's any evidence of previous infringing activity? How do you respond? >> One of the aspects of the system that's important is that we've built in a number of protections for consumers. So if they'd get a notice and they believe that it was incorrect, that they weren't doing anything wrong, there is an appeals process built-in. So no, we don't check this. The copyright owners have done--you know, it done--looked at through system. They've actually had an independent check for it to make it sure it's exactly responsible. >> Who did the independent check? >> What was the name of the firm? >> The Straw Scraper. >> All right. >> So, and the intent of that was to make sure it was exactly responsible. So no, we do not. There--in our case, it would be between four and six notices will be sent out. There's an education phase, the first 2 notices will be education. Basically, sending a notice to the customer saying that the--there's been an allegation that you're doing to some illegal activity with materials copyrighted. And we also send a voice mail alert as well, so it's not just an email, we also send them a voice-- >> But you're going to send a physical letter to their billing address? Or does it depend on maybe how far along you are in the escalation? >> Not in the first--the first phase is email and there's a voice mail alert. Levels 3 and 4 are what we call the acknowledgment phase. And this is where there is some kind of a pop-up. We haven't designed all these yet, but there would be a pop-up in this phase where it would actually say--acknowledge that you've gotten this email, this-- >> So you--you can't do anything else until you get that pop-up? You have to acknowledge it. >> And understandably, part of what we're trying to do here is educate people and also alert them because there are cases where people are in group homes, for example, and they could have one account and 5 people are using it. So, it's very possible that somebody is doing this and the other people in the house don't know, and somebody actually owns the account, and they're the ones who were accountable for it. [Inaudible Remark] Same thing in the family where you'd have a mother or a father paying for the account, the kids could be--so. And then there's level 5 and 6 which is the mitigation phase. And in our case, what would happen there would be a temporary speed reduction, 2 to 3 days speed reduction. They would get--be given a 14-day advance notice. So keep in mind, this is after a long process of saying, we've got repeated notices, you have acknowledged our pop-up, which again, they could just click on and again that could be somebody in the house that didn't even have anything to do with it, or could be somebody who did do it. And then there's an arrive appeal as a result in this last phase, where they can say, "Look, it's not me. There's an independent arbitration firm that would--that has been--we're working with AAA that would actually do-- >> What cost of the appeal, someone has to pay for it. >> There'll be a 35-dollar filing fee but it could be waived if they say they can't afford it and, ^M00:36:24 you know, obviously, if they want, they will get to pay that. ^M00:36:27 >> So there was a week--I know your you don't work for AT&T, I know there's a difference between the 2 companies, but there was a leak to AT&T internal training manual on the TorrentFreak.com, and it said that access to many of the most frequently visited websites will be restricted until--during some of the upper phases of this. Are you going to do the same thing? I mean, does that like--that's like a Pirate Bay restriction, right? ^M00:36:47 >> Ours is a speed reduction. It's 2 to 3 days, so it doesn't last forever. It last for a period of time. ^M00:36:53 >> The idea again is education, letting them know what's going on, and that kind of--with speed reduction, it's intended to get their notice, get them to say is this something that happened or not. And if it's not, then obviously, appeal it and say--and we can work it out that way. ^M00:37:06 >> Fernando, maybe I can bring you into the discussion. You're in Time Warner Cable, how is your response going to be similar or different from Verizon or this leaked AT&T internal training document? ^M00:37:19 >> I haven't seen the leaked document, but I can--before I answer your question, I'm still struck by can that kind of ends for your question, I'm still struck by Konstantinos' opening remarks and appreciate, you know, how you framed this because that was very profound and I want to assure you that that's exactly the kind of overall framing in terms of the seriousness of the issues with which our internal conversations about this project have taken place, and certainly with the advice of the Consumer Advisory Board that we have at CCI. ^M00:37:45 But to get to your question Declan, each of the participating ISPs has a different approach for this educational program, and ours is comparable to Verizon's, but we have--and so we have a notice phase where we want to send notices--2 notices to the primary account holder, an acknowledgment phase where there has to be some sort of acknowledgment received click-through. And then-- ^M00:38:10 >> Does that mean that just web browsing is restricted or let's say I have an alarm monitoring system that is going to use a different port entirely, is all our ports cut off or just port 80? ^M00:38:20 >> Just the web browsing for purposes of an interface through which a customer can acknowledge that they have received the alert. >> So, in other words, like my alarm system or heart monitor is going to keep working. ^M00:38:34 [ Multiple Speakers ] ^M00:38:38 >> The goal of VPN is to specifically mandate those kinds of surveys cannot be affected by the mitigation measure. >> So the goal then is in our mitigation phase, what we're constructing is a--essentially a landing area, a soft landing area where the customer is restricted in the type of browsing that they can do until they either acknowledge or participate in the appeal process. If they'll participate in the appeal process, then all of those measures are suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. >> Can I make another point because this is the Internet Society, we're members, Theresa is one of them, [inaudible] on the board. We believe what the Internet Society is about, and one of the things I'm working on, I wish we're working very hard with them, a lot of people is--we're more working on it too, is the ITU maintenance coming up and the importance of multistakeholder organizations in the internet are not adding up mandates and regulation. And, to me, this is an example of another one of those multistakeholder approaches where players get together, no government actually mandates, and there's not laws involved, trying to work out some kind of process to help deal with the problem on the internet. And I--it's another example of how to do that. So I think in essence, it's also positive and it's something that I believe is in the spirit of what the Internet Society is all about. >> And I--hold that thought, we'll get to Q and A in a second. ^M00:40:01 But there are also--it's a wonderful event today that the Internet Society is putting together. There aren't enough of them inside. I just wanted to say thank you to the Internet Society for putting this on. Let me see how much time we have 'cause we started a little late, Paul? Anyone? >> About 15, 20 minutes. >> We've got about 20 minutes left, so, let me ask 1 or 2 questions and then you folks may know much more about it and I already someone jumping up with the mic. So this get--give me about 3 minutes. Okay, we have VPNs, we have Tor. If someone's using a VPN or Tor, this thing ain't going to work, right? So this just push the more determined pirates into [background noise] darker more black area of the internet and see the sketch kind of the loser ones who aren't that smart. >> So, this program is really not structured to try to address serial pirates who are intentionally trying to circumvent, you know, intellectual property protection. I think where we are aiming is not low. It is--what we believe are the vast majority of people for whom, you know, trading and copyrighted material has become sort of a social norm. And over the course of many years, you know, everybody sort of trades their music. It's something that, you know, we used to trade mixed tapes if anyone as old as I am and this is kind of in some ways for some people has become the natural evolution and I think with a 6 alert system, that has focused a lot on how you [inaudible] someone, what do you tell them. You know, do you tell them where to find the authorized files, what other--you know, if their wireless is not secured, how might we do that to avoid someone else using their network without their permission. This is really a program that we think will affect the vast majority of people out there but it is not going to address, you know, the needs of large scale pirates or our need or the content communities need to deal with the problem of large scale pirates. So, you know, you have to take a gamble. If you think that 90 percent of people out there either don't understand copyright, they don't understand what the rules and obligations are, they don't understand its value and this is an opportunity to educate them and to make available to them in a more direct way the compelling options that are available to draw content legally and in an authorized way. Hopefully, we see a pretty good decrease in the [inaudible] peer-to-peer networks by people generally. But, you know, yes, there are ways around this. There are other ways to pirate and that is, you know, for now not--is not addressed by this program. >> Let me ask Link and Fernando a question, the law does not require you folks to sign up for this process. We have the DMCA enacted 14 or so years ago with you argue in the past is sufficient, so why do this now? Is it that you're pushing people towards legitimate services, some of which you could profit from? Is it because you don't know how to deal with this unstructured approach of receiving complaints? What's the real reason? >> Come on. >> So I mean, sure. I think it's important as an educational matter. I think it's an appropriate moment in the development of the internet to actually work in a collaborative fashion with the different stakeholders. I mean it is otherwise an environment of friction as you describe. It's otherwise an environment of increasing legal back and forth. This is an opportunity to make it a collaborative process that puts customer education first which for us is a win rather than going down the path that is confrontational with customers. This is an opportunity to work collaboratively with the other ISPs and with partners in the content side and with consumer groups as well to do something that we think is the right time for it and it's the right moderated and educational approach. Do you have a? >> There is a--as mentioned earlier, there have been programs and we've been involved ^M00:44:14 with them already with some companies doing those in the past [inaudible] calling before this and the advantage of something like this is number 1, it is--will be understandable by all consumers we hope better and education them better because all the companies are pretty much doing the same type of--[Inaudible Remark]. ^M00:44:29 Not exactly the same way but basically the framework is the same. So, they want to understand it better from that standpoint, and less confusion. And second, it continues to have protect against privacy as a central feature. ^M00:44:41 It does nothing at all in terms of providing any information to the content players about who the customer is or anything like that. The only time the customer would ever be noticed at all is that they decide they want to appeal and that's on their own volition if they decide to. ^M00:44:53 But basically, this program still does that and third, it has a pretty strong I think way to give them a chance to say, "This is not, you know, something that it is." So, to us is build the protections that we have not been able to do. I don't think we could have done as well as an industry wide basis as we did in [inaudible]. ^M00:45:12 >> Let's turn us over to the audience for questions. We've got about 15 minutes. We've got some microphones if you want to--I presume we should be using the microphones. >> If somebody go first. ^M00:45:23 >> You've been sitting there. You know you want to get up and shout [inaudible]. Identify yourself unless you have an objection to an argument anytime or violating it. ^M00:45:32 >> Okay. I'm Dave Burstein. I write about some of this stuff. I'm on the Board of Directors at the local ISOC. I've been following the ITU among the ITAC at state department and I've been writing about this stuff since '99. I can't believe what I'm hearing or I can believe it, but it just seems totally absurd to me. I'm a Fonera, that means that I share my Wi-Fi with any other Fonera in my neighborhood who happens to come by. In return for that, when I go to Paris in two weeks, I'll be able to hook up to about 400,000 Wi-Fi hotspots of people who do the same there. Now, this is crucial that we don't touch and affect it because as Link knows better than I, he's a trained engineer. We need more wireless capacity and we effectively double wireless capacity by bringing in local Wi-Fi-- >> So your question is? >> The question is, I'm going to be there with an open Wi-Fi to anybody who passes by and anybody in my neighborhood. I sure as hell I'm not responsible for what they send to you. I believe there is no court judgment that's gone against that and I believe would be terrible public policy to shut down Wi-Fi and make us pay more to Verizon for my wireless phone. It's 70 bucks to begin with already. So the question is, what happens if I, a Time Warner customer, gets a notice and I say my Wi-Fi is open. I don't track with people do. I could impossibly track what people do. How do you just--how do you proceed to ignore that? >> How many strikes until they're out sorry, Jill. >> No, no, no, you're going to put me out because my Wi-Fi is open? >> What's question. >> So the open Wi-Fi question, let's assume that you have people who are actually not just allegedly infringing copyrights but actually infringing copyrights on occasion using his open Wi-Fi, then what? >> Is the question to me? Who's the question to Dave? >> Well, I happen to be one of your customers. >> Well, thank you for your business. [laughter] >> And I read in several times that my Time Warner cable modem is rock solid closed to 10 megabits. >> Thank you for your business first of all. I believe that it's inconsistent with our terms of service for you to provide open service, you know, come as you are service on a--even on a non-[inaudible] basis. >> What? >> That was 12 years ago, I don't know. >> No, everybody's been doing this. We've got millions out there. It's been long supported and it's obvious public policy as Link and--well, you're in the policy room as well. You know how crucial it is to get more effective spectrum capacity. >> Actually, well, I hate to say it, but a lot them--a lot of companies do restrict that in the terms of service. >> Yeah, but I got 2 choices that happen to both be up there and they both happen to have the same terms of service more likely than not. [Multiple Speakers] >> Let me just clear as before, we debate it 'cause we're not making the document--[inaudible] [Inaudible Remark] And, the other point is Dave that you'll get notices-- >> Yeah. >> --sufficient to educate you about whether or not that's happening on your account and if that happens 6 times and you go through the process and what you're doing is hosting someone's ability to actually download infringing files can--you will consider yourself sufficiently educated I guess. >> Then what? >> Are going to shut me down for having open Wi-Fi? >> It's not a termination program. >> Is open Wi-Fi not available? >> This is not a termination program. >> So then what happens, does he get throttled or does the folks on the other side of the table come with a