see you next year. thank you to everyone. [inaudible conversations]..

>> congressman goodlatte chairs the subcommittee on competition on the internet and as the congressional internet caucus. >> host: well, when it comes to telecommunications and policy, represented a goodlatte wears two hats. first, chairman of the judiciary subcommittee and intellectual property, competition in the internet and is cochair of the congressional internet caucus. he is our guest this week on "the communicators." representative of that, let's start with them the nature committee worked on earlier this year. the piracy issue. sopa, pipa, any chance of that legislation coming back this year? if not, do you see it coming back up next year? >> guest: well, sopa and pipa are dead. i think that's pretty clear that

the effort undertaken there ran into a lot of controversy. a lot of miscommunication and so i think this does or not coming back again this year or any year for that matter. the issue, however, is very much still a problem. that is various parts of the crime on the internet. assess not only is movies and music, but really putting up a website to look identical to the company's website and then selling their product to tangible goods. in my district i have is that as soon as they have the language program knockoffs. you get a knockoff that looks just like the yellow box they shared the languages and except accepted thing from me. doesn't have everything we can if you buy from a company. the consumer doesn't know or find it out and took hrt use it and get that states are not the consumer doesn't know or find it out until they try to use it and get that states are not the

consumer doesn't know or find it out until they try to use it and get that states are not the consumer doesn't know or find it out until they try to use it and get that states are not effect makes viburnum shoes. the shoes of the chosen them on our committee testifying about the fact that they have an identical website for more than one that looks just like a website. you don't know. you order what you think is the original product and get it cheap knockoff shipped from china and that kind of problem needs to be addressed. so there is generally consensus among people on all sides of the issue that there's a problem that needs to be addressed. obviously there's not concerned about how to go about doing that. from there back have henry hyde is chairman of the judiciary committee and we had the digital millennium copyright act. the big issue between a tech company using the content companies and so on was under what circumstances could they get the cooperation of companies providing services online. the focus is on the internet

what kind of circumstances could content as they go they given organizations. companies. some in the forefront today didn't exist back in. they look in a notice to take down position and safe harbor provision of the copyright act and they worked -- they worked well for quite a while and they still work under appropriate circumstances no one is calling for the elimination of the safe harbor. but as the internet has become faster and that's the problem has become more severe and the sophistication of the criminals

has become greater, it is clear that new tools need to be provided to the companies, by enforcement and so on. most of this in my opinion comes from business deals, use it to knowledge he come in various types of cooperative agreements. we see lots of that taken place all the time. it also comes in part from lawsuits taken place in decisions from lawsuits involving viacom. rosetta stone is another tip that a lawsuit recently decided by a higher court in their favor setback to the lower court. all of this is going to ultimately lead to a greater focus on solving this problem in a more cooperative fashion. i would hearken back to what was done by henry hyde and that is bring the parties together. everything from the electronic frontier foundation to movie studios and recording industry about the minimum together and said let's put up with new ways

to solve this problem. hopefully those are not legislated because legislation for slow-moving and the technology is changing in the business model are changing, rapidly. if there are some legislated solutions coming forward to expect they would come out of that type of a discussion and we would move forward and hopefully with a lot more consensus than we had earlier this year. >> would you be an active participant of the republicans retain control of the house? >> is chairman of the intellectual property subcommittee, i view it as something that is very, very important for job creation and maintain job security have in the united states and for protecting provisions in the constitution that respect private property rights and the rights of artists and inventors to protection of creative works. so we definitely want to make sure we solve this problem. my view is that tech companies

that develop the fantastic new ways that they are consumers can utilize all of the fantastic creations of the creative community, they need each other. the creative community needs a new application so that they can get their products to consumers in the way that consumers want to have their creative works to make products more attractive because they can respond and so on. >> joining us as well as giuliana gruenwald, our guest reporter. >> host: you take a faith issue, not necessarily sopa. what can they do to avoid this state, which was derailed in january after an unprecedented protest by the internet community? >> guest: first of all, i think they need to look at it from the standpoint of working with people concerned about various aspects of the

legislation to a make it perfectly clear that -- where actual differences in where there is misunderstanding and correct those. secondly and most importantly is to sit down and work out the solution in most of those solutions architect illogical. they are related to new business deals. they are related to things that would enable people who want to have valuable works shared with consumers come with their technological devices in ways that allow them to recover and cost creating works in an order to do that you have to have greater discussions that taken place this far. we would certainly be looking to promote that. >> host: postcode instead of bringing in different stakeholders as they know you did before, bring out the stakeholders together and try to sit down on agreement, comments which which are envisioning?

