company with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of the subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing home ownership. i think we have seen the end of that movie in 2008. >> more sunday at 8:00 on c- span's "q&a." this week, virginia representative bob good luck talks about telecommunications issues. the congressman chairs a subcommittee on competition and the internet and has the congressional internet caucus. >> when it comes to telecommunications and policy, representative bob goodlatte with two hats -- chairman of the subcommittee on intellectual property, competition, and the internet, and co-chair of the congressional internet caucus. he is our guest this week.

representative, let's start with something that your committee worked on earlier this year -- the privacy issue. is there any chance of this legislation coming back up this year, and if not, do you see it coming back next year? >> well, sopa and pipa are dead. i think that is pretty clear, that the effort that was undertaken there ran into a lot of controversy, a lot of miscommunication. i think those bills are not coming back again this year or any year, for that matter. the issue, however, is very much still a problem. that is, various types of crime on the internet. the theft not only a movie and music and software, but really putting up web sites that look identical to the company's website and selling their

products, tangible goods. in my district, i have rosetta stone, and they have the language programs knocked off. you can get a knockoff, but that looks just like the box that they sell their programs in, except it is incomplete. does not have everything in it you would get if you bought from the company. the consumer does not know it and does not find out until they try to use it, try to get updates, the sort of thing. that is a problem. we even had a company that makes the shoes with the little toes in them testifying about the fact that they have an identical website or more than one where you order what you think is the original product, and you get a cheap knockoff shipped to you from china. that kind of problem needs to be addressed. so there is generally consensus amongst people on all sides of the issue that there is a problem and the problem needs to be addressed, but obviously, there is not consensus about how

to go about doing that. i remember back to when henry hyde was the chairman of the judiciary committee and we had the digital millennium copyright act. the big issue there -- the movies and music companies and so on -- was under what circumstances could they get the cooperation of companies that are providing service online -- the focus was on the internet service providers -- what kind of circumstances could you get them to take down content that was illegally posted or given away on the internet? i was put in a room with representatives of a great many organizations. everything from universities and libraries to movie studios to microsoft and other tech companies. some of the companies that are at the forefront today did not even exist back then, but we worked out the notice and take down provisions and the safe harbor provision of the

vigilante copyright act, and they worked well for quite a while. they still work under certain opprobrious circumstances. no one is calling for the elimination of that, but as the internet has become faster and as 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, to law enforcement, and so on. most of those, in my opinion, will come from business deals, the use of technology. various types of cooperative agreements. we are seeing lots of that taking place all the time. it will also come in part from lawsuits that have taken place and decisions coming down involving viacom -- rosetta stone is another one that had a lawsuit recently, decided by a higher court in their favor and

send back to a lower court. i think all of this will 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, again, movie studios and recording industry and so on, and put them in a room together and say, "let's come up with a new way to solve the problem." hopefully most of those solutions are not legislative because legislation is always slow moving and the business models are changing far more rapidly. nonetheless, if there are legislative solutions coming forward in the future, i would expect they would come out of that type of a discussion and would move forward with hopefully a lot more consensus than we had earlier this year. >> would you be an active participant? particularly if republicans retain control of the house? >> as the chairman of the

intellectual property subcommittee, i view it as something that is very important for job creation and for maintaining jobs we already have in the united states and for protecting those provisions in the constitution that respects private property rights, that recognize the rights of artists and inventors who have protection of their creative works. yes, we definitely want to make sure we solve this problem. my view is the tech companies that develop these fantastic new ways that there consumers can utilize all of the fantastic creations of the creative community -- they need each other. the creative community needs the new applications so that they can get their products to consumers in the ways consumers want to have them and the tech companies need the creative works to make their products more attractive because they have things on the that people want to look at, to use, to play with, and so on. >> joining us as well is our