lawsuit? >> At the end of that last note-- >> Let's assume it's like 10 notices, we're past 6. >> Six already there, at the end of that process. Basically that's it. Nothing else happens from our standpoint. [Multiple Speakers] >> That's your obligation under the program. >> Yeah, it's up to the other end of the table then. >> If--then--so this goes back to my point earlier which is this program, you know, with all due respect is not going to change your behavior at all or address-- >> Oh yeah. >> --your approach to this and, you know, if 80 percent of the people that we're dealing with, that's primarily account holders or like that then, you know, we'll probably have to reconsider. But I would say this which is once you have gotten 6--5 or 6 notices depending on the ISP and you have gone through a mitigation measure, so you will--you know, depending on who your ISP, you might have your internet slowed down for a couple of days and you can be pissed with Verizon, you can be pissed with the people using your network to violate copyright, and then you won't get any more notices and nothing will happen under this program. However, it-- ^M00:50:22 >> Will I be shut down-- [Multiple Speakers] >> You're not going to be shut down. You're going to have your-- >> Am I going to be throttled once-- >> Once, and you will actually won't ever get another notice. You will be sort of unreachable by the program but I will say just, you know, to represent all of the ISPs that are in the program. For all of them, it is in fact, against their terms of service, not necessary to have an open wireless but to allow someone to use your wireless for copyright infringement. And so, whatever your terms of services, I think if you read it, you are responsible as the primary account holder for that activity. That doesn't require you to shut down your wireless but you're unnoticed. >> Let's take another question. If you could identify yourself? >> Well, number 1, it doesn't say-- >> And you are? >> Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Timothy Sanders. I don't know if any reliable technical means to inform--to contact users over the internet connection unless you're using Deep Packet Inspection or you can intercept SSL to modify. I'm assuming you're using a transparent proxy to make a pop-up as you called it but those are--there's no reliable way to do that as I'm sure anybody here knows especially as--if somebody's using Google, that's going to be SSL the entire way. So how do you address that and also, the content industry really does need to be educated. Still, they have a long history of failure from the DMCA which has been thoroughly abused and as a content creator myself, my competitors have used it to prevent me from distributing content. So what assurances can you give based on every time we'd have a similar thing like this that's been abused, that it will not continue to happen. >> What's actually--and we're kind of running low on time so let's take the other questions in quick succession and then let the panelist respond if you don't mind. Yes, sir? >> Hi. My name is Joe Plotkin. I'm on the board of ISOC New York as well as on the board of NYCwireless. We do free Wi-Fi around New York in public places so the people can, you know, do whatever they want to do in public places on the internet. It seems absurd to me no different than, say, preventing me from--if I owned a store and I had a pay phone in my store and somebody planned a bank robbery on my pay phone. Am I now no longer--am I supposed to be policing what people are saying on the pay phone on my store? It seems analogous to the situation of forcing everybody to lock down their Wi-Fi on behalf of--to act as agents of the copyright holders. It seems a little--to use an old New York expression, a little chutzpadik. [laughter] >> Another New York expression I hope. [Inaudible Remark] >> My name is Paul Geller. I'm personally being sued for 17 billion dollars by members of the RIAA and I just heard 3 instances where we were applauding compromise. I was just wondering if we thought it was important or even proper to be applauding compromise on something as important as freedom of speech. It seems more like we should--that'd be something that we should be fighting for. My question, though, is more about what happens in the instance that we do detect that there were--are sort of fraudulent notices being sent, either fraudulent or even mistake notices. Is there some recourse not from the user's end but is there going to be a penalization of companies or copyright industry sort of companies for either abusing the system or accidentally sending takedown notices, so to speak, to use a sort of DMCA term? >> I have some questions from the internet but let's have some responses for the last 3 from the panel and if there are any quick responses. >> I'm going to take the last question. We did have a technical review of the content methodology done by Stroz Friedberg. A public version, a redacted version of that report is available on the CCI website. That was the initial view to try to determine that if the content owners are not fraudulent in sending notices, there will also be periodic subsequent reviews of the methodology. So we're trying to address that concern through these periodic reviews. >> [Inaudible] wiser working with DCMA. Why are we still getting fraudulent takedown notices, with notices that are--don't apply to fair of use. Why can't somebody [inaudible] that stuff? >> Well, let me try to amplify your question and say under the DMCA, you have to send a takedown notice signed under penalty of perjury so there's illegal consequences in theory. EFF has been trying to litigate this area if you make a mistake. But are there any penalty of perjury or similar steps, put up a bond, if you're a copyright holder, requirements in this process. >> Under the MOU, any notice that we send is also under penalty of perjury. >> Let's go to the internet for some questions. >> The answers are right there. >> Sorry. [Inaudible Remark] You hold on. Let the folks--give me just 2 minutes. So questions from the internet. Why were the small internet providers not invited to participate in this system? Any quick response anyone? Maybe Jill? >> You know, I would turn it around to say this was, you know, kind of a groundbreaking effort that took a lot of time to come to fruition and I think we have been discussing, actually adding additional participants as soon as we get the program up and running. So it's not intended to be exclusive by any means but these were the people around the table initially. >> All right. I should have from the other side of the content owners-- >> But that was my next question, where--are other content owners invited to join? >> Well, they are and it may be slightly misleading just have representatives from 2 trade associations and Fox here. Under the umbrella of the MPAA and the RIAA are many, many independent--small or independent contenders. The--through the IFTA which is the Independent Film and Television Alliance which represents independent motion picture producers and A2IM which represents smaller independent record labels are participating via the RIAA. >> All right. Here's one or more--I'll slip one more question from the internet and under the MOU, the participating ISPs are obliged to collect and share information on repeated infringers. This information could potentially be used to sue individual subscribers. Why this is language in the agreement? >> That's actually not accurate because the identity of individuals is not made--is not provided to the content owners. So what we learned through the system would not help us to sue anybody if we wanted to do that. >> Let's take another question from the audience. >> Did I hear correctly that this was only looking at P-to-P networks? >> That's right. It's wireline--It's residential wireline P-to-P so it's quite narrow. >> So as far as like file lockers or personal-- >> Not part of this program. >> Okay, I was just--I wanted to [inaudible]. >> So let me--any other questions from the audience? Yes, sir? ^M00:57:46 [ Inaudible Remarks ] ^M00:57:54 >> I just--if 6 strikes and then somebody [inaudible]? If someone goes and does it again and again and again and again and again, what are you going to do you haven't really answered that? >> Well, I think the ISPs said, "Hey, our work here is done." So how about the other side? >> We--It's the same as today for the program doesn't do affect, what are we going to about piracy? I mean, right, there's--it's a 6 strike--a 6 notice system and it's done. We're done with the notice system. We have the same legal entities that we have today or if you make use of it or not. So if we can sue endusers, we can, you know, make new educational campaigns. We can do-- >> One, are you obligated to use this for you to sue at anyway? >> Nope. >> No. And two, is this discoverable instantly into the fact that I [inaudible] 6 notices. >> I think that's probably the point of the 6 notices. [Inaudible Remark] But let's-- [Inaudible Remark] So would--let's--any responses to that? [Multiple Speakers] >> I think--I'm not sure what the legal significance of that is but, I don't know, maybe some copyright [inaudible]. >> We've got some lawyers on the panel. >> No, I'm totally on TV. >> I mean there's--[laughter] It's been, what, 4 or 5 years since either major record labels or major movie studios have been suing individual characters. I'm not aware of any plans by anyone of us to start doing that. Will we ever say, "We're never going to do that again?" I don't think anyone is willing to say that but is this--it's certainly not part of this system and it's certainly not something that's [inaudible]-- >> It's--the system is designed to make that less appealing frankly from our perspective. The whole idea is it becomes less important to think about suing people because of the existence of this system. We'll have to see if it works or in that regard and that's our hope. >> Any recompense if internet users are falsely accused of? But I guess the answer would be that there's no real harm except a brief slowdown. ^M01:00:00 So there shouldn't-- [Multiple Speakers] >> Right, and as soon as you file the so-called appeal, the imposition of the mitigation measure stay, so if you get--if you've basically gone through and gotten the first 4 alerts and you're still allegedly infringed and you get the 5th and you say, "No, no, no, that's actually inaccurate, I really didn't do it," and you decide to file an appeal, as soon as you file the appeal, the imposition of that mitigation measures states you basically will never suffer it if you prevail in your appeal in other words, demonstrate that the copyright work was not accurate. >> Well, and you set at zero too. [Multiple Speakers] And you reset to zero also if you win your appeal. >> There's--let me throw out this. So Annemarie Bridy from the University of Idaho came out with an analysis. She said some good things about this system and she said some more negative things. She said there're insufficient safeguards to ensure the accuracy validations. She said there's no way for the public to know whether the program is meeting the goals established forth in the MOU. How about a response to that? How are we going to know whether this thing works or not? ^M01:01:11 >> It's funny 'cause I actually just happened to have read her article over lunch before I came over here today. Some of--the focus of her complaints is really about transparency. In this in--I mean it came out--I believe the article came out several months ago. ^M01:01:25 Since then, a number other things that she complained about has been publicly announced as part of a run up to the launch the program. For example, the release of the technical analysis, you know, the release of the identity of the fair use expert whose memorandum is going to inform the reviewers who administered the appeals process. So I mean even I think that most of the things that she was actually complaining about in her article had since been [inaudible]. ^M01:01:51 >> And so, [inaudible] the next panel will do the public interest groups agree. Are there any other questions in the audience? I see a hand up. There's a microphone control somewhere on your desk. [Inaudible Remark] ^M01:02:02 And so, you are? >> I'm Kevin Colley [phonetic]. [Inaudible Remark] ^M01:02:05 >> [Inaudible]. Can you describe what the appeals process would look like [inaudible] process? Is the metrics with that? ^M01:02:15 >> Sure. So the appeals process is going to be run by the American Arbitration Association. They are, you know, as I think most people know, sort of the foremost expert in the country with most experienced around alternative dispute resolution. They have worked with us over the past year to build an interface so that this system will be pretty much all seamless for the consumer. They can link directly from their ISP to say, "I want to file an appeal." They sign into the AAA, create a username and password and in fact, they don't even have to use their real name at that point, can file an appeal for several of the reasons 'cause there are a set of reasons that people can appeal. It's misidentification of file, you know, "This wasn't me," you know, fair use. For several of the categories, they never have to identify themselves and actually when they pay 35 dollars and it's cost us by a third party payment process or that information is never combined. So, even the people at AAA won't necessarily know who the consumer is. There is an exception so if a user says, "I had authorization to use that file," one of the things the user has to do is present that authorization and one would think that would be personal authorization. So I, Joe Lesser, was given a right by Warner Brothers to, you know, show and to share this movie and here's evidence of that. That process has--you know, has laid out in the MOU how many days they have to review the packet of information that comes both from the ISP and the content owner on how the file--you know, the methodology, how the file was found, the date and time, making sure--matching up the date and time with the use of a particular IP address and how the ISP match a consumer. They will then, after looking at that appeal, issue a decision if the--and appeal's probably the wrong word but if the notices on the alert is invalidated, then the consumer will be, number 1, refunded his or her 35 dollars and number 2, their account will be reset to zero. So if you're level 4 in an ISP that gets to mitigation level 4, you'll end up back at zero. [Inaudible Remark] [Multiple Speakers] ^M01:04:41 >> Well, our next panel has stepped over and as our moderator but there's no requirement that these folks showed up today and it's--sometimes decisions like these get made entirely behind closed doors and so, it's--we're grateful if they did and also to the Internet Society and I suspect Paula did a lot of the organization for this. So let's give everyone, especially the Internet Society a round of applause. ^M01:05:00 [ Applause ] ^M01:05:05 >> And thank you Declan. That was just outstanding. So the other panel, our next panel please come on up and we will make a quick transition. >> Should we put on our name tags? >> Yes, name tags. >> You can leave them up. >> Oh, leave them up? >> Yeah, we're actually [inaudible] so that's all right. >> Okay, that's all right. ^M01:05:28 [ Inaudible Discussion ] ^M01:05:35 >> I've got one here. >> That's great, thanks. ^M01:06:29 [ Inaudible Discussion ] ^M01:06:37 >> So, I'm Jeff Jarvis. I'm going to blame ad moderation on Sandy. I'm going to blame everything on Sandy for the next few weeks. So I want to start--I think that the views of this group are not probably so obvious as the name tags of the last group. So what I would like to do in this session is just ask you to [noise] spend a couple of minutes briefly saying their view of this. So you all have context level of discussion up here and then we'll have a discussion with everyone. We'll rule the whole [inaudible]. So if you want to start? >> Sure. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Gigi Sohn and I'm the President and CEO of Public Knowledge. We're a public interest advocacy organization that fights for open internet and balanced copyright laws. I'm very glad I had a glass of wine at lunch. [laughter] So, I'm on the advisory board of the Center for Copyright Information and I want to talk a little bit about what my role is and a little bit about what I think of the program. Obviously, if I thought it was the devil's spawn, I would not be on the advisory board. I actually think that the--that the system has some value if done right and that's why I'm on the advisory board. I also--I need to pick up on something that Ron Wheeler said. These kinds of notices have been going on for about 5, 6years now. This really is nothing new. Now [inaudible] is a big MOU and appeals process and all that, you need to ask the content industry 'cause that's kind of the way they wanted it. But now I think we actually have the system that has more due process and more openness and more transparency, not as much as I want, believe you me and I could talk a little bit about some of my concerns, you know, with the program that I'd like to see rectified at some point. But I think in a lot of ways, this is a better system than the one that it was before. It doesn't mean it's perfect, by any means. But I want to talk a little bit about my role because it was not an easy decision as Jill and the other folks who work with the CCI will tell you in the post SOPA PIPA era which my organization was, you know, one of the leading folks fighting that--fighting those bills to do something like this. But the reason I want to do it was because I thought there was a role for a real consumer advocate to make sure that consumers were protected that this system is fairly implemented with a minimum of false positives, due process, and a great deal of transparency and openness. And what I've been spending I guess the last 6 months or so is really beating the living day lights and Jill will--Jill Lesser will tell you this and she and I are good friends for about 20 years, of beating living daylights out of her and colleagues to be more transparent and open. I'm not going to give myself entire credit for the Stroz report being released but you know, I'd beat up on them on that. When the time comes when there's enough data collected about how many people get notices and how many sort of repeat defenders there are and how many appeals and how many appeals are successful. I'm going to want to see that released to the public as well and that data open so people could do studies on it. Now we talked about the Stroz report. There's a huge elephant in the room. If anybody reads the Daily Dot or I can see Ernesto from TorrentFreak, or at least the fact that, you know, 4 years ago, Stroz Friedberg did some lobbying for the Recording Industry Association of America. ^M01:10:11 I'm not going to pass judgment on whether that made them, you know, not qualified or not to do this report. But the CCI has pledged to have another independent analyst analyze the report and analyze the methodology. If people have ideas and rather than complain, if people have ideas for a really good analyst to take this on, I gave a speech at Princeton last week and talked to Ed Felten and Steve Schultz. I think they would be excellent folks. But if there's anybody else that people have ideas, come and tell me, right. I really see myself as sort of a liaison to the consumer community and being a real pain in the behind not only to the content industry but also to the ISPs as well. I just want to say very, very briefly, you know, if I can wave a magic wand in the things I'd like to see changed in the MOU, I just say what they are briefly. And then I want to make 2 other points and then I'll stop. I mean, I was not crazy about the appeal fee. It was originally 50 dollars. We get it down to 35 dollars. It does get waived in a number of instances. You show hardship. I think that's good, not perfect but better. I don't like the fact that you can only use the open wireless excuse. To Dave Burstein's point, he's left, only once there were very good reasons to have open wireless and I think, you know, the telecom industry and the cable industry thinks open wireless is pretty damn good too. I wanted the copyright owners to show more proof that they actually own the copyright. I don't think they have to show enough proof. And I also thought that on the--in the appeals process, an individual should have all copyright defenses. And then, they have quite a few but I think you should have all. If it's not illegal under copyright law, you know, you should be able to defend yourself under anything. It shouldn't be limited. Let me make 2 closing points. While I do think that this system has some educational value and I do think if it's done right, it will be largely benign. There's another half of the equation that I'm going to continue to talk about in my role of public knowledge and that is the need for the content industry to make their content available ubiquitously at a fair price. I was at the NPR today and there was a lot of talk how the movie studies is starting to make their movies available even before the theatre release state. I think that's fabulous, except they're only doing it on video on demand. I might just even make it available online. It's not just about consumers doing the right thing, it's about--and the ISPs doing the right thing. I think the content companies have to start to do the right thing too and I'm glad that they're starting. The second point I want to make is that I see a lot of energy in this room and a lot of folks upset. And I can understand it, I get it, right. I mean, I've been doing this kind of work for 11 years now. But,I'd like to see a lot of that negative energy put towards positive copyright reform. Somebody talked about fraudulent notices and what's the penalty, for example under the DMCA. When somebody willy nilly sends a bunch of fraudulent notices. Well, my organization has a proposal that would punish those abusers. So, am I going to get 14 million people to weigh in, in Congress for something positive like people did negatively against SOPA and PIPA. Think about that. I think we actually have an opportunity to make affirmative change and strength in fair use and strength in consumer rights in this Congress. We have some very powerful people who want to be in our side including Darrell Issa and Chuck Schumer, people like that. So think about whether you can turn the negative energy to something positive. And if you can, sign up for a mailing list. ^M01:13:55 >> Hi. So, my name is Molly Land. I'm a professor here. And I just wanted to thank--before we got started, I just wanted to thank the Internet Society for hosting this year. ^M01:14:05 It's great to have you for the invitation. So, my background is in international law and specifically human rights law and Konstantinos already started out talking about Frank La Rue statement. But I will follow up on that and really focus on some of the human rights concerns that have been raised around the scheme. ^M01:14:23 So there're a number of different types of concerns you might see. There's privacy concerns. I know the first panel talked about how a lot of these monitoring has already gone on but there have also been questions raised about deep pocket inspection and additional surveillance and monitoring that's going to be necessary to talk use of behavior and that raise the privacy concerns. ^M01:14:44 Another concern might be the cost of the program which has been--there have been various ranges estimated for the cost that ISPs are going to incur for funding this and this cost being passed on to consumers which has an effect on ability of access, right, that in my--in some cases, become an additional burden for people who are already economically disadvantaged. ^M01:15:09 And I just--the one I wanted to really focus more on is the question of the sanction because that's received the most attention under international law, at least. Specifically, the possibility that access might be terminated, that internet access might be terminated to users even temporarily. ^M01:15:29 So this has raised a lot of concerns because it affects certainly, right, the expression and the ability to exchange information and freedom of association, right, 'cause this is how we socialize. This is how we connect with our friends, our family and loved ones. ^M01:15:44 The concern has been raised under international human rights law is that that sanction of termination is disproportionate on to the goals of the system, particularly because the internet plays such a crucial rule in all aspects of our lives. ^M01:15:59 Now, as encouraged on the first panel that--I think it was--the statement, this is not a termination program, and that, if there were 6 notices sent out, that at the end, that was sort of it and people were going to be cut off. But I don't want to leave the issue there. I'd actually be really interested in hearing more about, is it the decision of all ISPs. ^M01:16:19 Is this only the decision of these particular providers. If there hasn't been a decision not to have termination beyond the table, can we get that in writing? [laughter] Because it's still--it's in the Memorandum of Understanding. Mitigation measures can include temporary redirection to [inaudible] page temporary restriction. Temporary redirection until you complete an educational program, or such other temporary mitigation measures may be applied by the participating ISPs. ^M01:16:47 So the possibility is still there, and you gave them the importance of the internet. I want to really encourage us to think very strongly about the consequences of termination for our rights. I guess, you know, I don't want to get--I want to leave more time [inaudible]. ^M01:17:05 So I'll jump to just a few closing thoughts about the process to go forward. I think the human rights concerns that are on the table don't mean that you can't construct a copyright system of this kind. ^M01:17:16 I think I share your concern that I want to try to make it better and so really just a few closing thoughts. One would be again, given the problems associated with termination, right, and just to give context to that, I was thinking today about everything I use the internet for, to buy groceries, to buy diapers, to find health information about, you know, how to treat my sick children. ^M01:17:42 It's really so essential that I just feel that termination is something that we need to focus on. So we might consider taking it off the table. I think if we take that off the table, it helps in a number of ways. First of all, less of your sanctions are going to be more proportional, and therefore, more valid under human rights law. ^M01:18:02 And, you know, just in terms of social justice perspectives, in general. I think it also helps to alleviate some concerns with due process. ^M01:18:11 Right, there's concerns about the process that's been constructed and if the sanction is less severe, then the process may not--may be more satisfied with the more abbreviated process or more presumptions such as are currently in the process. ^M01:18:29 And then I think the last thing I would encourage us to do is think about the accuracy and not the technical accuracy which I think we've already talked about, but the legal accuracy of the process that's provided. I'm concerned about the fact that that presumption has been shifted, that the burden is on the user to show that they're entitled, that they're not in fact an infringer. ^M01:18:52 I'm concerned about that both because our approach, in general, is, right, you're innocent until proven guilty or so that if you want to not put that burden on people. But, in particular, because if--if a person is subject to mitigation measure sanction and they don't have--I know 35 dollars would be--is better than 50, but it's still 35 and it could be waived, that's true, but it's a process you have to initiate and for people who don't have a lot of time, don't have a lot of resources, don't have a lot of wherewithal, it can be used significant burden to even have to go through that--through that process itself to initiate it. ^M01:19:32 So in posing a burden process on someone to show that they are in fact entitled to continue having their access, I think it's problematic. And I mentioned some other legal parts of the scheme that are concerning presumptions of accuracy that apply. So if we are worried about technical accuracy, we have to understand that that works in conjunction with the legal provisions that exist in the memorandum of understanding. ^M01:20:00 >> Thank you. I want to notice that I'm seeing some beasts I haven't seen in the long while, the Fail Whale. Are you--Is Twitter down, so I don't know how are we going to get questions from--or comments later. Is there--if there's another message, let me know. >> Are we closing the [inaudible] or something else about General Petraeus. >> It's the Super Bowl of internet rights. I'm Aram Sinnreich and I'm a professor of media studies at Rutgers University. ^M01:20:24 I just got to write a book called the Piracy Crusade which is available through the Creative Commons License [inaudible] or online at piracycrusade.com. ^M01:20:33 A lot of my concerns have already been addressed by a fellow panelist. In fact, a lot [inaudible] from the first panel. I would point out a few issues. Number 1, there is a significant civil rights--civil liberties issue here. Thank you. ^M01:20:48 Now, that civil liberties issue comes in many forms. There's the freedom of speech issue which is, you know, just this year, the UN has ratified internet access as a fundamental human right and the notion that it's a good thing that this policy doesn't kick people off the internet entirely but even the notion of redirecting you to a splash page where you have to, you know, address the grievances of the content industry before you can have access to basic internet services is very problematic. ^M01:21:21 Also, you know, we've talked a lot about the many ways in which over the last 15 years, the DMCA has been misapplied. This is--and only but it's still a goodie in the respect that, you know, if you look at the most recent presidential campaign for instance, you saw, you know, the exemplars of free speech and of fair use of political campaigns being taken off of YouTube fraudulently with DMCA takedown notices. ^M01:21:45 That's one of many, many, many examples of how these--these kinds of policies have all too well been tend to air on the side of overprotection and you know, the metaphor that I always use when I talk with late people is you got, you know, dolphins caught in the tuna nets. And the question isn't really, you know, are dolphins going to die or do people have the right to fish a tuna? ^M01:22:05 The question is really where you draw the line. How many dolphin deaths are you willing to accept in order to maintain the tuna industry and you know, for all the walking of these conversations, that's really the fundamental question that debates over this kind of policy come down to. ^M01:22:22 Now in addition to the civil liberties issues like free speech, there're also civil rights issues. So part of the research that I do in the academy is these massive surveys looking at the way that people all over the world using technologies to engage in emerging cultural forms like mash-ups and remixes and video game mods and all this wonderful stuff that I call configurable culture and when I've done these surveys, I find something very interesting about people's use of privacy tools on the internet. ^M01:23:00 Now if you look across all different age groups from the youngest people I surveyed, which is 18, to the oldest, which is 90 something, every single age group is equally concerned with their privacy on the internet. In fact, it ends up being on a 5-point scale, about 4.0 across the board. ^M01:23:17 But what you find is that the older and the older the respondents get, the less likely the [inaudible] have actually adjusted their privacy settings and that really scales many of them with age because it scales with