Five simple fixes for the Protect IP Act

For CNET this morning, I offer five crucial corrections to the Protect IP Act, which was passed out of committee in the Senate back in May.

Yesterday, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, co-chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, told a Silicon Valley audience that the House was working on its own version and would introduce it in the next few weeks.

Protect IP would extend efforts to combat copyright infringement and trademark abuse online, especially by websites registered outside the U.S.

Since Goodlatte promised the new bill would be “quite different” from the Senate version, I thought it a good time to get out my red pen and start crossing off the worst mistakes in policy and in drafting in Protect IP.

The full details are in the article, but in brief, here’s what I hope the House does in its version:

  1. Drop provisions that tamper with the DNS system in an effort to block U.S. access to banned sites.
  2. Drop provisions that tamper with search engines, indices, and any other linkage to banned sites.
  3. Remove a private right of action that would allow copyright and trademark holders to obtain court orders banning ad networks and financial transaction processors from doing business with banned sites.
  4. Scale back current enforcement abuses by the Department of Homeland Security under the existing PRO-IP Act of 2008.
  5. Focus the vague and overinclusive definition of the kind of websites that can be banned, limiting it to truly criminal enterprises.

As I’ve written elsewhere, the Senate version was in some ways even worse than last year’s COICA bill.  It imposes significant costs on innocent Internet users, and would do so with no corresponding benefits to anyone, including rightsholders.

The best thing the House could do would be to ignore this dud and work instead on reforming the broken copyright system.  That would do the most to correct the imbalance in endless copyrights and a shrinking public domain, eliminating much of the incentive for infringement that exists today.

But short of that, I hope at least that the most dangerous provisions are removed.

Net neutrality poisoning spectrum auctions

On CNET this morning, I argue that delay in approving FCC authority for voluntary incentive auctions is largely the fault of last year’s embarrassing net neutrality rulemaking.

While most of the public advocates and many of the industry participants have moved on to other proxy battles (which for most was all net neutrality ever was), Congress has remained steadfast in expressing its great displeasure with the Commission and how it conducted itself for most of 2010.

In the teeth of strong and often bi-partisan opposition, the Commission granted itself new jurisdiction over broadband Internet on Christmas Eve last year.  Understandably, many in Congress are outraged by Chairman Julius Genachowski’s chutzpah.

So now the equation is simple:  while the Open Internet rules remain on the books, Congress is unlikely to give the Chairman any new powers.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa has made the connection explicit, telling reporters in April that incentive auction authority will not come while net neutrality hangs in the air.  There’s plenty of indirect evidence as well.

The linkage came even more sharply into focus as I was writing the article.  On Tuesday, Illinois Senator Mark Kirk offered an amendment to Sen. Reid’s budget proposal, which would have prohibited the FCC from adding neutrality restrictions on VIA auctions.  On Wed., Sen. Dean Heller wrote a second letter to the Chairman, this one signed by several of his colleagues, encouraging the Commission to follow President Obama’s advice and consider the costs and benefits of the Open Internet rules before implementing them.

Yesterday, key House Committee chairmen initiated an investigation into the process of the rulemaking, raising allegations of improper collusion between the White House and the agency, and of a too-cozy relationship between some advocacy groups and members of the Commission.

All this for rules that have yet to take effect, and which face formidable legal challenges.

The Chairman needs a political solution to a problem largely of his own creation.  But up until now, there’s little indication that either the FCC or the White House understand the nature of the challenge.  This year, we’ve had a steady drumbeat of spectrum crisismongering, backed up by logical policy and economic arguments in favor of the VIAs.

While some well-respected economists aren’t convinced VIAs are the best solution to a long history of spectrum mismanagement, for the most part the business case has been made.  But the FCC keeps making it anyway.

Meanwhile, the net neutrality problem isn’t going away.  Mobile users are enjoying their endless wireless Woodstock summer, marching exuberantly toward oblivion, faster and in greater numbers all the time.

Silicon Valley better save us.  Because the FCC, good intentions aside, isn’t even working on the right problem.

 

My summer romance: the FCC's wireless competition report

I’m spending the summer curled up with a good book–or more precisely, a good 300 page printout of the FCC’s 15th Annual Mobile Wireless Competition Report. It’s massive collection of data makes compelling reading for the mobile industry geek, and the 100 or so charts and tables make the 3d special effects in “Green Lantern” look like a hand-drawn flip book. (Well, so I guess, since I haven’t seen “Green Lantern” or nearly any other summer blockbuster.)

So far, I’ve written three thumbs-up book reviews, and looking over my notes, I’ve barely scratched the surface. But for now I think I’ll take a break.  Though I’m sure I’ll have more to say before the sequel comes out next year.

Here’s what we’ve got so far, in short, longer, and longest order:

1. San Jose Mercury News (with Geoff Manne): “California PUC Should Approve Merger of AT&T and T-Mobile.”

2.  BNA Daily Report for Executives (with Geoff Manne):  “FCC Mobile Competition Report is One Green Light for AT&T/T-Mobile Deal.”

3. Forbes.com, “The iPhone, Android, and the FCC:  Obeying the Prime Directive.“