AT&T and Copyrights

Furthering a trend in online copyrights enforcement, AT&T announced yesterday that it has struck an accord with the RIAA in a self-policing policy. I'm not surprised to see this measure gaining traction. The large sum law suits the RIAA has filed over the past decade have not only failed to deter illegal downloads, they have been a public relations nightmare. While I doubt the new plans will be effective without proper incentive, (the article hints there is not any quid-pro-quo between AT&T and the RIAA) I at least think it will be more effective and far less objectionable. But, it again broaches the issues of internet privacy I posted earlier. If the Congress does pass a bill legislating privacy, I'd be interested to see if there's some sort of protection for ISPs to monitor file sharing.

Internet Privacy one step at a time

When George Orwell told us big brother was watching his future detailed a world where government had absolute control over information and power. How different we are 24 years after his predictions, in a world where the greatest threat to privacy and personal information is not the public sector rather the private one. Whether it's a search engine, major software developers, e-mail services, mal-ware, spyware or internet service providers, it seems like someone is always trying to figure out where we're going on the internet, what we're looking at and the best way to sell things to us.

Enter the government, Orwell's amorphous antagonist, but in this future might actually be that which can save us from Big Brother, or whoever is watching. There has been a flurry of stories coming out of the New York Times lately which indicate some sort of progress on internet privacy rules. However, news from the Times Online and the Met News seem to be indicating a strong resistance to any European style privacy rules.

What needs to happen in order for these restrictions to have any real teeth is international cooperation. The internet, more than television print or radio, is an a global medium which requires global solutions. But, in this climate, as protectionism takes hold there's going to be a lot of resistance for international cooperation on anything.

I think that while internet privacy won't likely be discussed at the G20 next month, it's fate is largely bound to the success of those talks about larger issues of trade policy. If the G20 can encourage a global effort to unite economies and governments, we will start to see the framework through which true consumer protection on the internet can be built.

NPR's foot fetish troubles

Two weeks ago, NPR caught some heat from its listeners about a segment that contained graphic descriptions of a man with a foot fetish and other abnormal sexual desires. The enraged listeners called in with complaints about the program, and demanded that a warning be played before any such segments to, as the old refrain goes, protect the children.

This goes back to the original debate in the late 1990's when Congress decided to institute the TV Parental Guidelines. Under the original rules news and sports programs were exempt from these guidelines. But it does raise two interesting points I've been wondering about. Whether content should be subject to these parental guidelines and to what extent they are effective.

First I think that the idea of the parental warnings have wholly backfired. The hysteria over violent video games (2000's) graphic television (1990s) and irreverent heavy metal lyrics (1980's) has not stopped growth in these industries. Arguably, warning labels that have been affixed to these products have promoted their sale, rather than deterred it.

That being said, providing guidelines to consumers is not necessarily a bad idea, nor do I think it rises to the level of censorship. Much like with FDA mandated nutrition facts on breakfast cereal and other processed foods, I believe consumers have a right to a fair warning of what they are purchasing. So, I don't think it was unreasonable to ask NPR for a clearly worded warning about the content of the show. However, I do wonder about such a warning's effectiveness. I myself am a station surfer. If I don't like something, I switch to a new station.

The likelihood that I would hear such a warning before I turned on a segment is very remote. Furthermore, like with albums, it is difficult to tell what constitutes graphic material. Thrash metal band Slayer's 2001 album "God Hates Us All" bares the same parental advisory sticker that has been affixed to a Justin Timberlake album. But, despite it's probable lack of effectiveness I think NPR could cover its bases by simply providing a 5 second warning prior to airing any further racy segments.

USA! USA! We're number one!

I was looking at this Daily Chart by the Economist which ranks the world's public officials by country on disclosure requirements. I found a number of the results surprising.

France and Italy have less disclosure than Mexico. Typically public disclosure is the best defense against corruption, and it's surprising to see that Mexico, which is very high on the Corruption Perceptions Index, ranked above Italy and France.

The United States is number one. Go FOIA? I'm going to go ahead and assume this poll didn't include Bill Deweese or former President Bush's take on "executive privilege".

Russia, a country where journalists critical of President... wait.. Prime Minister Czar Putin, are dying at an alarming rate, ranks 68.

Right to Know Act expands

Today the Office of Open Records issued a ruling that the names and birth dates of people who hold government contracts are subject to be divulged under the Right to Know Act. This is not a year after Pennsylvania re-vamped the old Right to Know Act, which was considered among the most out-dated and ineffective of all similar state statutes.

That got me thinking about how the rules at the federal level seem to affect the states at times. Could this possibly be a result of President Obama's order for a presumption of openness?

I'll be interested to see if any other states are changing their practices in light of the administrations new orders.

Inquirer in Bankruptcy court

I wonder if the Philadelphia Inquirer is paying Dechert $500 per hour for a first year associate to research the basic tenants of bankruptcy law.

Fios in Philly

About two weeks ago, the Philadelphia city council approved allowing Verizon to establish a FiOS network in the City of Brotherly Love, bringing a direct competitor to the cable service provided by Comcast.

In a lot of ways, Philly is a company town. Comcast is one of the largest area employers; the largest building in the city bares the name "Comcast Center"; the city draws millions of dollars in tax money from the comapny every year. And yet here we are, Comcast is now having to compete against Verizon on its home turf.

During discussion many of the counsel members expressed concerns over how the $1 billion cable network will be distributed as to not leave out minority communities, and concerns over public access programming. And yet, the bill passed unanimously. Money talks, I suppose.

It's interesting how deregulation has affected television and radio so differently. Radio seems to be solidifying into a monopoly held by Clear Channel, whereas television is now diversifying (albeit very slowly). I think it's reflective of how radio is dying as television thrives.