internet as we know it today to be hijacked. to. discuss the future of the internet i'm joined by daniel castro in washington he's a senior analyst with information technology and innovation foundation specializing in the information technology policy also in washington we have wayne rash he is a senior analyst for the week's labs and to new york we cross to jason metz only he is the gerald bail and professor of law at brooklyn law school all right gentlemen this is crosstalk that means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage ok when and if i can go to you first to what degree should internet companies be involved share responsibility for curbing piracy in light of the law that is in front of the laws that are in front of congress right now. well i think internet companies have a responsibility to not knowingly participate in pirated information or a better mission for which the copyright use is in question in other words if they

know that something is being used illegally then they obviously should not allow it to be on their sites but you know most internet sites don't have a way to know what's in there most of them simply act as what you might call giant receptacles of data and as a result they don't specifically look at what the content is somebody complains about it so they have a responsibility if they know that it's illegal but they may not know jason what do you think about that i mean to what degree should the internet companies be held responsible because if you're if you're a web site like you tube i mean i've talked to people at you tube it is very very hard to police it because so many uploads going on through every hour and we're looking at and through the course of months and years it's a huge number of videos being put up and they and i can i know of a personal example where i asked to have something taken down and within an hour

you tube did it. so you tube is an interesting case because it actually i mean it has the resources for you to do things that many other companies might not have so you know that's one thing to keep in mind talking about you tube in terms of the current system that we have you tube is as you just suggested pretty responsive and we do have a system under current law that allows a copyright owner to notify youtube or another side that somebody has up loaded infringing content you tube has a largely automated process for reviewing that and it's able to take down material in response to that site in other words disable access to it pretty quickly in a matter of hours now there are a lot of complaints about perhaps too much content is being taken down but in terms of you tube itself because it has the resources to do it because there is a process by which a notice can be send a fairly straightforward notice by the copyright owner of that system from the

perspective of copyright owners i think works pretty well i mean some things do get through the gaps but you tube i think is doing pretty good job and it's doing it because of fairly simple procedures and legislation the problem with soap is that it would radically change that system and impose a much more burdensome requirements upon you tube and when you start talking about smaller sides and it sees they don't have the same kinds of resources the costs could be could be tremendous danny what do you think about that i mean i mean the let me go to get me to daniel first truly. yeah you know the legislation that's been introduced is specifically not targeted at sites like you tube and that's kind of the whole point of this you tube isn't the problem and there are existing laws to deal with that and you tube is a very responsible actor in that sense the purpose of stop also hiring you explain

the interest in the massive opposition i'm just going infringers. jason you want to reply to that well you tube obviously doesn't. doesn't think that i mean yesterday we had we had which was thursday in the united states we had the internet blackout day where there are thousands of american based domestic internet companies including google facebook and other large cities opposing sopa on the grounds that they are very concerned about the potential burden and possible liabilities under the statute upon them these are pretty savvy entities so it's hard to explain if the sponsors of the bill. so certain that there is no risk to a company like you tube why there would be so much opposition. domestic technology companies mainstream technology companies like you to facebook boring boring all

kinds of other entities that are really a staple part of the internet as we know it today only opposed to this statute and they're not opposed to it just for ideological reasons because they see serious business consequences for it was them let's look at some of these kinds of consequences when i mean look we know a lot of a lot of the backing of these. legislation comes from the content industry particularly the film industry in why should the entire internet be changed to cater to their needs or is it because hollywood is being paying politicians on both sides of the aisle these politicians realize they have to they've taken the money now they have to follow through and a few of them actually realize they didn't read the legislation and they've backed away from the last forty eight hours i mean to what degree should the internet be changed for a small number of people here. well the internet should not be. basically dismantled from the way it works because of the fact that hollywood is scared of

technology this is one of the problems is that what you've got here is a situation where you tube for example to use an obvious example because we've been discussing it could under the noise sopa is written be actually taken offline because somebody alleges that they've got copyrighted material on their site and decided this is the inside i believe that actually if you look at the legislation it's only directed at foreign infringing sites only for infringing site so no nasty no sign the united states could have action taken against it but i the people can look at the managers and he will you over i was there i could have similar use again so i got all of the d.n.a.'s block improvements which are about taking down sites so taking down sites is out of the bill because that's blocking the idea as walking would of. wayne walking would have interfered with a whole bunch of security issues but the fact is is it is still aimed at sites that could be taken down because someone alleges without any real actual process that

