48 hours of book programming beginning saturday morning at 8 a.m. eastern to monday morning at 8 a.mster nfonks wnd erekrihen hs okhaah c-span2. .. >> a he heads the congressional internet caucus. >> host:ell, wn it comes to

leuniondpo, prtabott a bl ogi w at t,isirof diy subcommittee on intellectual property, competition and the internet, and he is co-chair of the congressional internet caucus. reenveottet this we o cote wd rls are cys sopa, pipa, number one, is there any chance of this legislation coming back up th year, and if t,o yoeeock exea uewesonda e d. inat that's pretty clear, that the effort that was dertaken there ran into lot ofontrersy l scnionnd i inosil etom ye f t er the issue, however, ivery much

still a pblem, and that is various types of crime on t rnheftotyof vindicantw t lytt uwe s lkenl he mps sind selling their product, tangible good, you know? in my district i haveosetta lagegrknd othey have the lojuik tl x sth lag a n,ce i incomplete. doesn't have everything in it that you'd get if you bought it from the company. the consumer doesn't know that until their actuallyry u , oetdafo ts pem mathoeh the little toes in them? on our committee testifying about the fact that they have an identical web si, or more than thks jikir b .

u t , yrdt u k eig od aou ahp oc sed tom inndt nd of problem needs to be addressed. so there's generally consensus amongst people on a ses of the issue that there is a to esem, and the problem nee oouths n nss t o g a soemr twh h de cmae judiciary committee, and we had the digil millennium copyright act, and the big issue between coomes escompanies a the mucoied - uha cumce ofpa tar prodi services online. the focus really then was on the internet service providers, aol and the telephone companies and ble compans. k ocistsoud cot w igad stivwad anwatn room wit representatives of a great manyd

organizations, everything from universities and libraries tod moests mosan at frood d't enstk t. t orouthi a takedown provisions and the safe harbor provisions of the digital acarning copyright actment- d wdel fui e,y sorer rtapri umcendon inrmion that safe harbor and that takedown provision. but as the internet has become be mse a th prles haco ger'scl atlsd ov t the companies, to law enforcement and so on. no most of those, in my opinion, will come from business deals, the usef tno, oupeof ere em, wein

tsthinlall e . l e p f wsuits that have taken place and decisions comi down from lawsuits volving viacom, th hsuecytone is anotheron de aheur eivo aenacoe r t. thal tisngo, ultimately, lead to a greater focus on solving this problem in a more cooperative fashion, and do hhyd earken bac to whas g rt tth yt fleni tiouio, an, vistudios and recording industry and so on and put them in a room together and say let's come up with new ways to solve this problem. leatbse sl mt of those areot ysryl m thsielreanan moid but nonetheless, if there are some legislative solutions coming forward in the future, i would expect they would come ou

anou mfoth ofdisi, pey,h otor entheli h w yeniv participant, particularly if the republicans retain control of the house? >> guest: well, as t chairman of the intellectual property soinatvevevit pot joea a rntngbs tt rehan un prion t constitution that respect private propey rights, that recognize the rights of artists and inventers to havprotonth tiores w filyt akre ftsob d ieis anthdephi fantastic new ways that their consumers can utilize all of the crve cniyedatis ofhe chhe geeiod t cnsumers

in the ways the consumer would want to have them, and the tech companies need the creative workto make their products morettractive becauh tu hth o usy l >>t:nis elis anoualhe is our -- grunewald, she is our guest reporter this week. what do you think supporters need to do differently is time aid theate ma icaraidnu r uceedte heertcoit >>stllrs ai think they need to look at it from the standpoint of working with people who are concerned about various aspects of that legiatioto, t rfyea e e cose.mdendnd but secondly, and i think most importantly, is toit down and work out the solutions. and most of those solutions are

tenogica there red red ngat w leplan h eilu wos shared with consumers with new technological devices in ways that still allow them to recover t costs of an o tat ink thav nlas far. so we would certainly be looking to promote that. >> host:o instead of bringing knou dfoopst stol, a tredinl akdege, ndasagenst what you're envisioning? >> guest: ultimately, that would be likely to ta place. but in the meantime, as i say, there's lots of other ings eninsea ry lvisbld we eayut a resity roy

or another, new tenologies evyayare being deploye almost sior me w st-oyt he t pectetu op in various spaces that people would want to utilize. h nanr e logynd ese juar jdin su pcy prident be has proposed a privacy bill of rights to give consumers greater baseline privacy prectis, and he has ll reoss t whdo s oh op? uewefiof, keeren ire i the judiciary committee because, again, there are criminal statutes, there are other matters that do give the of ies itegmite a grea