internet expertise. You also find the same kind of dynamic applied to things like education and income. ^M01:23:37 So the wealthier you are, the younger you are, the better educated you are, the more likely you are to have actually done something about your privacy online regardless of how much you care about. That is a serious issue when you think about the fact that this is essentially a tuna net that only catches the poorest and most disenfranchised tuna in the ocean, right? ^M01:23:57 As was pointed out by one of the audience members during the first panel, people who are internet savvy, people who have good educations, people who are young, people who are already socially enfranchised are going to be the ones who know well enough to use the VPN or to use a tool or to use a mother tool that's going to allude the grasp of the content monitors which means that the people who end up getting caught and having their lives interrupted by this, having to pay the fees, having to consult their lawyers, having to face the prospect of being disenfranchised in terms of losing their internet access even to some degree for a period of time, are going to be the most disenfranchised groups in our societies. ^M01:24:35 So this is going to widen the gap between the information-haves and the information-have-nots. The last point that I would make is like everyone else, you know, I could go on about this for hours but the last point I would make and I don't think anyone's really went to this side or not and I apologize because I actually do think this is a very good faith effort on behalf of industry, you know. ^M01:24:56 In the spectrum of anti-piracy measures, laws and policies that were enacted over the years, this is very, very mild and very, very fair to the needs of consumers. That being said, this is not going to work. I don't mean from the technical standpoint, although that's debatable. I'd have to know more about the platform but it's not going to work in terms of the social aspect and this is--I've traced--long before I was in academia, I was a research analyst for a firm here in New York City called Jupiter Research and I published what I think is the first research ever published back in about 12, 13 years ago on the effect of file sharing on music scenes and I was the guy that said Napster was actually helping sell music back in spring of 2000 or something for which ^M01:25:46 I was, you know, crucified by my own clients at the RIAA and MPAA and what I was telling people at the time when the Napster decision was happening and Judge Patel said there had to be, you know, 100 percent accuracy of Napster's content matching, otherwise, the service couldn't operate. You know I said at the time, "This is a hydra and if you cut off one of the heads, more heads will spring up and all you're going to do is end up fragmenting the so-called piracy base and end up sending it deeper and deeper underground," and exactly the same thing is true here, right? Piracy requires a network effect in order to work. Peer-to-peer is something that 5 people can do well, 50 people can do astoundingly well, and 50 million people can turn into a vibrant platform. And by aiming at the level of people who don't have the capacity to use a work around like Tor or VPN--excuse me, I'm a little parched. What you're essentially doing is assuring that the people who are most equipped to develop the next generation of peer-to-peer tools are going to be the ones who have an incentive to do exactly that. So I think if this does anything, it's going to make the unlicensed use of content over the internet more of a problem rather than less for the content industry. And I also think it's a bad bargain--thank you. I actually have one in front of me but--I actually think it's a bad bargain for the ISPs. You know, my intuition--[noise] ah, sorry I've been on speaking tour for the last 3 weeks. My intuition is that the ISP's incentive in getting into this is they want to preserve DMCA safe harbors and they don't want to see legislation come down in the US that's going to impose a 3 strikes law that like we've seen in the France, although that might be turned over in England and elsewhere. And I don't think that the Hollywood is going to be happy enough with the way that this works to stop with this policy. To the contrary, I think what it's going to do is it's actually going to raise the bar a little bit, right? And so, the anti-piracy crusaders are going to be able to say, "Well, even the ISPs agree that this level of content monitoring is necessary and therefore, why don't we instantiate it in some kind of legislation." And this is a process that you see over and over and over again with anti-piracy policies around the world is let's gain an inch over here and then we'll gain another inch over there and another inch over here and by the end of the process, you've got a whole mile. So to me, this isn't an inch game by the ISP to forestall my loss, is an inch that's been lost on the way to that mile marker and again, I could keep talking in great length but I'll pass on. [Inaudible Remark] >> Thanks. So first, we've been having some technical difficulties with my voice this week so hopefully it won't sound too scratchy. My name is David Sohn. I'm at the Center for Democracy and Technology which is a nonprofit public interest group in Washington. I should probably say no relation to Gigi despite the shared last name. My overall view on this is that I'm actually hopeful that it has the potential to play a positive role. I think there are also some real risks and some implementation questions. My overall impression is that the program is off to a pretty good start in trying to anticipate and head off some of the potential problems but I think ultimately, we're going to have to wait and see how it all plays out in practice and it is going to bear watching very closely to make sure that it doesn't go off the rails. So I'll say a little bit about why I see some positive potential and then talk about some of the implementation questions and risks that I see. In terms of the positive potential, I do think there's a shared interest in trying to find some ways to reduce copyright infringement that don't carry major collateral damage and we've seen legislation in Washington, we've seen a lot of other copyright initiatives that do threaten very serious collateral damage. ^M01:29:54 I think this is one that if it's done right could avoid things like interfering with the internet's technical architecture, interfering with the ability of ISPs or other kind of social networking tools to empower users with new communications capabilities, and hopefully, not push ISPs to take on new privacy invasive practices like snooping on users or trying to control user behavior. This goes a little bit to the question that Aram was just mentioning about, is this going to an alternative to something else or is it just going to be the first step on a slippery slope. But certainly, on its own terms, I think what this agreement ask ISPs to do is not nearly as burdensome or problematic as some of the other proposals that we've seen. The key going forward, I think, is going to be to really maintain the educational focus that you heard people talking about on that first panel. I mean, the long-term challenge for addressing copyright infringement has to be to get users to have attitude and behavior changes that lead to less infringement, because the alternative--I mean, the technology to engage in infringement is here to stay. You're not going to be able to take away people's communications tools or access to the internet and to digital technologies, so the level of infringement is really going to depend on what users choose to do. And so, I think education really is part of a long range constructive solution to the problem of infringement. We need to try to get to the point not where nobody infringes 'cause there's always going to be some, but ideally, we get to a point where most of the people most of the time don't bother to engage in infringement, don't see that as the choice that they would want to make because among other things, there's decent law services and perhaps because they're getting notices that keep them informed. So, to the risks and the questions, if the focus were to evolve away from pure education and towards punishment, I think that raises the serious questions that other people have discussed about due process and is it really appropriate to punish people based on a private determination like this without any involvement of a court? Absolutely. CDT was very concerned when the MOU was first released because it did seem to envision internet suspension among the possible mitigation measures. I think we've heard pretty clear statements that it's not currently in any ISP's plan to do that, so we're certainly encouraged by that. >> Although it's open to that possibility. >> So, it certainly is there in the agreement. So, this is why I say there are implementation questions to watch as this thing evolves, right? If people were to implement it in that way, I would be deeply, deeply concerned about that. If nobody implements it in that way, then we've got a different analysis, the worst case scenario has now come to pass, right? There are some additional questions which I'll try to tick through quickly. One, I think, was raised by a questioner to the first panel that wasn't really answered which was, is it really that easy to give people notices that they pay attention to and actually see? It's a nontrivial problem. How do you actually give a notice? I mean, if a pop-up shows up on the computer screen, well, if the fundamental problem is that there's a 15-year-old in the household who's engaging in file sharing and the parents have no idea, the pop-up may reach same 15-year-old and just be clicked through. So, you know, it's I think a tricky problem to see how good a job will this do of reaching the actual account holders who have some ability to control it. Second, there's the question of how effective the system will be in avoiding erroneous flags of infringing content. It is my understanding that the system is being setup to try to only catch instances of whole works or nearly whole works that are infringing so that, you know, you're kind of fair use situations where a documentary or some other file has an excerpt from a copyrighted work would not get flagged. That's my understanding. I don't know how well in practice the system will do at avoiding fair use kind of situations. So I think that--we'll just have to see how that plays out. And then to the extent that some mistakes like that or like just identifying the wrong account, to the extent that that occurs, how effective will the system safeguards be in addressing that. There is an appeals process, will it really be simple and practical enough for people who need to take advantage of it to take advantage of it? And then, additionally, this goes a little bit to the transparency issue Gigi raised, although it's a little broader than that too. I'm curious to what extent the system will be able to track whatever mistakes get made and learn from them. So that if there are problems in how these works, if people are being wrongly flagged, how does that get fed into the system? Is there any kind of feedback loop where that gets noticed and rectified overtime and any flaws get exposed? You know, if people are bringing successful appeals, for example, you know, that suggests that the system was making some mistakes on the front end and in addition to dismissing that person's particular notices, it seems like at that point, there ought to be some process for trying to make sure that whatever mistakes caused, the mistake and notices in the first place get fixed on a going forward basis. You could even imagine a situation where a documentary film keeps getting identified wrongly as being infringing because it contains some clip of copyrighted content on a fair use basis. Ideally, you'd want the system to take that kind of file, make a hash of that and have some reference database of files that it's going to stop flagging in the future so that it's not sending mistaken notices. All of that is entirely possible, maybe all of that will happen. It's just, these are implementation questions and I just don't know how they will play out. Let me get you one final thing real quick which is just--that I think has not come up. Consistent with that whole educational purpose, I think it is envisioned that the copyright information center is going to be providing information about copyright to people. I think it would be really important going forward that that be sort of use the Fox News slogan, "fair and balanced information." There are some really hotly disputed issues of copyright law right now. And if that information were to be slanted towards one particular viewpoint or where to be kind of the equivalent of what you see in sports broadcast where they say any description of this content can get you in trouble, clearly overstating what the legal situation is, you know, the whole organization would really, I think, lose its ability to be a credible source of education if it took a one-sided view of these issues. >> Thanks. I'm going to just going to go add and take a prerogative of supposed to be an opinionated moderator. So I'll add one note here and I think we go straight to discussion with the whole room, because I think time is getting nigh. So, and what I hear at low level is we have a trust problem, right? We have a trust problem of the industry trusting its users. We have certainly a problem of the users trusting these industries. And so this comes along and looks like a benign program but people like me are asking, "Come on, what's really going on here?" At a very high level, we have a human rights question. The internet is so vital to society now that there is a reaction to saying that even slowing it down or trying to threaten our use of it in anyway is an issue now on human rights. And I think that's an important angle on this and I would argue that if you have a case like where you're going to fall, you're not cutting it off but you're cutting it down, didn't we learn from Mubarak that the internet is a human right. One more point. I distrust a business model that relies on telling users, costumers, they cannot do what they want to do and then trying to make technology do what it can't do. There's not a lot of future in that. And I think we still have to grapple with that so we're still going around the issue of copyright. I'm not against copyright. I will happily sell you my latest book called Public Parts. [laughter] But, I do think that we haven't figured out the new models of how to think about this. And I want to mention just one very quickly, there's something called repost.us that turns an article into an embeddable unit that travels wherever it's embedded with brand advertising revenue, analytics, and links. So I have--we have the one case of now news publishers around the world going after Google like crazy saying, "You're robbing from us," and why not go with the flow and say, "Well, what if we enabled our content babies to fly on their own and bring value back to us? Then we've changed the model." And if there's too little discussion of trying to understand the reality of the internet and the reality of the new models, and the reality of what was called by one of the people in previous panel, a new social norm, if that really is a social norm, then how do we take advantage of it? How do we build an industry around it? The clever will do that. The doomed will not. So, with that, I'm happy to ask questions to get discussion going but I think we have time limited so I would love to make sure that we get everybody involved and don't forget to hit the button and identify yourself. >> Yeah, I'm Michael [inaudible] and the question I have which is a little off scope but I think you'd be interested to hear. I think the group's discussion here and focus on P-to-P network is certainly very interested. ^M01:40:02 But when we talk about the benefits for consumers in terms of what they can do online and in terms