guest reporter from "the national journal." >> if you do take up this broader issue, what do you think supporters need to do dierently to avoid the fate that meant sopa --met sopa, which was derailed late january after an unprecedented protest by the internet community? >> they need to understand the point of view of people working with various aspects of the legislation to make it perfectly clear where there are actual differences and where there is misunderstanding and correct those, and secondly and most importantly is to sit down and work out the solutions, and most of those solutions are technological. they are related to new business deals, related to things that would enable people who want to have their valuable works shared with consumers with new technological devices in ways that allow them to recover the

costs of creating these works. in order to do that, i think you have to have greater cooperation, greater discussion that has taken place thus far. we would certainly be looking to promote that. >> so instead of bringing in different stakeholders -- i know you did before sopa was introduced -- bring together all stakeholders together and try to find areas of agreement -- is that what you are envisioning? >> ultimately, that would be something like we did take place, but in the meantime, lots of things are happening in this area to try to solve the problem, and we should let those play out as much as possible. as i said, losses that assign responsibility to one party in order to protect works that are utilized on other devices -- new technologies that are being deployed almost every day -- i visited or am told about some new startup company that has worked on something that would help to protect intellectual property in various spaces that

people would want to utilize the technology and enjoy those great works. >> another issue that i know is not directly by judiciary jurisdiction is the issue of privacy -- is not directly in judiciary jurisdiction. the president has called on congress to pass the privacy bill of rights. what do you say to that proposal? >> first of all, we take a keen interest in the judiciary committee because again, there are criminal statutes. there are other matters that do give the judiciary committee a great deal of interest in protecting people's privacy, but what we have recognized is that every different company offering services has a different view of what kind of services they would like to offer and what information is necessary for them 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, there lives, if you will, and as a result, it seems to me that to try to write standards that would allow for government agencies to regulate strongly in this area, which is the direction they have attempted to go in europe and i do not 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 will of consumers to say, "yes, i want to do this" and "know, i do not want to do that." in order to do that, companies have to know more about your behavior. if you went into a men's

clothing store, and the salesman remembered that you like a particular brand of suit, a particular type of suit, and he wrote that down and remember it in his head and six months later called you up and said they had a sale on the suits you like, you may say you did not want to be bothered with that and he might not call you again, but on the other hand, you might appreciate knowing that the kind of suit you like is on sale. that is not much different than when a lot of information is made available to you on the internet at amazon.com remembering you bought a biography, and the next time you go on, the first thing that comes up is a new biography about ben franklin. i am not offended by that. we have specific laws already on the books protecting highly sensitive areas like medical records and financial information and children more broadly, and we certainly need to enforce those laws, but i think for broader information

about one's commercial activities and other activities, the important thing is for companies that you do business with on the internet to make their policies transparent, to have a very consistent policy, and then to rely upon some of the traditional enforcement mechanisms such as breach of contract or false advertising. you have areas where the federal trade commission could step in. that is far better than having the federal government step in and write in greater detail and then turned over to agencies the power to write regulations to implement those particular details and wind up with a massive regulation of the internet that would harm its basic purpose, which is to share information. the consumer should have the end ability to say, "i don't want my

information shared in a particular way." the better the transparency and the better the controls made available to the consumer, i think the better the business model, and we ought to let these companies compete with each other once they meet those transparency and control guidelines. i am an opt-out kind of person rather than opt-in where you have to give someone permission before you can tell the mother of something they would like to know about. >> representative goodlatte, you talked about freedom of the internet. represented mcdowell wrote an op-ed in the "wall street journal" regarding the internet and regulation of it, and he writes that any attempts to expand into governmental powers over the internet, no matter how incremental or seemingly

innocuous, should be turned back. >> 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 in the rest of our lives. most of the laws that we have on our books that prohibit criminal activities already applies to that activity, whether you do it in a store, on the street, or whether you do it on the internet. so throwing the book at the bad guys is something we have to do no matter where criminal activity takes place. but i very much agree that when it comes to attempting to regulate aspects of the internet as opposed to simply punishing those who break the laws that exist on the books is a slippery slope that we should avoid, and this privacy area is one example of that. what really concerns me is that because of the nature of the internet, reaching across