>> guest: ultimately to be something likely to take place. in the meantime there's lots of other things happening in this area to try to solve this problem we should let this play had as much as possible as well. like i said to mobilize its assigned responsibility to protect works that are utilized on different devices. new technologies being deployed almost every day. i visited were told about sunday's start a company that is sort unfound and i would hope to protect intellectual property in various spaces that people would want to utilize. the technology enjoyed those great works. >> another issue that i know it's in a judiciary jurisdiction is the issue of privacy. the president has proposed a privacy bill of rights be a consumers based on protections

and is telling congress to pass privacy bill of rightsë bertie's demand that proposal? >> guest: first about we take a keen interest in the judiciary committee because again there are criminal statute, other matters that give judiciary committee a great deal of interest in protecting people's privacy. but we have recognized is that every different company offering services has a different view of what kind of services they like to offer what information is necessary to have to offer those services. and every consumer has a different point of view about what level of others having access to and using information about their behavior, their lives, if you will. and as a result, it seems to me to try to write standards that would allow for government agent fees to write the direction it

attempted to go in europe and i don't think with great success would have tremendous harm to the internet and the ability of people to benefit from what it really does, which is to pull together great amounts of information and put that information at the wheel of consumers to say yes i want to do this in no i don't want to do that. in order to do that companies have to know a publisher behaviorists. the internet is a more sophisticated way of doing it. if you went into a men's clothing store, peter and the sales and remember that she liked a particular brand of soup, particular type of suit and looked at down the remembered in his head later called you out and said hey we've got a sale on the suit to like him you might say that it wants you to be bothered me about that. he probably wouldn't call you again. and the other hand you might

appreciate donna's clec is on sale. that is not too much different than what a lot of information is made available on the internet after amazon.com is the pathway of phoenix; the site the first thing that comes up is welcome back, peter puma know you like biographies and with a new one about ben franklin. i am not offended by that. we have specific laws on the books protect and highly sensitive areas like medical records or financial information and children more broadly and we certainly need to enforce those laws. what i think for broader information about one's commercial activities and other activities, the important thing is for companies that she do business with on the internet to make their policies transparent, to have a very consistent policy and then to rely on some of the traditional enforcement mechanisms such as breach of contract or false advertising.

you've areas where they could step in and say look, he set for the policy and didn't abide by it, so therefore there's consequences. that is far better than having the federal government step in and break in greater detail and then turned over to agencies the power to write regulations to implement those particular details of wind up with a massive regulation that would harm its basic purpose, which is to share information. the consumer should have the hand ability to say, i don't want my information shared in a particular way. the better the transparency and better controls made available, the better the business model but you have to believe that these companies can eat with each other once they meet those transparency and control guidelines. so i'm an opt-out kind of person

rather than opt-in, where you have to some information before you can tell them about something good like to know. i'd rather they say don't bother me. postcode representative goodlatte, you talk about freedom of the internet. it was written about you and control for the u.n. treaties regarding the internet regulation of it. and he writes, any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the internet no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous should be turned back. >> 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 like you do and the rest of our lives. most of the laws we have on our books that prohibit steps and other criminal activity already applies to that degree, but do you do in a store on the street

or whether you do it on the internet. and so to read the book at the bad guys is something that i think really we have to do no matter where criminal activity takes place. but i very much agree with him that when it comes to attempting to regulate aspects of the internet and punishing those who break the laws that exist on the books is a slippery slope that we should avoid in this privacy area is one of that. what really concerns me is because of the nature of the internet reaching across international boundaries and getting into any part of the world is almost a natural thing for people at the united nations and others to believe that greater international law to say well, we should have the u.n. set up an agency to regulate the internet. that's a horrible idea and they resisted at all costs. i very much agree with them on that point. you know a comment is very