they've got copyrighted material there now here we are talking about taken down and it's not sure that you would have to get a court order first. yes you have to get a court order which is simply not legal he says you need a court you don't have to write in to us ok jason jump in jason jump in you've got to go before a judge the government. what the government you know order to in order to require intermediaries to stop dealing with sites that the government is targeting does have to commence an action with the court. and it's a pretty fairly simple process you simply need to file the paperwork private entities in order to shot off funding payment processing by visa master card pay pal other private other entities that really the lifeblood of many of these sites. you noted to shot down their transactions private entities

don't have to go before any charge at all they simply have to send the notice we do within five days of five days a very short period the recipient of the notice visa pay pal some other entity that is providing payment must disable transactions there's no judicial review before that happens there's no opportunity for the side to go for a judge and say that it's not true that we have infringing material this is completely contrary to how we normally regulate speech in the united states there's no other instance in the united states. because if you look at the way the system works right you know by sending a letter off to you go ahead go ahead dan you know what i mean if i could just and if i could just if i could just somewhat up i mean well from what jason just said here there's no due process that's what he's saying when we look at these this legislation yes exactly you know that's just you know this is ridiculous and if

we're going to do already have our interaction as a service at least i know you'll go ahead with. these are these are companies that already say in their terms of service that they will not do business with criminal with criminals they say in their terms of service that you can use for example we don't know is this going to there's no jobs for service no jobs on the ice for this woman i don't see there's no jobs we're not going to be on the highways and i was talking about is this i was doing any other illegal activity and when they learn about it they shut down those sites and they stop doing business with them so right now this actually increases the opportunities there's no jobs no there is no it's not as assigning as it goes before a judge ok when would you jump in on that one part the only people and i was trying to earlier go ahead with the the fact is this what we're trying to do is enforce u.s. copyright laws on foreign companies whose copyright laws may be different from ours and what we're saying is if you don't follow u.s. law in terms of copyrights then we have the right to shut you down and whether it's

through withholding payment whether it's through telling a search engine you can't deliver results we're no longer have the walking but the fact is is that you know this is what we're telling people is that you have to follow u.s. law regardless of what the law may be where you are physically located and that's part of the problem the other part of the problem is affectively that's going through the decision of it is you to is somebody you know you're objecting to the fact that people are trying to stop sites that are pirating american american intellectual property and it's not always just movies and music it's also physical goods that are counterfeit you know these are counterfeit drugs there are also maybe a little written material that can be and i you know harm in france harm children harm adults there's a serious there are serious consequences where it's one thing and there's one serious subject and i want to object to these sides but the the problem here the problem here is in terms of how you go about remedying the problem if there is

a problem that should be remedied particularly if you're talking about a remedy that imposes very significant costs. and the rest of us i don't think the content industries have explained and this gets us back to really the very first questions with which we started why it is that the rest of us should suffer all of these very serious consequences in terms of the interruption to the structure of the internet in terms of the censorship of sites in order to protect the interest i legitimately jason i'm going to have to jump in here gentlemen we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on protecting the internet today r.t. . and. when i'm comfortable question leads to a great accusation the who is more as you know fog. the president who isn't

supposed to hide anything. someone asking him why do you make a secret of it when the powers to be suppress the voice of those who think different. when you get experiencing very serious problems off of the saakashvili government came to power in two thousand and three but. that was when the problems began piling up. interviews were now off limits to our journalists they were all from beason up and humiliated in public when the attempt to protect property puts life in real danger that we have been deprived of the only needs of a living i have gone to the originals with only the papers. then legalized the ownership rights on the basis of companies freedom becomes just.

to me. to just see. just so to pick. from. there are those who desperately need it to survive i am spoken to is a ton of money too on the. whole goldman the fish. and the suppresses the prize the

rights of the food for. new clothes and. those who don't get their share of the trades. just by downloading god's. place and the old dos but not the one not us that people need to know about it i mean not look any from the company from. those who suck it out to prosper. in the seas and sand in the problem if it's. just licensed and no one can live without it's in one of the largest blood banks in the world. a lot of nigerians. on r.t.c. . take.