international boundaries and really getting into any part of the world is that it is almost a natural thing for people of the united nations and others who believe in greater international law to say that we should have the united nations set up an agency to regulate the internet. i think that is a horrible idea and we should resist it at all costs. i very much agree on that point. you know what? there are very active forces at work trying to do that. we have set up an international independent entity -- it is really a private company called the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers, which has some supervision from the u.s. support of farmers sort of as a traffic cop to make sure that it all works -- from the u.s. department of commerce. there are many who are not satisfied with that and what the united nations to take over that

responsibility. we do not want countries like china and iran and many others who do not have anything close to the first amendment that we have in our constitution -- we do not want them to be setting the standards for how their citizens or anyone else's citizens communicate internationally on the internet. >> they launched a controversial program at the beginning of the year that allows for an introduction of an unlimited number of new top-level domain names to compete with .com and .net, and 2000 applications have been submitted. are you concerned that if they do not do that program right, which they do know is very controversial, that it could be an excuse by the international telecommunication union or some

of the united nations body -- some other body to get their foot in the door on internet regulation and takeover? >> i very much have that concern. i have been outspoken for a few years now about this whole plan. it extends to several levels. 2000 domain names each spending a couple hundred thousand dollars -- that is a lot of money coming into an agency for which there is really no identifiable need to have those kinds of revenues. even a greater concern is what this does for companies attempting to do business on the internet. and individuals attending to business on the internet. attending to protect their creative works, protect their trademarks, their names and so on. 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, particular the united nations or some other international body, coming in and saying they will take over the responsibility for regulation of this critical element of the internet, and that is, you know, what your address is, how you reach other people, how you communicate, how they find you. that is the core of how the internet operates, and we should not, again, want to see an international organization that could find that very slippery slope that the fcc commissioner identified being the basis for not just how the internet operates, but what kind of content is available on it and how people can express themselves. it is a very grave concern, and they have already had some missteps with the initial launch of this, so we have encouraged the department of commerce in

the united states to look at this very closely, to communicate their concerns. i have held hearings on this issue. i have participated in various symposiums and so on, all the time expressing the concern that they are biting off more than they can chew and risking their own autonomy by going parallel into issuing hundreds or even thousands of new top-level domain names without having a good strategic plan for carrying it out and a good reason for doing it in the first place. yes, over time, you have to add more top-level domain names. what we have to open it up to this kind of excessive use that complicate the problem for anyone using the internet? >> you mentioned that you held a hearing. as you well know, the current chairman of the full judiciary committee has said he will not

be able to maintain control if republicans take control of the house. do you plan on seeking the chairmanship next congress? >> it would be a great honor to serve as chairman of the house judiciary committee. 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 that republicans maintain the majority in the congress. i am working on my own reelection and helping to select other republicans are around the country. we will focus on that opportunity later on, but certainly, judiciary committee is one of the most important committees in the congress, and to serve as chairman of it would be a great opportunity. >> i take that as a yes, you

likely have an interest in it? >> it certainly is something that at the appropriate time we would be communicating our interest in, as that time. >> representative goodlatte, as you know this week, there was a hearing on the future of video, the future of television in the energy and commerce committee, but a lot of the discussion was about the difference between internet video and television and broadcast, etc., etc. given the broad scope of the discussion and change in technology in the last 10, 15 years, would you in the next congress be supportive of or work on a major rewrite or comprehensive rewrite of the 1996 bill? >> i think we are going to be taking up aspects of the with various pieces of legislation -- aspects of that with various pieces of legislation that will come before the committee.