active forces were trying to do that. we try to set up an international independent entities, really private entity called eye candy, internet corporation for assigned names and numbers, which has some supervision from the u.s. department of commerce to started as a traffic cop make sure it all works in a very complex world of internet communications. but there are many who are not satisfied with saddam at the u.n. to take over that responsibility. the united states and other countries that believe in the economic engine that is the internet and communication and freedom that comes from the internet should resist that very, very strongly. we do not countries like china and iran in many community others who do not have anything close to the first amendment we have in our constitution. we do not want them to be setting the standards for how their citizens or anyone else's

citizen communicate internationally on the internet. >> host: as you know, i can't has launched an international program that allows for the introduction of an unlimited number of new top-level domain names that will compete with dot.com and dot.net. seemingly there could be nearly two dozen new domain names that they'll go through. do you have concerned that if they don't do that program i can much as you know it's controversial that it could be an excuse by the international telecommunication union or some other u.n. bodies are international group to take over some of these functions and get their foot in the door and internet regulation? >> guest: i very much have that concern. in fact, i've been outspoken for a few years now about the whole plan to offer. and it extends to several levels. 2000 domain names each spending a couple hundred thousand

dollars is a lot of money coming into an agency for which there's really, in my opinion, no identifiable need to have those revenues. but even of greater concern is what this does for companies attempting to do business on the internet and individuals attempting to protect their creative works and attempting to protect trademarks, trade names and so on. and so, it is a major test to do this in a responsible way that does not open themselves up to the claims that they have mismanaged this and therefore someone else, particularly the united nations or some other international body coming in and save will take over the responsibility for regulation of this critical element at the internet. and that is where your address is, how you reach other people and communicate with them.

how they find you. that is the core of the internet operates and we should not again want to see an international organization that could find that very slippery slope that the fcc commission identified being the basis for regulating cabin matches for the internet operates, but what kind of content is available on it and how people can express themselves. so it's a very grave concern that already had some assets with the initial launch of days. so we have encouraged the department of commerce here in the united states to look at this very, very closely to communicate with concerns to them. it held hearings on the issue and participated in various symposiums, all the time expressing the concern that they are biting off more than they can chew and that they are risking their own autonomy by going pell-mell into the shooting hundreds of hundreds or

even thousands of new top-level domain names, without having a good strategic plan for carrying it out in a good reason for doing it in the first place. guess over time you have to have our top-level domain names. why do we have to open it up to this kind of access is the use that complicates the problem for just about anybody using the internet. postcode you mentioned that you held a hearing and as you well know, the current chairman of the full committee said he will not peel to be chairman next year if the republicans maintain control of the house. you're one of the more senior members on the committee. do you plan on seeking the chairmanship? >> guest: to be a great honor to serve as chairman of the house judiciary committee and we will leave that to the republican steering committee and a process that will take place later on this year.

and in the meantime focus on doing what is critical for that. and that is to make sure the republicans maintain the majority and the congress. i'm working on my own reelection and helping to elect other republicans around the country that will focus on that opportunity later on. but certainly, judiciary committee is one of the most important in the congress and serve as chairman to be a great opportunity. >> guest: do you have an interest in it? if an opportunity presents itself? >> guest: certainly something at the appropriate time we would be communicating our interest at that time. >> host: representative goodlatte, as you know this week there was a hearing on the future of video, future television, the energy and commerce committee. a lot of the discussion was about the different of internet

video and broadcast, et cetera, but appeared given the broad scope of the discussion and change and take elegy in the last 10, 15 years, would you and ask congress be supportive of our work on major rewrites or a comprehensive rewrite of the 1996 telecom? >> guest: well, i think we will be taking up aspects of that with various pieces of legislation that will come before the judiciary committee in the energy and commerce committee. satellite home viewer act, licensing fees they relate to various types of broadcast of music and so on. all of these need to be reviewed and then you try your conclusions as to conduct those reviews as to whether their legislative changes needed. since the last day to be revised will hear from different viewpoints about changes to the board not like to see.