welcome back across our computers about to mind you we're talking about the stop online piracy act. to. see. if i can return to you daniel and it seems to me and correct me if you think i'm wrong that we're not using we're using status quo. tools to fix a problem in this piracy on the internet but isn't it because the internet is uniquely different than other types of piracy that we should have a unique answer and then in the legislation is going through congress is really kind of backward looking and not forward looking could we get something that's more innovative that works with companies instead of something that is so it seems to me that we're using a sledgehammer when we should be using a very fine surgical instrument to solve this problem. well you you do you

do need a multi-pronged approach to tackling this issue is not can be solved by industry alone it's not only solved by government alone one thing that you can do is go after the economics of piracy you have to look and see how these sites are being run and where they're making their money and how they're drawing an audience so the way to cut that off is to cut off their sources of funding go after the networks go after the payment processor stop linking to the sites and this is really going after the worst of the worst the forward infringers there right now are outside of the jurisdiction the united states and we can do anything about this is a way of saying if you're an american company and a court finds that. identifies a site as a rogue malicious site then as an american company you'll stop doing business with them i think that's part of being a responsible player on the internet she said what do you think about that if you leave just over arching it should be much more specific much more nuanced in dealing with this issue because it seems like it the way you want to talk about freedom of expression later is that it can be the way these laws are being proposed

there's an enormous amount of abuse could be out there using these laws as you pointed out the first part of the program yes i mean you know a big part of the problem here is that we are relying upon assurances by copyright owners and particularly very wealthy copyright owners that they will act in their restrained way unfortunately the history of their behavior does not bear that out copyright owners routinely exaggerate the scope of their rights go after websites that are not infringing or are using content in a way that is protected by the fair use provision of the us copyright act copyright enforcement tools are often used just to shut down competition rather than to pursue any legitimate copyright claim we shouldn't be dependent for a system of copyright in force that upon the copyright holder is acting in good faith which is. what so far is really built upon there are too many public costs in

play both in the copyright system in general but particularly when you're talking about monkeying around with the internet and all of the implications for freedom of expression that come from censorship and so i think that you're quite right to suggest that a much more nuanced approach is appropriate here and i think we're going to get something like that i mean the soap right now reminds me a bit of the italian cruise ship. that capsized recently and the captain abandoning the ship i mean the legislators sponsoring the bill are abandoning it as quickly as they can and its current version it has no chance of going through so i do think and this is true in part because of pressure from the white house was which has expressed many. problems with the statute from its perspective so i think we are going to be going back to the table and going back to the table does i think

meaning gauging in a serious way with technology companies they were not part of the legislative process in the same kind of serious way that they should be and i think that recent activities have demonstrated that they really have a strong position now they obviously have resources to to to lobby and to put forward their own views and all members of congress are going to really have to take account of that it's important though to keep in mind that the copyright owners and technology companies are only two sort of sets of stakeholders and we also have ordinary members the public and users of consumers of copyright material and so i would hope that any process going forward would be inclusive of them as well we just have not had an inclusive process this is very interesting. history and sideways way to which we go to weigh in here i mean i think if you jason you bring up a very interesting point here i mean do you think if the industry wrote it in sent

it over to congress because just as jason pointed out and i said early in the program and a lot of politicians in washington are walking away from it even though they used to be supporters i mean did they actually read it or did they listen to their constituents and did they listen to these technology companies for a change. i think what happened is two things one of which is i think we should make it abundantly clear to the people who are watching this program that both soap of the stop online piracy act and the protect i intellectual property act are both dead they are not going to go through either the cost of the house or the senate this year they will not be signed into law this year. so they are dead the chances of this becoming an actual issue this year are nonexistent however that does not mean they will come back again sort of zombie like to. rise again and bother us all year from now so the issue is that the movie houses are the movie out of the movie producers the record producers have

a lot of lobbyists and they managed to get a lot through that they wrote that gave them everything they wanted and because of the fact that they had some well paid lobbyists who were very effective they managed to get hearings and managed to get it as a proposed bill only one company was actually invited to testify at the hearings that was not from one of these groups and that was a that was a person from google who was invited to testify no other internet related company was invited to testify this shows you that this bill was very one sided from the beginning and it's not surprising that it is now dead but the fact is it should ever been brought up in this case in this way in the first place ok so the fact is is that i was going to go to dan just an assassin i was going to ask dan daniel what's plan b. then if both or dead. well you know i think if you look at the alternative bill that was introduced the open act there was introduced by really the kind of opponents of so and. there's