of figure of speech and just all the material, the information that's available, I look at the internet ecosystem and I'm also seeing that it is highly monetized by advertising. And that whose sites that are providing such an incredible content to consumers are monetizing largely through advertising. And I don't really care where that advertising is going. And so you have sites that are both providing legal content and illegal content and so at what point do we look and tell them like this and say., "There's actually a benefit to consumers that you're getting notifications that you maybe on a site that is, you know, trafficking and both utilizing the legal content and therefore you have a choice, but there's also has to be some sort of mechanism I think in here. So discipline, we have an advertising networks and the ecosystem that is really forcing at this allowing for a great deal of advertisers to show-- >> Which is what Google has argued, yeah. Google go after the advertising. >> Well, I mean-- >> Google is the chief offender. >> They do it, they do it but they also argue within that. Yeah. >> So I'm seeing, so we heard from content advisors saying, "We're getting notification is really not [inaudible] generally. How the internet is being monetized which is through advertising? The advertising networks who will essentially boxes where do the companies really care, the advertisers, if they're getting perks, they're getting advertiser and they're receiving money from this. How would you stop that? >> Any reaction? But this doesn't address that? >> Yeah, I mean, I think it's a little bit off point, right? I mean, this is just focused on peer-to-peer networks. Most of the commercial peer-to-peer networks or a lot of them are-- >> They're long gone. >> --they're long gone, I mean, they've been sued out of the existence. >> In fact, this is--my understanding is-- >> I mean, it's an interesting question but really doesn't get to what distance. >> Yeah, this is BitTorrent only, right? BitTorrent is an open protocol that all of the major builds of it are non-commercial in nature, right? So, I mean, there are companies that make money off of distributing BitTorrent client software but not a ton of it. So, yeah, I don't think this is directly addressed by the policy. >> Can I just--I don't want to heartily agree with something that Jeff said and that's about the trust issue and Joe should smile because, I mean, this has been a lot about my push about transparency and openness. There is a lack of trust and it's a double-sided lack of trust and that's why I think this system really has to engage the public. I mean I will give CCI credit before they launch, they took the advice of the advisory board and they went and did messaging and I think Joe spoke about it in the first panel and focus groups and learned a lesson that, you know, the wagging finger is not the way to change social norms. You can't call people thieves and pirates and expect them to respect what you're asking them to do. So, I mean, there is a huge trust gap and I think one of the things that the CCI wants to do and this is, again, the entity that's implementing the copyright alert system but also wants to engage in copyright education is to try to as much as possible close that trust gap. I think that is job 1. And you could see it from the reaction in this room. >> I'll be curious to see the wording too of these notices and the blue shirt and then the black shirts. You can just hit your button. >> Actually, he said that they are not working. >> Oh. >> The button is not working too well so let's go to the line possible. >> And for the web cast on. So, in an ideal world, obviously, in the name of free speech and everything, I think that we would just be able to have an open system that wasn't regulated in any way, shape or form but also in the same way in an ideal world, we also wouldn't have any copyright infringement and people would be stealing things from each other and whatnot. So--And Gigi, you said that you want to put kind of an emphasis on positive--you know, moving in a positive manner, not just being angry about all of the stuff. And going along with that, I don't think it's completely unrealistic for some of these people to want or desire a system where people who are stealing things are accountable, but what I want to ask you guys is what are your guys' ideas? So, you know, obviously the burden is on these people who have a lack or resources to be able to get themselves out there while a lot of these companies have vast resources behind and their legal teams and everything to be able to enforce this and especially in lobbying groups and everything. So, in your guys' minds, what's a way that these people could be held accountable for overextending the power that they've been giving through all these processes and whatnot. And, you know, people like overflagging content and users and things like that. And how do you think a legal mechanism would work or that's often a problem? >> Well, there's actually a similar, there was a bill similar to the one that Gigi was talking about in Brazil that would've punished companies for interrupting their version of fair use with funny takedown notices from their version of DMCA. So certainly, something that would counterbalance that kind of unilateral power to sensor that exist within private industry right now. There's also interesting legislation that's been put forward. I think Gigi mentioned Ron Wyden before and/or she mentioned Darrell Issa. So Ron Wyden and Darell Issa have, you know, pushed legislation like the OPEN act which fortunately wasn't passed this year. That would set forth a set of basic and internet bill of rights for consumers or citizens or however you want to think of us, that would say, "Well, okay, we can pass these laws and we can create these policies but they can't go past the certain threshold, right? That threshold being equal participation in the public sphere, equal access to information, all these kinds of basic civil rights use, civil liberties issues that we've been addressing up here. So those two issues are key. And then the third that I would mention is the industry has actually had a lot of interesting ideas about how to create business models that assume a plenitude of information rather than trying to restrict information and sell it on a bit by bit basis, but they have self-imploded every time they have tried to instantiate these models. A great example, and I actually write about this is in my book, having interviewed some of the principles was Chords which came out of Warner Music group a few years ago. It was a pep project by Edgar Bronfman who was then the head of Warner. And what he wanted to do was to [inaudible] a license of the ISP level. And it wasn't even a license. It was a covenant not to sue for various legal reasons. But the basic idea was charge the ISPs 5 bucks that they would pass on to their consumers, it will be virtually invisible to the enduser and nobody would ever get sued for any kind of infringement ever. Now, a lot of people had issues with that and rightfully so, but on the other hand, it would've also solved a lot of problems, and it was not really given an opportunity to thrive or fail in the marketplace largely because it got torpedoed internally by the legal department set the major labels themselves. I mean, Warner could not sell a single other major label on the plan or a single ISP at the end of 18 months. And in fact, one of the great anecdotes that came out of my research about that story was that one of the meetings between the heads of the 2 largest major labels never happened because they couldn't get past an argument whose office it would take place in, right? So to me, the biggest obstacle to the content industry being able to profit in the era of ubiquitous information is their own self-immolation and not obstinacy and not idiocy but rather structural resilience to innovation and change. >> At the risk of advertising on my own organization over and over which of course I have to do, go to internetblueprint.org. We have 2 proposals, one that would essentially make it easier to go after folks that send frivolous DMCA notices and another that would allow folks to sort of countersue for copyright abuse. I just have to make one point about I don't see this system as necessitating people lawyering up, okay, and having to hire a lawyer, okay? The appeals process is basically going to be a form, and it's going to be implemented by the American Arbitration Association which is, you know, you can hardly get a more credible group, okay? So--and you know, I'm not necessarily--sure I buy the digital divide argument. I don't use Tor or VPN and I don't know how many--I mean, you're talking about like the top of the top of the technological elite and I guess I'm not one of them. So, I think you're overstating a little bit, you know, what kind of lawyering up people are going to do and I think the goal and certainly one of my goal is try to make the appeals process as simple as possible. But the thing I don't really understand and Molly discussed something that you said before is would you prefer there's not an appeals process? I mean, with the notice and notice or whatever it was called, or the prior of incarnation of this notice system, there was no appeals process. There was no due process, okay? You just--you got these notices and let's remind folks under the terms of service of every single ISP, you can get kicked off, okay? I'm not happy either. ^M01:50:00 That is the one thing I did forget to say in my list of grievances of what I was not crazy about in the MOU, was I did want termination taken off the table. But now, the major ISPs, most of them have said publicly, we will not terminate our customers according to this plan. Do they want to kick their customers off? Of course, they don't, and believe you me I get in battles with ISPs all the time. So, I mean, I think I do really caution people, let's see how this thing is implemented before you pass judgment on how it really, really works. [Inaudible Remark] >> Yeah, I just--I wanted to say a couple of things and then also respond here. In building on something that Gigi has said earlier and, well, actually, and you have mentioned the issue of trust. I think part of the reason that there's such a suspicion and a lack of trust is because this is a purely private process. And it's hard to feel confident that someone's going to handle things appropriately if you have no ability to hold them accountable if they don't or if they decide halfway through to change what's going on. So one of the things that's in response to your question is some form of public oversight. Now, we don't have to go all the way to judicial review necessarily. We don't have, I mean, part of the advantage of having a sort of extra legal system is to make it A, more flexible, right. When you try to deal with things like this with legislation it's outdated, you know, half an hour after you pass it, right? So it's flexible, it can respond well, but completely private I think exacerbate some of the trust issues that people have in being confident that they're grievances and concerns are going to be heard. So, I would say that putting into place something like here's the minimum that these kinds of systems can't go beyond, you can't terminate because [inaudible]. I would say, you know, doing that in domestic law, we do have something to look at. The International Human Rights Law, I think, does provides for that Bill of Rights that you were talking about, we could draw on that. But being able, in a public fashion, to kind of set them in those minimums, and I think that's not only relevant to this debate but there's a number of different initiatives where we're calling for more network management, for more involvement, and to be able to just sort of set a baseline would be really helpful. And then the question about the, you know, would it be better or not to have an appeal, I think more process is always better. I also teach the procedure, right? [laughter] But what concerns me is that there's sort of a tension between the state of educational purpose of the project and the fact that there are mitigation measures, right? If it were just the education, then sending the notices, sure, send the notices, tell people this is illegal. I mean, I think from an educated standpoint, simply telling people they're doing something that's illegal or that somebody in their household is serves that purpose very, very well. But to tie it to a sanction or a mitigation measure, right, to tie it to some kind of a consequence, I find that--that does--that isn't some tension with the state of education on purpose. And it's at that point where I want to throw more procedure at it, right, because it's having negative consequence. >> I think that's really right. >> That is the point at which you get at the mitigation stage is what you get [inaudible]. >> But that you also have the hassle stage. We all know that just really, pardon me, nice people came here but calling your cable company is a mitigation itself. Being forced to deal with it, right, that's a mitigation. But I want to emphasize on what everyone said. Really importantly, I think that the discussion has to happen at a level of principles. That--and I'll plug my books as you plugged your organization and plug your book. [laughter] Your class. Is at the end, I come around and say that we have had a discussion of principles about a right to connect, a right to speak, a right to assemble and act, that all bits created equal in the internet must remain open, and we have threats to our internet folks, not just from discussion like this, this is a discussion [inaudible] but it's far worse I would from government. That's why I'm a little concerned about government being an actor on this because look at what's happening in the ITU, look at what's happening across much of Europe, look at what's happening, Lord knows, in China and elsewhere. So, you know, I think that we, the people of the net, you know, we have our [inaudible] process here. It sounds like you, Gigi, are us. >> Well, it's not enough, right? >> Right. And so, that's the issue is we, the us of the internet have to have a discussion at a level of principles to talk about what it is we are protecting in this new society we're building, which goes back to your question. If we have time, if I squeeze it in here for one more and then get up. >> If there are no questions then we can just take them all real quick, and then let you all answer them, okay? So-- >> I think we have one there, and I think we're on the time. So, the earlier questions were mainly for the previous panel, so. >> [Inaudible] I just wanted to say that I'm a little bit shocked by the disbalance in the discussion, and I want to go back to the privacy issue because I think what we're talking about here is stole--steal property. So, the constant owners wanted to protect their property and they wanted to become [inaudible] for that, and that's normal. On the other hand, the users is giving away a lot of personal information which has a lot of value which is monetized without knowing anything about what's going on there. So there is also stolen property from the individuals which is absolutely not transparent, there's no way to know where this is going and asking the question of the trust that you were measuring. It has to be balanced. I mean it needs--if we--first, we got to have transparency. It has to be both ways. It has to be also, "What is my--where is my information going," because otherwise I don't see how the trust can be reestablished and yet the other thing is that it's--well, it's--what do I want to say? Well, I think would just stop there. ^M01:55:51 >> Any reaction there? ^M01:55:54 >> Well, sure, I mean just on privacy. I mean I think there are some questions about what happens to the data that's collected and so forth but ultimately, this does start with the user going on to a public peer-to-peer network and making files available to the general public and making that IP address viewable that way. So I think the information that