TAUZIN PUSHES FOR RIGHTS MANAGEMENT; LEGISLATION CALLED UNLIKELY

Stakeholders were asked to produce report July 15 enumerating what final steps Congress, others need to take to resolve issues. “He has directed all the affected stakeholders to do a little homework in the next month and a half designed to bring us closer to some final agreements,” Johnson said. Asked whether Tauzin was disappointed with dissension in original report, Johnson said Tauzin was concerned but “based on today’s discussions, we believe that whatever remaining issues there are can be resolved fairly quickly.”

Meanwhile, legislation that would require govt. to set digital rights management (DRM) standards if private sector does not isn’t likely to make it into law but at least it got conversation rolling, said Elizabeth Frazee, vp-domestic public policy & govt. affairs for AOL Time Warner. S-2048, introduced by Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Hollings (D- S.C.), is “overbroad,” but companies that sought congressional help did so to spark discussion over how to balance DRM and content protection, Frazee said at Tues.’s Women’s High Tech Coalition panel discussion. “Real progress is being made on DRM,” she said, but there are still holes that need to be filled, perhaps with “a little help from Congress.”

One gap involves broadcast flag standard to protect over-the-air broadcast content, Frazee said. Encryption won’t work, she said, because it will keep consumers with analog technologies from accessing programs, she said. At same time, Frazee said, AOL Time Warner doesn’t want consumers to be able to download “every episode of ‘ER'” and put them online without commercials.

Hollings bill would be “DRM Pearl Harbor” for Internet service providers (ISPs), said Sarah Deutsch, Verizon vp- assoc. gen. counsel. Measure would upset carefully negotiated language in Digital Millennium Copyright Act that requires service providers to craft voluntary standards available to all stakeholders for protecting copyright, she said. But content owners have never sat down with other players to discuss provision, Deutsch said. Bill also shifts responsibility for content protection from owners to ISPs, she said, and gives copyright holders “almost limitless control” over transmission of their material. Instead, she said, industry should focus on voluntary solutions that address specific problems, and on balancing consumer access with copyright protection, maybe via compulsory licenses. There’s no need to “rush to regulate” in area of broadcast flags because not all interested parties are at table yet, Deutsch said. However, she said, legislation that targets certain issues and keeps technology open might fly.

Asked where consumers fit into DRM equation, Frazee said it’s in every industry’s best interest to consider what users want. However, she said, real question arises in technology arena, and there it’s up to Congress and FCC to determine what’s in consumers’ best interest. Content community has “a lot of repair work” to do with consumers who view it as the “bad guy,” said Deutsch. And even after all debate, she said, DRM may turn out to be just another roadblock that consumers will have to learn to sidestep.

For its part, European Union (EU) has no plans to legislate on DRM, said Patricia Moll, European Commission Delegation special trade adviser for e-commerce and Internet policy. EU supports private sector solutions based on open and interoperable standards, she said, and hopes to sponsor workshops later this year led by different industry players - - content, user, information technology and consumer electronics -- with view to producing report in Dec.

Meanwhile, public discussion forum is needed to resolve issue of DTV content protection, because private Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG) produced broadcast flag report that was flawed, represented views of narrow interests and would threaten consumers’ fair use rights, said Philips Consumer Electronics CEO Larry Blanford. Blanford said Congress should create new public policy forum to unite divided industries and consumer interests and avoid protracted battle over broadcast content protection. BPDG report, he said, highlighted many public policy issues that remain to be decided, including how consumers can use content, who controls use of content, and how private interests will compete in digital age.

Blanford said he no longer believes informal process such as BPDG can devise content protection plan that reflects diverse views of copyright owners, consumer electronics makers and consumer groups reflected in BPDG report. “Essentially, this process allows a few studios and a small private consortium of technology companies to control content and dictate how licenses will be granted,” Blanford said. In place of ad hoc group, he said he envisioned an open, public policy forum that would seek consensus by working through many complicated and contentious aspects of protecting DTV content from unauthorized retransmission. He said forum should include all relevant industries and consumer interests, have strong leadership, and be charged with making policy recommendations that would protect public interest.

BPDG process was flawed from start, Blanford said, including: (1) BPDG’s goal wasn’t clearly defined, with some members disputing very idea that it should devise technical solution to issue of broadcast retransmission over Internet. (2) Those in control of BPDG drove group toward only one approach to problem instead of allowing group to evaluate alternatives. (3) Small group of private interests pushed one approach, made key decisions behind closed doors, and shut out other BPDG members.