leri. theveecze ev different company offering services has different view of what kind of service they'd le to offer and what rmn ecry dienin o ut atelof hers having access to and using information about their, their behaor, thwoa foven agencies to regulate strongly in this area -- which is the direction they've attempt today go in europe and i don't think with greatsy -ulve en htoete d abypeo wh i pogr t ouof information and put

that information at the will of consumers to say, yes, i want to dohis, no,onan d at ortot, cni wh ybeor newinet 'sthentt h a more sophisticated way of doing it. if you went into a men's clothing store, per, and the salesmanemembered that you supaulyp oitran d htehdo rbeinadan on lrle d h you've got a sale on the suits you like, you might say, oh, i don't want you to be bothering me about that, and he won't call yougain tthnd yht suouik ole t'tifntn avbl yn td internet. if amazon.com remembers you bought a biography, and next pops up ome beroheir site and aiph a b

an, no ond . vecilalr o e s pec ghentive areas like medical records and financl information and children more broadly,nd weenled eceseaw inatabt's mmalivsnder activities, i think the important ing is for companies that you do business with on the internet to make theiric coteolanen u o traditional enforcement chanisms such as breach of contract or false advertising. and you have areas where the federal trade commission cod id,o y th f br ave the federal government step in and write in greater detail and

then turn over to agencies the power to wteegulationsto em tpaul taanndph ssuln he bac psechto se foio the consumer should have the end ability to say i don't want my waformion shar in rticar avbl tonr, i intthein an o t ret these companies compete with each other once they meet those trsparencyndnt so'man oouki rsathant- eru omy' permission bore you can tell them about something -- i'd rather they say, no, don't bother me. >> host: well, representative odlae, yalab t cosi r melf

rlthea np- in "the wall street journal" about the u.n. treaty regarding the internet and regulation of it. and he writes: any attempts to ovinet mroergovernmental pwers crtaeely nos ldernk. >> guest: well, obviously, you have criminal activity that takes place on the internet, and you need to have laws that apply in that space just l you d hetoes ouoot, aven ibhend o in vi already applies to tha activity whether you do it in a store, on the street owhether you doitn eer d hrg oe gusomng tt inalweav tapl inacty but i very much agree with him that when it comes to attempting to regulate aspects of the

internet as as oosed to mply bith -- anisva aiser example of that. and what really ccerns me is that because of the nature of the internet reaching across international boundariesnd really getng intany p o nas he weld eateiolao y,ll ld have the u.n. set up an agency to regulate the internet. i think that's a horrible idea, and we should resist it at all st vmure whin anu w? e vtiors rkin dat 'vt an international independent entity, it's really a private entity called ican, e irn cra siesum ico svi fm

u.pantcoce yoowsos a traffic cop to make sure this all works in the very complex work ofinternet cmunition t e mahoe u.o vatawa spbi e edtehe uns bve economic engine that is the ternet and the communications and freedom that come from the internet should resist that very, very strongly. weotnt le cltoir ame cotu, do not want them tbe setting the standards for how their citizens or anyone else's citizens communi rnnaon ine osels k n un bein tye t allows for the introduction of an unlimited number of new top-level ptomaine names --

domainname d 0lionven bmd ca ser naifyll through. do you have conce that if they don't do that program right that it could ben excuse by the thct aet tunioio ieoo ontt regulation? >> guest: well, i very much have that concern. an in fact, i've been outspoken for a fewars now anit ndo rawholeplanff spng couple hundred thousand dollars? that's a lot of money coming in an agency for which there's really, in my opinion, no idenableeeto h heloohki o nu evatos ts oromes tengdoinon te andua

attempting to do business on the internet, attempting to protect their creative works, attempting to protect theirrark r e s so o t'ate f n os spbly es not open themselves up to the claims that they have mismanagerred this and -- mismanged thisnd, efeolsme elt the internet, and that is, you know, what your address is, how youreach with noga w ahode, whey find u. teio organization that could find that very slippery slope that the fcc commissioner identified being the basis for ofte iainhdh

d lexp emes so it's a very grave concern, and they've already had some mess-ups with the initial launch of this. so we'veoud pantcoceer coicthnc them. i've held hearings on this issue, i've participated in various symposiumses and is so on, all the time expressing t ncerthaty'inf rehaey c a isg re o e thousands of ne top-level domain names without having a good strategic plan for cyi doitthrs e. adstopel dn me dohaont o abanynghees the problem for ju