a lot of similarity between the two so where so. going after the ad networks going after the payment processors search engines and blocking sites through d.n.a.'s the open act just goes after the ad networks and it just goes after the payment processors and so there's actually a lot of agreement from both attack companies and from the content industries they're going after the ad networks and the payment processors is the right way forward so i would say it's dead i would say the provisions have been taken out about blocking that started this year you know that's really completely off the table whether or not a search engines will be included is an open question but i think there is a lot of agreement that it's an important problem in the white house statement said something should be done this year so i would say that it's out of the question to have action on it and i think it would be a fair compromise which is kind of the point of washington is to come together and find you know room for agreement in this they will least we can go and have bad networks and payment processors stop dealing with these new and bad sides jason if

i can ask you i mean it's going to go ahead way to go ahead you know it's not going to. actually going to pass this year either. not because it may not be a good idea because it's an election year and right now nobody in congress wants to have something which happened yesterday happen closer to the election it's just not going to it's just not going to fly you know after the election is over that's a different story but right now this whole issue generally just is not so so similar to what already does the dollars tax reduced the new open bill in the house so you know i think they are moving forward with a ok i want to change gears a little bit here just jason if i'm going to do an ad also ok go ahead jason jump in. i was going to say on the open act and the important distinction is that there is the there is available of independent review before any of the censorship actually happens which is something that i think is very important for protecting freedom of speech in which is one of the principal defects of so far in the protect

ip act one of the things that the white house has zero going on ok if i can ask you and i think was pretty impressive this seven thousand maybe more sites when i went dark on wednesday i mean what does that tell you about the power of the internet now i don't think we've ever seen anything quite like this before i mean is this. a new political force or at least force of consciousness that in society where we can find consensus on something when we have such political gridlock in the united states. well i don't think gridlock is going to go anywhere but i do think that it shows that i do think that it shows that the internet community can work together to a common interest and i think that is what got the attention of congress i don't think anybody in congress particularly care that the sites themselves went dark but they did care about the fact that there is the ability of the internet community to work together to a common interest and that they believe strongly enough about this interest to do something which is. the way legislation works around here is really worth noting

because quite frankly congress is pretty out of touch with things on the internet in general even now sending an e-mail to your congressman is probably not going to receive the congressman it's going to get seen by some junior staffer who will simply mark what used to as a yes or a no or a want to go to or something and they will then not pass it on anywhere so congress is not that in touch with the internet but they are in touch with air conditioning and i don't see it as all in touch with the lobbyists jason you are just going to jump in there jason. yeah i was going to i was going to take a slightly more cynical assessment of what's happened in recent weeks and what we have seen basically in terms of opposition to these to the legislation is a convergence of interests between technology companies like google and ordinary internet users and so and so you might look at that and say well ordinary people

using the internet have now found political voice they're organized in a way that hasn't been true in the past i'm not sure the congress is listening to them i think congress and the white house are listening more to the technology companies and again. clear that the interest of the technology companies are reflective at all points in time of the interests of ordinary consumers and so while the coalition is has been highly effective in this instance. we'll have to wait and see how things play out in the next round ok well looks like a little bit like occupy the internet here are a gentleman would run out of time fascinating discussion looks like we ended up on occupying the internet many thanks to my guest today in washington and in new york and thanks to our viewers for watching us here are to see you next time and remember.

the official. from the.

video. feeds the palm of your. direct from our studios in. between a rock and a hard place. to spine inside russia using an electronic gadget inside a stone by russian security services in moscow six years ago. with the arab league mission in syria seeking to broker peace a drawing to an end the bloodshed continues for twenty dead on thursday alone and around six hundred killed by security forces since the mission began a month ago. plus rage on the streets of romania with the resignation of the

government for imposing austerity measures and higher taxes to clear the international monetary fund in return for another. next lauren lyster with the big money questions from washington in. good afternoon and welcome to capital account i'm lauren lyster here in washington d.c. now the federal reserve has more than tripled the size of its balance sheet since the financial crisis printing money in order to do it whose decision was that not yours unless of course you're one of the handful of members of the federal open market committee next week they meet some are predicting more quantitative easing may be on the menu but what is all this money printing really amounted to we'll talk about it and speaking of bailouts this.