you start with is information that a user, by participating in this public forum, has chosen to put out there. So I think it's significant that that's--you know, that's initially the information and I was actually very glad that the way the program works, that's the information that the content companies get. They get the information that's available to anyone really on the peer-to-peer network and that's what they give to the ISPs and the ISPs do not share back with them as I understand with any personal information. >> But that's why I asked the question before, the previous panel about--so if I go through this process and I don't have a lawyer and I'm not very sophisticated and I say, "Well yeah, I share the stuff but less now than before." Is all of that discoverable if the content company chooses to sue later and I just put myself in a position of liability because, yeah, privacy--not in this part of the process but there's no privacy then in later parts of the process. That's my concern. Is there any answer to that in the--I've entered into a process where I'm told that, "Gee, it's all okay, it's cool. It's just a discussion," but I've said the things that could be used against me. >> So my understanding is that the agreement actually does contain a-- >> I'm sorry. >> Is there a protection about this, let me ask again? >> Could you speak up, Victoria? >> Sure, and I asked about [inaudible] college. If we want this to be happy to [inaudible] a normal subpoena but whatever responses you did that's required of the appeals process are only--if not be used for anything-- >> Is that assured in there? >> Yes, yeah. >> That--okay, that's what I'm asking. >> That is in the agreement [inaudible]. [Multiple Speakers] >> All right. I think we're off the hook. [laughter] So thank you, thank you panel very much, thank you all. And we move on. [applause] >> Thank you so much. >> Wow, that was a great panel. We actually had a couple minutes built in to our schedule for a break but we just used it. So we're not having a break because that was too good to stop. If you have to step out and take a break, please do quietly. We're going to go ahead and move into the final panel and actually, all of you could stay if you don't mind because this final panel includes everyone. So--and what we're going to do here is my colleague, Konstantinos Komaitis, is going to come back and just facilitate this but we're going to give everybody an opportunity to do a little wrap up and I'll turn it over to Konstantinos. ^M01:58:45 [ Inaudible Discussion ] ^M01:58:50 >> Unfortunately, this line up doesn't facilitate [inaudible]. >> So I do want to call back the original panelists, the first panelists to come up and take a seat please. ^M01:59:01 [ Inaudible Discussion ] ^M01:59:42 >> Okay, we only have one hour. We need to--well actually, less than one hour. We need to be out of here by 6 o'clock so I thought that instead of asking questions and questions and questions, just to give the opportunity to each one of you basically to have some--to make some concluding remarks, 5-minute each I think will be fine. The only one thing that I think I picked up from today's discussion which I thought was fantastic was that--and what I heard the questions into the second panelists, especially with Frank with the issue of trust. ^M02:00:19 And the issue of trust, we see it actually happening not only in the context of intellectual property, it's in the issue of privacy, security, even at the governance level. So I would like to start with right here and ask, you know, for some concluding the remarks and if you can also address the issue of trust, that would be great, how basically the system will make sure that users are--will be able to trust the system to make the right decisions and move forward because we've all heard that this is a far better idea compared at least to what we saw at the level of SOPA and PIPA. So please, you have the floor. Thanks. ^M02:00:59 [ Pause ] ^M02:01:05 >> Okay. You know, I actually thought the dialogue in that panel was very good and I understand the trust issue. I think that's an important point. On that, I guess there are 3 things I would say that we try to build into this system that try to address that. One is transparency and you saw that recently where there was a concern expressed in I think a blog or some kind of a thing on the internet saying that one of the companies that was used to do the review of the content companies tracking--or monitoring system might have been some work for the content community at some time as a lobbyist. So we immediately talked about that and said let's have another independent review of the work that was done. We have--I don't think it has been selected yet but we did immediately say, you know, that--I didn't look that deeply at the allegation but the concern was, "Look, it's out there and there's concerns that have been built up on that so we need take a look at that and do something quickly to make sure people know we're serious about this." So I think that does show we're serious about it. Secondly, we did put into this system an advisory board. Gigi's on it. Some other advocates are on it too. Obviously, that alone isn't enough but because we're going to be very transparent, hopefully the Internet Society and members here who've heard about this will be helpful as well. So hopefully the--you know, the crowdsourcing that we usually expect, I mean, that will be a part of the process. Certainly as the notices begin to go out, I expect that there will be occasionally some people have concerns raised in that process and that'll be another learning tool for all of us. So I think that's another part of it. Third, David raised, that's Sohn, I think some good question or concerns he had and one of the things he talked about for example was the fact that the system might actually not--might be working that well and we need to have some way to correct that and again, we built in to the process a review so it won't just be a one-time review of the monitoring system. It'll be a regular review. So we'll look at it again to say, "Is it still working," and part of that, we'll be taking that data and internally at least looking at it and saying, "Is there something here that shows there's a problem here?" So I think on the trust area, we're trying to do--we try to do as much as we could and recognize it's something that people are, you know, see something that's unfamiliar to some extent even though, again, it's been out there for a while. So we're going to have some time. I think we need some time to actually make it work and prove itself and I think that's the most I would like to ask you to do is not trust but actually give us some time to make it work and earn the trust by actually making the process effective. David also raised one other point which I think is a good one and I don't think there's a real answer to it but we're going to try and that is how do you assure you reach the people? One of the reasons that we have the notice system we have with the--including the pop-up and so forth is because we do want to try to make as much effort as we can to get the attention of people. It's an education process and I do believe a lot of the instances where these kinds of things happen are in group homes where people are living together and somebody has the account, the other folks are using it and something's going on that the person who has the account doesn't even know what's going on and then certainly, it ends with parents and their kids. So you know, the continuous process of sending out the notices, the pop-up and the mitigation phase at the end, again, is just to say, "Get your attention, would you please acknowledge us either a yes or no" and that I think is another way we're trying to make sure we get through as much as we can. There's no perfect system. I agree with that and even the voicemails are going to be saying to people I don't think they're going to get to everybody either. I know in my case [laughter] voicemail is sort of last century. I don't even check it as much as I used to so--but it's, again, an attempt to be as full--as broad as we can in terms of making sure we get the notices into people who need to know what's going on. So I think those are the points that I've made. The only other thing I would add, again, is that I do think that, you know, one of the things we were trying to do as we built this system is to try to be as fair as we could and then putting as many mechanisms as we could into it that both make sure people are educated and have a chance to go find out more about the process and about copyright and so forth. And find legal sources of copyright--legal material. And in fact, if we go to the CCI site when it gets fully up and running you'll see that. It's got a lot of notices, a lot of places where you can go to get contents and so forth. So it really is education focused and I hope it makes a difference. >> Thank you very much. Fernando. >> Thank you. And I thought that the prior panel was excellent and also again, want to thank you for having us here, Paul and David. It's important not only be here to talk and explain ourselves but also to be accountable to you and to get the feedback. I was furiously writing down notes. There's no way that I can in five minutes follow Link who's been at this for a while and is very eloquent, and I think you also had some very good points. But I will say the following which I was scribbling down while Link was talking. So if I repeat them, you know. This is a process--part of the processes getting your feedback, part of the process is also hearing from you as we are rolling this out. We want to get it right because it's important, we know, it's important to our customers that we get it right because they rely on us and they're relying on us to provide a service that they value and that's important to them. We are here trying to make it work, we expect to learn. And I think that it's important that people understand that because this is not about having a perfect system and imposing it. The MOU expressly provides for revisions and for feedback, for data gathering, for education of the participants as well. And it's important for me to tell you, it's important for my company to tell you that we take that seriously, we expect to learn. The second thing is a long the lines of learning. Again, this is an educational program. I heard a lot of comments about extreme cases. We're not trying to target extreme cases here. We are trying to educate the vast, you know, majority of internet users for whom a cultural change is a hard thing and to be constructive about it. So we're not trying to catch the person who, you know, is an extreme use case, difficult to track down, they can get around it, they're not going to be convinced, hard hearted. This is about education and again, you know, at the end of the process, we're not planning as a result of this to terminate customers. We're hoping the result is that we have more educated customers. And then finally, a point about language. I notice, I think it's great, you know, that Gigi pointed this out and I was following a little bit of the Twitter back and forth about how it's not constructive to talk in terms of pirates and thieves. And I agree with that. I don't think that that is constructive at all. I also think it's important in engaging all of these that, you know, we don't talk about condemning businesses. We're trying to do things in a moderated way, especially, in an environment where we can all agree that there are, you know, far worse consequences, far worse outcomes and trying to cooperate. You know, we're not trying to be models of the best and the brightest but we also would appreciate if we got some understanding for attempting to do what's in our customers' and our business' best interest in a constructive way, which includes this feedback and I appreciate it, thanks. >> Thank you very much, Fernando. Jill, thanks. >> Thank you. So I just want to echo what both Fernando and Link have said about how valuable it has been to be here and to listen to this dialogue. And to, you know, follow what's been asked and said on the internet during it. And I think that the level of skepticism that we hear is neither surprising nor unwarranted. And we are--as my colleagues have said, you know, really hope that one of the things that this audience and other audiences can do, can to some degree hold judgment in abeyance until the program is up and running which we hope that will be very, very soon, because we do hope that the proof is in the pudding. And, you know, again, we don't have that level of trust at the moment among the various constituencies here and therefore, asking for trust is not probably the best way to proceed but sort of waiting and watching and giving feedback, and hoping that not only do we do it right the first time but that we continue to hone the system. ^M02:09:52 But from my perspective, the more important piece that I want to talk about here which has not been the subject of this discussion is really CCI, the organization that I'm in charge of because we have two mandates and one is to help get the copyright alert system up and running, but for me the more important and the more long lasting and hopefully, the more far reaching aspect of what we're trying to do is to engage in a productive education effort around these issues. That doesn't mean to find a new way to preach about the production of copyright. But it does mean talking about being, you know, an ethical user of the internet, what is it, what are--as the internet rose up. How can we all engage not just in the area of copyrighting content, but across the whole internet, what are the expectations of engaging in ethical way? How do we describe that and how do we begin that dialogue with the bunch of different stakeholders? The other is that we are in a process of partnering with a couple of non-profit organizations around creating curriculum, curricula for kids starting in Kindergarten, about, you know, what is creativity mean, what is the value of having some control over your creative content, and what are the, you know, the rights and responsibilities around that. And so, you know, my challenge is to both take a system that is about identifying allegedly negative behavior, and trying to change that behavior. But doing so under a rubric of messaging and educational materials and interfacing with consumers, and partnership with our advisory board in a way that sort of evolves this social norm, I talked about earlier to something that allows everyone to win, you know, consumers get the content they want in a compelling format. And either for free in many cases or the reasonable price, in a variety of different, you know, venues and on a variety of different devices and whenever, and wherever they want it. And our expectations around content are 21st century expectations are not the expectations that I have, you know, and then down stairs with 55,000 CDs in my collection. You know, people--our kids growing up today, how--are creating different expectations and growing up in a different world. So I hope that in addition to focusing, I'm getting the copyright alert system, right? This group with input from a variety of different constituencies can also get the advocacy and education around the importance of these issues, right? >> Thank you very much, Jill. Victoria? >> Thank you for your time and for listening about the MOU and the copyright alert system. We appreciate your feedback and do take it seriously. I will appreciate the feedback that this group has given us in past. I'm sure that will give you, will give us again the future. We're trying to make it work. We're trying to be sensitive to the privacy concerns, and other concerns that are raised. We'll make mistakes possibly? We hope that they will be identified and corrected. Our goal is to get users to think about what are legitimate alternatives to music. We do attack those music legitimately, to that and RIAA and NARM other group, I believed announced today, a website called www.whymusicmatters.com. It is a guide to