yoldheg, as y of tll ciote lamar smith, is term limited, so he will not be able to be chairman next year if republans maintain control of theouse. yoan inee,doo have more seor aishexgr grhotorv ai t e judiciary committee, and we will leave that to the republin steing committee and a processhat'll an t mtiusnlat ohie g 's cca fha d ikere t bls tain the majority in the coness. so i'm working on my own re-election and helping to elect coy, w f ohlicans around the

burty,he jia iman committees in the congress, and to serve as chairman of it would be a great opportunity for anyone. >> host: i take it a yes that you'd likely, you vean i it?ies ueitta i apritiwo communicating our interest at that time. >> host: well, representative goodlatte, as you know this week ere w a heing e coce cttnd t t he dss w t eifncwe internetideo and television and broadcast and etc., etc. ven the broad scope of the discussion and the chge i chgythas s,ou ihet ng bppvef work on major rewrite or a

comprehensive rewritof the 1996 telecom act? >> guest: well, i think we goto ng ecf w vuscof giioatl c ane energy andcommerce committee, the satellite home viewer act, the licensing fees brasd can oto vou t ofhedbe ewn raur nconteuduct those reviews as to whether there are legislative changes that are needed. since these laws need to be revised,e're going toar from a o dre po anghe th wd li t as ovod,'l aibekit that. generally speaking, because of the dramatic change in technology and the change in the ltitude of different ways that consums gec tri s o cntha laonofhe

er porhu ntd,i u having some changes. but whether a major rewrite of the entire 1996 telecom act ca f oro w w thcte er, w wr back then in contemplation of the fact that we were going to see lots ofew ways in which people would counice witheachther a sl m eivioe aner consumer products at utilize the technology. so the fact of the matter is we have to consty ok aha djeno t hao e fuerk exposition of the issues after we get a closer look at them.

>> host: well, fo future communicator wetewe hesgr iene s nd toliv s ndelogy is that a bad thing? >> guest: well, i don't think it's a particularly bad thing because what it does is it limits the abity of congress if'r li igule e guonen relw tr t rat thgrt new ideas and great new technologies being deployed. but i think the new technologies are bein deployed, a the content that's b cred e w cme izatnt a lo ratof n rnanou ri tepitt way. again, that's not to say that abth l oen't areas whepele anbr w. bu tiophoeth

yioep with new start-up businesses and new oducts to offer on the internet, they should be encouraged, d they should not be worried about the next rod of newegessnngt guonnughe t i eaeyulyi, okknhe aen inawe books and other law, antitrust laws and so on, and we've got to stay clear of those. but if we do that, then we should knothate hve t poituc o f gomereat thinks is a good idea. and that's really, in my opinion, a good thing that we limit the ability of the fnd retete. >>t:ia nw >>t: monhe9 cot,reme er that a industry transaction that's seeking regulatory approval right now between vise season and a group wounine tefoieies -- verizon

al t ' tom iseifnt companies will compete against each other. you know, the cable companies will offer phone internet, video, and so will the phone venndab can vepred t t cd crs tsiy, 'rre nompe against each other. do you have concernsbout this transaction and, also, there's beenalls for the house to hold hearings on it. g: hiin ws? ca f hinte l h a crnhe e ytipeve retschy various combinations of companies because those are not in the interest breasts -- best interests of theonsumer who k bitenre ith muoufmpio t imeg eaisioth

ti judiciary committee, which i chair. and like a lot of other business arrangements which we have held weheegsmemr,in the past year, hesi ared the internet, and we certainly are always open-minded and looking at each one of these things todetermine whether or anina slin et ope ea weoar ays coine justice department and the federal trade commission which share antitrust jurisdiction to make sure that they are looking. that dsn't mean ty should canrrebetstosesomeu nss mcoit toer aabtoa t also can see circumstances where too many companies with too much marke webatoer on

icndlisu' ss vouinth eyolike to have access to. and that's why our antitrust laws exist and why i'm a pporter of using them to ht: ae tfoon. h du a ec crnhis rtarnio >> guest: not yet, but we're always interested in looking at various business proposals. h gadt: and -- o deha os feegoe taoueoy payments paid by online radio stations and whetheradio -- or terrestrial radio stations shld also pay ryalties to or. 's i y g drd eag b ist thyo s itgoba t hacon r you?

>> guest: well, it's definitely a concern for the committee because we have a numb o different platforms on whic coerrost ofbo os heil o inetaie ou oos. and each one seems to have a different standard and a different rate. so there is a fairness issue adsereeeds to be examined a thofou ya erero t gh t,ohek yiha some inances we're paid a royalty, and in some instances we're n. and so, again, tt has to be adesseasl. en d , ve ioouvoon brasusan ithag awt rgve fmther ystop are receiving this same kind of content. so it's extraordinarily complicated issue, but it's one that i think wdo need to ta a