the licensing fees that relate to various types of broadcast and music and so on. all of these need to be reviewed. then you draw your conclusions after you conduct those reviews as to whether there are legislative changes that are needed. we are going to hear from a lot of different viewpoints about changes they would like to see or changes they would lock -- would not like to see. as we move forward, we will be looking at that. generally speaking, because of the dramatic change in technology and the change in the multitude of different ways that consumers get access to various types of content that is available on all of those different platforms that you mentioned, you wind up having some changes. whether a major rewrite of the entire 1996 telecom act is called for or not, i would 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, far slower moving in their evolution and the technology itself is and the great consumer products that utilize the technology. the fact of the matter is we have to constantly look at that and a just and still have to be made -- adjustments do have to be made, but how radical those adjustments, you have to lead to a fuller exposition of the issues after we get a closer look at them. >> we interviewed walt moss burke of the "wall street journal," and he said congress is often 10 years behind technology, five years behind technology. is that a bad thing? >> i do not think it is a particularly bad thing because

it limits the ability of congress to step in and regulate these areas. if you are a big believer in regulation, you are always frustrated that regulations are not staying ahead of great new ideas and great new technologies that are being deployed, but i think the great new technologies that are being deployed and the content that is being created any new ways consumers can utilize that 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 are not -- that areas where people abuse the law and in some instances break the law, and those people should have the book thrown at them, but creative people who are trying to come up with new startup businesses and new products to offer on the internet -- they should be encouraged and should not be worried about the next round of new regulations snuffing out there great idea. instead, they should be saying, "we know there are criminal laws

on the books and other laws, antitrust laws and so on, and we have to stay clear of those, but if we do that, we should note that 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." that is a good thing, in my opinion, that we limit the ability of government agencies to regulate the internet. >> juliana gruenwald. >> there is concerned that an industry transaction that is seeking approval right now between verizon and a group of cable companies -- there is some concern that if the deal goes through as proposed that it would undermine one of the chief goals of the 1996 telecom act, which is all these different companies would compete against each other. cable companies will offer internet, phone, video, and so will the phone companies.

there is concern that a cross- marketing agreement could undermine that. critics say basically they are agreeing not to compete against each other. do you have concerns about this transaction? also, there have been calls for the house to hold hearings on it. do you plan hearings? >> we have not called for hearings, but we do always had a concern when there may be anti- competitive agreements reached by various combinations of companies because those are not in the best interest of the consumer, who i think benefits when there is the maximum amount of competition. that is clearly something that is the jurisdiction of the antitrust judiciary committee, and like a lot of other business arrangements, which we have held hearings on in the past year, -- we have held hearings on other

business areas unrelated to the internet, and we certainly are always open minded and looking at each one of these things to determine whether or not we think it is appropriate to ask some of the tough questions and shine a spotlight on these areas. we also are always encouraging the justice department and the federal trade commission to make sure that they are looking. it does not mean they should always act. sometimes you can create more benefits to consumers and more competition when companies are able to band together. but you also can see circumstances where too many companies with too much market power band together to control prices and limit consumer access to various things that they would like to have access to, and that is why antitrust laws exist and why i support using them to promote competition. >> we have time for one more

question. >> do you have any specific concerns with this particular transaction? >> not yet, but we are always interested in looking at those various business proposals. >> finally, a few weeks ago, the energy committee had a hearing on audio, and there was a lot of talk about payments paid by online radio stations and whether radio stations should also pay royalties to performers. it was an issue that was addressed a few years ago, but it did not go anywhere. is that an issue you see the committee going back to? is that a concern for you? >> it is definitely a concern for the committee because we have a number of different platforms on which music is made available to consumers. broadcast is one of those. it is available over the internet and available in various other formats, and each

seems to have a different standard and a different rate, so there is a fairness issue that needs to be examined and addressed. and of course, you have the performers who have the rights to their work, saying that in some instances, they are paid a royalty and in some instances, they are not. again, that has to be addressed as well. when you do that, you have to take into account the evolution of the broadcast industry and how it is changing and how it merges and diverges from other ways that people are receiving the same kind of content. it is an extraordinarily complicated issue, but it is one that i think we do need to tackle and address -- an attempt to address the issue of what is fair in this process. >> that also leads into the fact that your committee is looking into the internet sales tax, particularly when it comes to downloading music. is that correct? >>