license music services in the United States. It is not all of them but it is several of the ones that have been licensed by at least three of the major labels in the United States, we hope that you'll use that as a resource and thinking about where you'd like to go, to get legitimately music. Thank you. >> Thanks, Vicky. As I heard in the last panel, there is a lot interesting discussion about a lot of perfectly legitimate issues involving human rights, involving privacy, involving fair use. I just want to--I don't want to repeat what everyone has said, but I just to very quickly address several things that I heard from the last panel just to take clarify what the system is about, and what is not about. First is mash ups. My colleagues and I at the movie studios have endlessly interesting fair used debates about what sort of mash up are fair use and which or not. This system, does not involved in mash ups. The system is meant to identify people who share entire copies of movies or television shows or so on. Each--if it works as design, it will not catch anything remotely resembling a mash up. If we misidentify something and accidentally insnare a mash up, I'm sure we will hear about it very soon. [laughter] Second was-- >> Nice guys. >> I have no doubt we will hear it. Second thing is there was mention of Deep Packet Inspection. This system has nothing to do with Deep Packet Inspection. The only thing we will be inspecting is the shared folders that people--that is installed on somebody's computer when they join one of these peer-to-peer networks and basically, decide that they're going to "share" their files with everybody else, potentially millions of other anonymous people on the internet. This is something that we could look at today, something that we could look at last year, something that we could look at whether or not this whole copyright alert system works. It has nothing to do with Deep Packet Inspection. And the third thing I just want to address again very briefly is privacy 'cause this may have gotten buried but I just thought that it's worth reemphasizing. Throughout this system when we identify those who are distributing files through peer-to-peer system, we will not know their names. We will not know any identifying information. The only thing that we all know is the IP address which again anybody in this room could figure out by just joining a peer-to-peer network. We will not even know their names or other identifying information about them if they choose to file an appeal. There's one narrow exception to that which got mentioned before but again, [inaudible] repeating is that if somebody says 20th Century Fox authorized me just to distribute Avatar through peer to peer and they say, here's a document that says I could do something, it says, you know, Ben Sheffner, you know, they--I say, oh you know what, I have a letter from Ron Wheeler of 20th Century Fox saying that Ben Sheffner has the authority to distribute this through peer to peer and I submit that as part of the appeal. 20th Century Fox has a right to look up and see in their files whether oh yes, of course, we actually have a record of having done that. Whether like-- >> Unless it's fraudulent. >> Unless it's--and they have every right to challenge it and say it's fraudulent. That's the one extremely narrow to the point of nonexistent scenario where somebody's name could actually be resolved. This system respects privacy. In 99.99 percent of the cases, the person's identity will never ever be shared with the copyright. >> Thank you. Ron, please. >> Rather than repeat some of the excellent comments that have made and can make one additional point that I don't believe has been made. There was on the last panel a discussion about whether it was necessary or appropriate to have mitigation measures in addition to the notices and isn't it sufficiently educative to just send notices. Well, you know what, one of the purposes of this program from my perspective is actually to find out what is the correct answer to that, to that statement because certainly from our perspective, the concern is always been about on notice and notice programs and as you may notice, there's going to be one in Canada as a result of the new Canadian copyright law that was just passed over this summer. Is that they do not have educational value because the recipients of the notices are fully aware that there are no consequences to them. So the concern we've always had is if you get a notice that you know will be followed by exactly nothing and it says have a nice day at the end, you may not change your behavior. And therefore, and if that's true, then we would be seeing lots of notices that weren't responded to. On the other hand, if you have a program where there are reasonable mitigation measures and there's been a debate about what measures that's reasonable or and which ones are not. But if there is a program where I'm told that here's a notice and if you keep getting these and don't change your behavior, then something will happen to you or to the account which you're using. Then, our belief has always been that you're more likely to change your behavior in response to the notice, in other words, to indicate that you have been successfully educated. But, you know, that time will tell of what I--what we are really hoping to see from this is that one or two notices results in change of behavior. That our goal would be that their mitigation measures would never be necessary 'cause it shows that that notice alone is sufficient. And believe me, we will take that into account. We know how controversial mitigation measures are, the fringe programs have been mentioned a few times. It's obviously a very strict series of measures there. Actually, no one has lost their internet access but someone did receive a fine last--within the last month. So, we know how controversial if they turn out not to be necessary to result in changes of behavior. Well believe me, we will forego mitigation measures but that day has not arrived yet. And, again, I don't think it is a matter of trust us or trust the program or anything like that, but wait and see. Let's all wait and see and learn together. Thank you. ^M02:20:05 >> Thanks Ron. >> So, thank you all for spending three hours talking about this. I think it's been really great and I know I've learned a lot. So I want to put a pox on the houses of both the ISPs adn the movie companies 'cause in [inaudible] policy battles, I mean, we were, you know, up against them and they don't always work in the most transparent environment. I mean, they're used to smoky rooms and they're, you know, used to, you know, talking to legislatures one on one. And somebody said to me and I don't remember who it was, well this is a private agreement. It's between companies. So, you know, who has the right to complain? It was essentially the implication. And I said this is not your typical commercial agreement. This is the one that is heavily scrutinized. You know, there was, I wouldn't say there was--the beginning I think there was the heavy hand of government. You can thank your Governor Cuomo for that. But in spite a lot of conspiracy theories the White House really didn't have a whole lot to do with this but they were certainly kept in the loop and they continued to be kept in the loop. So there is some sort of government aspect to this. And I think as a result, I think there needs to be serious oversight. I mean, the implementation of an advisory board I think is one important step. So this is not a commercial agreement like all other commercial agreement. It is one that has oversight and is one that frankly needs your help, okay? So I'm asking you guys, right here and now, when this thing kicks off, if there are problems, you need to let me know. You need to let Jerry Berman know and Jules Polonetsky, my other colleagues on the advisory board 'cause that's what we're here for. We're here to make sure this thing gets implemented fairly. So, you know, we talked a lot about trust. We talked a lot about energy. You know, put your energy into making sure--this thing is not going away, okay? As much as some people in this room might like that to happen, it's not going away. I love the folks that say, you know, call your broadband provider and tell them you'll go somewhere else. I mean, that's the other half of my work. They take nobody else to go to. So let's try to make this work and please do use me and the other folks on the advisory board as mechanisms to make sure that this thing is implemented fairly. Thanks. >> Thank you Gigi. >> I would reiterate everything that Gigi just said which I thought was right on the money. On top of that, I would close with two quick points. I'm very skeptical as I've already indicated about this system working. Number one, because I think that BitTorrent and P-to-P model as we think about it is really last decade's answer to this issue and the range of ways in which people share content freely licensed to unlicensed to otherwise has becomes such a kaleidoscopic variety that trying to close down one channel, you know, is like trying to stop people from getting into New York by closing the Holland Tunnel, right? There are so many other ways. You're going to end up or, you know, to use another metaphor. It's like the, you know, the Dutch boy is sticking his fingers in the dike and hoping that it will hold off the flood that way. So that's a serious problem that you guys haven't addressed and the reason that you haven't addressed this because it can't be addressed, right? The number of channels is continuing to proliferate. The only way that that can be stopped is if there are some very severe mitigation measures at the network level, which clearly for political reasons and ethical reasons, the ISPs and the content industry is not willing to pursue at this point. And that's a very good thing for all of us. But I also just and I--nobody has mentioned this yet. I think it's very important. Over and over and over again, it's been pointed out that the purpose of this policy is education. And it's not entirely clear to me that the problem here is that the consumer base is uneducated, right? Now, the cynical response to that is to say, well, the consumers have been educated by 40,000 people getting sued by the RIAA, tens thousands more getting sued by the MPAA. All kinds of one after another keystone cop style, you know, shooting yourself in the foot, public relations disaster, that's the cynical response. But there's also another response to it which I think is equally important. You know, when I do these surveys of people's activities online, I also ask them open-ended questions like what are your feelings about remixes and mashups and things like that. And what I get out of that is this really interesting glimpse into the ethical frameworks that people use when they try to make sense of these emerging cultural practices. And when I first started doing this particular set of research back in the mid 2000s, 2006, I think, was the first survey. Copyright was completely off of respondents' radar. So it was a wonky legal issue that if anybody knew anything about it, whatever they knew is wrong, right? When I refielded the survey most recently, about a year and a half ago, copyright rose to the top of the level of concerns reported by respondents about their activities online. And the primary way that they address copyright was acknowledging that it is a broken regulatory system that does not address the ethical frameworks that they have developed for themselves around the disposition of cultural information online. I'm not saying that we need to tear down copyright and rebuild it from the ground up. But what I'm saying is that systems that begin with the premise, the consumers, you know, if we can only get to them and explain to them that what they're doing is wrong, I think that is a policy that's destined to fail because consumers have, not just the geeky types, but in very large numbers, majorities perhaps, have already made up their minds about these issues and have kind of moved on and developed their own systems for parsing right from wrong. And until you engage those ethical frameworks that they've actually developed for themselves, you're not going to have a persuasive argument, even assuming you managed to get their attention for 10 seconds. >> Thank you. David. >> So, as I said, as I said, initially, I guess, my overall read is that if this thing works as advertised, it doesn't have to have dire consequences, I do see in this agreement what looks to be a good faith effort to build in some safeguards and some process. As has been said multiple times here, I don't think that means people should just trust it'll all work, we're going to have to wait and see, we're going to have to watch it carefully. I think one of the reasons that one could be optimistic at the outset is that they chose to bring in people like Gigig for the advisory board, right? They could have easily stocked an advisory board with a bunch of yes men or yes women who share the perspective of the industry to put the agreement together, and they chose not to do that. They brought in people not just Gigi but also Jerry Berman who is the founder of my organization. They brought in folks who are going to be willing to ask hard questions and that is at least a positive sign for how it might go forward on implementation. In terms of effectiveness and this question of whether, you know, does education really helps solve the problem? Are users really open to being educator in this topic in a way it would actually reduce infringement. It's an interesting question. I guess, my view is that it's worth thinking about what success would look like for this program. And I guess, to me, I assume that there is some substantial set of consumers out there for whom that's absolutely right. They have lots of different channels for possible infringements, the education here won't affect them much one way or the other. They either might move to something that isn't peer to peer or they'll ignore the notices or what have you. My hypothesis would be that there is, though, also a substantial subset of users who either don't fully understand copyright law, don't know that their behavior on some of these networks is observable, or don't know that it's really the 15 year old in the house who's doing all this, and that, if the parents were to find out what junior has been doing, they would do something to try to rein that in. So, I guess that's why I'm optimistic that there is the potential for some reduction in infringement here. Certainly, it only--the program only goes to those folks who are amenable to being--to having their behavior changed through some education and through more information, and that is, I suspect some, but obviously, not all of the population. >> Thank you, David. >> Jeff, would you like to say something? >> So, I'm gratified to have created the trending hash tag of the day and trust. And I think that does remain an issue. But I still think there's a bigger issue even than that. And I'm not sure we know what business we're in. We certainly don't know what the internet is yet, and we're trying to regulate it and define it by the legacy. I'm fond to point out that Elizabeth Eisenstein, a key scholar in Guttenberg, says that we didn't really know what the book was. [Inaudible] 50 years after it was created. There's an area of great creativity here, and that goes also to the business models. In my end of the media and content business, the news business which has been, of course, terribly disrupted, I'm coming to argue to my folks that maybe we're not in the content business at all, that we should see ourselves in the service business, the relationship business and data about that, and that's something that Google and Facebook understand that we don't understand. ^M02:30:04 We still think we make a thing because that's what we have to do to get our service out there before. And as an author of sorts, I've done two books, either of which I will sell you, I will also say that I don't make most of the money from that. I make money from getting some