as of the folder that will certainly be looking at that. generally speaking, because of the dramatic change in type elegy and the change in the multitude of different ways that consumers can access to various types of content available on all of those different platforms that you mentioned, and you wind up having some changes, whether a major rewrite of the entire 1996 telecom act is caught for or not i want to reserve judgment on that. the fact of the matter is the law was written back then in contemplation of the fact that we were going to see lots of new ways in which people would communicate with each other and laws, as i said earlier, are slower moving in their evolution and the technology itself isn't that great consumer products that utilize the technology. so the fact of the matter is we

have to constantly look at the end adjustments to have to be made. but how radical this adjustments made pat you have to leave to a fuller exposition of the issues after we get a closer look at them. >> host: for future communicators we interviewed walt mossberg of "the wall street journal" is one of the things he raised. he said congress is up in 10 years behind technology, five years the high-tech elegy. is that a bad name? >> guest: i don't think it's add bad thing because it limits the ability of congress to step in$6 and regulate in these areas. if you're a big believer in regulation you always frustrated that regulations are staying ahead of all these great new ideas and great at technologies being deployed. i think the tech elegies have been deployed and content created on the way consumers can utilize the content are occurring because there is not a

lot of regulation of the internet and we should be striving to keep it that way. again, that is not to say that there aren't areas where people abuse the law. and in some instances break the law. those people should have the book thrown at them. creative people who come up with new started businesses and new products to offer on the internet should be encouraged and should not be worried about the next round of deregulation snuffing out their great idea. instead, they should say there should be certain criminal laws on the books and other laws, antitrust laws and so on. we've got to stay clear of those. but if we do that, we should know we have the opportunity to succeed or fail based upon the greatness of our ideas and not based upon what a government bureaucrat thinks it's a good idea. and that is really, in my opinion, a good thing that we limit the ability of the fcc and

other government agencies to regulate. >> host: julianna gruenwald. >> there is some concern that energy transaction breakdown between verizon and then the cable comes to me that if that deal goes through s. proposed that it would undermine one of the chief goals of the 96 telecom act, which is the different companies will compete against each other. the cable companies offer internet, phone, video and so will the phone company. there is concern that a cross marketing agreement with verizon the cable companies have proposed could undermine that her critics say basically they agree not to compete against each other. do your concerns about the transaction? also there's been calls for the household hearing on that. do you find any hearings? >> guest: we do always how they can turn when bair bp anticompetitive agreements

reached by various combinations of cub needs because those are not the best interest of the consumer, will which is who i think benefits and there's the maximum amount of competition. that is clearly something that is jurisdiction of the antitrust committee, which i chair and like a lot of other business arrangements, we have -- which we have held hearings on in the past year, the att, at&t-deutsche to telecom merger, other business areas related to the internet. we certainly are always open minded and looking at each one of these things to determine whether or not we think it's appropriate to ask the tough questions and janice pilot in these areas. we're also always encouraging the justice department and the federal trade commission, which share a antitrust commissions to make sure that they are looking. does that mean they should always act because sometimes you

can't create more benefits to consumers in more competition among companies are able to band together. but you also can see circumstances where too many companies have too much market power band together to control prices and whether consumers access to various things that they would like to have access to and that is why our antitrust laws exist in support of using them to promote competition. >> we have time for one more question. julianna gruenwald. >> to any particular concerns of this transaction? >> not yet, but we are always interested in looking at various business proposals. >> finally come a few weeks ago the energy and commerce committee had a hearing on audio and there was a lot of talk about the royalty payments paid

for online radio stations and whether partial brady is stations should pay royalties. that's an issue just a few years ago but didn't go anywhere. is that something you see the committee going back to.m6 is that a concern for you? >> guest: is definitely concern for the committee because we have a number of different platforms on which music is made available to consumers. outcast is one of those, but then available over the internet and available in various other format. each one seems to have a different standard and definitely. there's a fairness issue that needs to be examined and addressed here. and then of course you have the performers who have the rights to their work seen in some instances we are paid a royalty and in some instances we are now. so again it has to be addressed