speaking gigs and things like that, so I really need not so much copyright but a credit right that when my ideas get out there what I want is provenance and links back to me. An ethical behavior on the internet is to link this and just please spread my--what I say, agree with it or disagree with it, nicely please, and link back to me and give provenance to me so that I can then get credit in the conversation. I can be part of the conversation, I can maybe get a gig out of out of it, whatever I choose to do to exploit that and I think thus, we see people like me finding new business models because we have to, and I would say with respect to the entertainment industry that some bright kid in the garage will, by God or in something called YouTube, will create entertainment and create models that take advantage of abundance over scarcity. And that do not try to make a business model anymore out of fighting your customers, fighting people who like you and just as GGS [phonetic] asked in the internet to be positive and to go toward new things and new fair use and such, I would challenge you in your industries, and I used to be part of it, to be positive in the sense of saying how can we find ways and you may yes, you will disrupt the business models you have, you will disrupt the windows of distribution you have, you will piss off some people as you already have, but if you give your fans and these are people who want to watch your stuff, if you give your fans the ability to buy your stuff when and where and how they want to I have to believe that is the key to business success. It's disruptive, well welcome to the club. I can tell you about it from the newspaper business that we're disrupted and that by trying to protect the old, it didn't work worth a damn. And what we have to do is change our business, disrupt our own business and I will say as a university person what I'm concentrating on right now is a strategy process for my school because of accreditation that I can't stand. And what we're trying to do right now is to imagine our own disruption, imagine the school that would disrupt us and destroy us. We're only six years old. Well, I would say the same challenge exist for all of us here. This is the internet, this is the new reality, disrupt yourselves, don't just protect the past. >> Thank you, Jeff. We have 5 to 10 minutes for some last minute comments but before I open the floor, I will just like to say that we believe at the Internet Society, that multi-stake holder dialogue and I've mentioned that before it's very important and I was very glad to hear Jill in particular mentioning and everybody else mentioning that this system envisions some sort of dialogue, it was based on the dialogue that's why they brought people like Gigi that everybody was mentioning. Now the challenge is to continue this dialogue and it is to find a way to make the system work and to hear everybody, businesses, the ISPs, I'm sure that this is a learning curve and many issues will emerge, other issues will be resolved, some issues will not be resolved so the challenge right now is to identify ways in order to bring everybody together and to make this a more inclusive framework. As I said, this discussion today for me is just the beginning and we as the internal society we will facilitate and continue having these discussions. And with that note, I would like to ask some final remarks. I know that Johnny [phonetic] also wants to say something so please identify yourself. Thanks. >> My name is Daniel Resler [phonetic] and one of the things that I see kind of missing from the panel right now is okay, so we got the music industry and the movie industry, but one of the big content providers nowadays is video games and interactive entertainment. And I want to ask, have they been approached because I know that they're making a lot of innovative techniques and business models to get that content in an easy serviceable manner out to the public. Have they been contacted and asked for advice on how to implement something like this, for example the Steam network that Valve Software runs is a very successful marketplace for proprietary content. And so, that's what I want to ask the panel who are, I guess, actually implementing the system, not necessarily the advocates. >> We do work ESA, the Entertainment Software Association, that represents most of the video game makers. So, we talk to them fairly often about what are content protection measures that work or don't work in their industry and also what are legitimate distribution models that work and don't work. Today, the US record industry is over 50 percent digital in sales. We have been highly disrupted by the internet. The labels are working very hard to come up with new distribution models over the internet. If you go to whymusicmatters.com, you'll see that there are over 50 different business models, stores right now that will sell you or give you access to music in a variety of different matters where you want, when you want, how you want it. That doesn't even include the over 2,000 online music radio stations right now like Pandora, iHeartRadio, Sirius XM, Jazz, you know, web casting as well as the satellite radio and others. >> Johnny? >> I want to talk about well, about sharing. You mentioned sharing and something I heard Stewart Copeland of The Police say once about music and he said, "It's not about me, it's about us." And so, sharing is a very natural thing and by trying, you know, by trying to inhibit it, you know, it's an unnatural act and it would seem that it would be better to like find ways of exploiting it rather than restricting it. Getting more onto the point of sharing, I heard you say that the policies defined you want to find what--you're going to find people shared folders, enter this, and find what's in them, and the people who are sharing. So I'm wondering if you could just clarify how the policy affects people who are sharing or just people who are downloading. And so, you know, for instance, with BitTorrent, you can throttle your seeding as against your downloading so if one were to like you know, throttle your seeding down to zero, you'll not be sharing anything. Would that be some kind of defense? >> When MarkMonitor is, you know, busy scanning the internet and looking--scanning these peer-to-peer networks, what they--and when they look inside somebody's share folder, what they are seeing is somebody distributing. >> Excuse me, but with BitTorrent, you do not see people share folders. All you see is what files they are BitTorrenting. And you cannot tell whether they're actually uploading those files unless you're--unless they actually upload to you. >> And well that's what they're doing. [Simultaneous Talking] >> Where we're talking about BitTorrent. >> Well, in BitTorrent, when you're in a swarm, my understanding is you're simultaneously uploading and downloading unless you throttle yourself, what you're talking about. And, the MarkMonitor program for the BitTorrent protocol is looking at the swarm and looking at the distribution from the swarm. So, it is looking at distribution. >> And it is in fact downloading and depending on whether it was the first time this particular file had been detected. They actually are downloading either all or part of it to verify in fact that this person-- >> So if you've set your seeding to zero which you can, you're presumably immune from MarkMonitor-- >> If you're not distributing then you won't be detected. >> Oh sorry. If you were just plainly downloading [inaudible]. ^M02:38:06 [ Inaudible Remarks ] ^M02:38:11 >> Thanks, Charlie. >> There's nothing to worry about. [Laughter] >> You're good. You're all good. >> Yeah, you know how I am. I'm going to just restate what some things that Aram and Jeff brought up earlier. Let's look into the mind of our pirate who are all really mad, supposedly. This is a person who likes your content that you're creating and they are--they're not--they may be stealing but they are out of packet donating disk space and bandwidth and they are acting as a volunteer to distribute your content. You pay people to distribute your content but you got people volunteering to do this. So, it seems to me to that you need another business model where you can handle the royalty problem but not alienate those people and get them to work for you. >> I'll take that 'cause a number of people have been getting this advice on business models. With all due respect, I think we know a little bit more about running our business than people, the average man on the street. Whether--if we're forced to change our business model because the old one that delivered returns to our shareholders of a certain amount, of course we will. We have entire teams of people creating new business models as Vicky talked about, same is true in the movie business. But we actually have to be the ones to tell our shareholders that it's a good idea for them to own stock in our company. So just saying things like oh well, the ad supported. Ad-supported movies, it's a great idea. We'll never make another Avatar with ad-supported movies. You have to pencil it out and this is our business. So, look, we're not against changing our business. We've changed our business a million times over the years, not as fast as people want but there's always a reason why we decided not to do one thing or another. And that's true, it's the nature of capitalism. You can object to capitalism but that's--the shareholders-- >> Oh come on. >> What do you mean? >> Come on, if people are trying to think--listen, this is the time when they're new--how's your newspaper business working, sir? Great, isn't it, right? If people have suggest this for you in your business and say things and you just dismiss them 'cause you're so much-- >> I did not. I did not dismiss them. I just said we probably know a little bit more about running a newspaper business than that the average person in the street. >> Oh, it's going great. [Laughter] >> Okay, it's going great. Are you going to guarantee we're going to make more money if we follow your advice? >> I don't know, but I know there are different models [inaudible]. >> Of course there are different models. We can give away our products for free. >> Okay. >> And we put out a tip jar but that--yeah, seriously. Do people think their--those are-- [Simultaneous Talking] >> You're dismissing-- >> I'm not dismissing anything. I'm only saying, please cut us some slack. You don't have to trust us. It's not about trust but please understand that we are not inherently opposed in new business models but we do insist that they--they pencil out and there's nothing wrong with that, I make no apologize--apologies for saying that they have to pencil out for us and for our shareholders. >> But that's not-- >> Sorry, we're running out of time and there are a couple of other comments. So I'm sorry to be cutting on-- >> If I can be brief in it. I won't bring up [inaudible] his claim that the VCR was going to-- ^M02:41:16 [ Inaudible Discussion ] ^M02:41:23 >> Are you sure? Are you sure you don't want to bring it up? >> I don't want to bring that up. I want to apologize for being flipped earlier but let me try and make it more explicit what I was trying to get across when--is that you, the content industry has now is asking people to restrict the way they use their internet connection and not allow them to share wirelessly with their neighborhood, with people on the street. They're asking for that. In exchange, they're not--there's nobody that has brought up the idea that maybe we should examine life of the author plus 70 years as a ridiculously long term for copyright which was not how it--the copyright system evolved. This is not a natural system. This is a manmade system. And so, this notion of fairness, it just seems--we're already talking about an end game which seems reasonable given where you started from but from where I sit seems wholly unreasonable. >> Can I just--thanks in reactions but this is about the copyright alert system so please try to limit your comments on the system-- >> Internet blueprint proposes rolling that copyright terms, sign up for it. And be active, be active on the Hill where these changes can actually be made. >> Hi, my name is Jay Saltzburger [phonetic] and I have occasionally sent an email for the past 40 years, maybe more. I'm getting old. Okay, I don't know anything about the proposal except what I read late last night when I was alerted into this panel. I probably am misunderstanding something. The proposal is that I ask peace would look inside my packets and read what's inside--that's wire tapping. Oh, wait a second. I feel much better. Wait, let me finish this sentence. So you're just going to do traffic analysis. >> No. >> That's all? >> No. >> Well then, how possibly can you tell whether or not somebody is perhaps committing copyright infringement by sending me some bootilicious video I got about 10 years ago? You know, how do you tell if you don't violate and guess what, they haven't all been repealed, the wire tap laws. That's all. >> As I understand it, as a peer-to-peer user-- >> Right. >> I am voluntarily going onto the network-- >> Right. >> And voluntarily exposing my IP address-- >> Sure. >> And-- >> And the files. >> And distributing files-- >> Right. >> To the public. >> Right. And you might commit a copyright violation in the way that [inaudible], somebody from the Englobulators secret police slash copyright violators snare system asks you for something which you don't have a license to redistribute and then they go to court. And then you say, this person has committed a copyright violation by sending me this thing that is not freely licensed, that's the mechanism, right? I'm following what you just said and I misunderstood if that was--so how do you know that somebody might be committing copyright violation without wiretapping? Why is it okay to wiretap? >> This is actually--that question has actually been mitigated and it's--[inaudible] write a privacy when you're basically creating this file, exposing it-- >> Well, then we really need to get people more encrypt so we can get together and overthrow this government. Don't be ridiculous. The United States has a lady in the harbor, right? And the people came over here because they wouldn't get the knock after midnight and come in and then take them away or beat them to death on the spot. As far as I can tell, copyright violation doesn't deserve--they destroy the internet. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for being here until this late and I will just give the floor now to Paul for some concluding remarks. Thanks. ^M02:45:36 [ Inaudible Remarks ] ^M02:45:44 >> This has been really an outstanding event. I hope that everyone has found it to be very educational. I certainly have. We have some really-- >> It's been educational for me. [Laughter] >> It has, especially a lot of the questions, the participation from the audience. By the way, we've had great online viewership through the entire event. So we've reached a large audience with this. We're going to be archiving this. It's going to be subtitled. So, this will be very helpful to anyone that has questions going forward about this system. We would like to follow up with you all at a future point in time, maybe after this system has been fully launched and operational just to touch base and see how things are going. I think that would be very appropriate. I've already got interest from Washington, D.C. Chapter or San Francisco Bay Chapter, so I'm not sure where the venue will be but you can count on it that we're going to be here to have events like this on this topic and others. So, thank you all very much for being here. We do have refreshments. So we have about an hour of refreshments and that is, where is it? >> Second floor. >> On the second floor, okay. >> Elevator and follow the sign. >> Elevator and follow the signs. There is another event in this room immediately following this. So, I please ask you to just clean up your area and make sure it looks nice and neat. Thank you all. >> Thank you. ^M02:47:09 [ Applause ] ^M02:47:15 [ Inaudible Discussions ]