Stretching The FCC's Mandate: FCC Should Not Be Involved In Copyright Enforcement

from the beyond-the-mandate dept

We were a bit concerned last year when the FCC held hearings which were technically about the national broadband policy, but instead focused on copyright, something that is clearly well outside the FCC’s mandate — something the FCC already got in trouble for a few years back with its attempt to mandate a “broadcast flag.” However, there are now some additional concerns that this administration is ignoring the limits of the FCC’s mandate. As you may recall, a few weeks back, the Justice Department — at the urging of the entertainment industry — set up a special IP task force to deal with “the rise of intellectual property crime.” However, some are quite worried about how this task force intends to go about this.

Copycense points us to a letter sent to the Justice Department by the Center for Democracy and Technology, which noticed that, in the announcement of this new task force, the Justice Department said it intends to work with the FCC on intellectual property enforcement. That’s a problem:

What’s wrong with that? It’s an invitation to major mission creep. The FCC’s job is to execute and enforce federal communications law. It has no authority and no role in enforcing other laws. Lots of unlawful activity — from intellectual property infringement to racketeering to securities fraud to deceptive advertising — may occur over or using communications networks. But that doesn’t make it the FCC’s job to police such activity. The FCC’s focus is, and should remain, promoting the availability of high quality communications capabilities in the United States — not policing what users do with those capabilities.

In addition, the only reason to involve the FCC would be to force the entities the FCC regulates — communications providers, and in particular ISPs — to start actively policing I.P. infringement. Having government force ISPs to take on this new role should raise serious red flags. The idea that ISPs don’t serve as gatekeepers or content censors, and aren’t themselves responsible for what users do on the network, has been a bedrock principle that underpins the Internet’s open and innovative nature. Casting it aside would be a serious mistake and a radical departure from U.S. communications policy.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: fcc

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Stretching The FCC's Mandate: FCC Should Not Be Involved In Copyright Enforcement”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Grammah Correction Specialist says:

1.) Use a more accurate adjective than “quite.”
2.) Also, avoid contractions in formal righting. “that’s, “what’s”, “don’t” should be “That is”, “What is”, “do not” and such.
3.) Is that the correct use of “It’s”? Why not use “its” in “It’s an invitation”

For moar grammah tips, tricks, help, and training, please visit this Facebook group-

Any Mouse says:

Re: Re:

1) Your spelling is simply atrocious. Please, use a spellchecker.

2) The blog seems to be more informal than formal. Regardless, such things aren’t weighed as heavily as they were 30 years ago.

3) ‘Its’ is a possessive form. ‘It’s’ means ‘it is’, so ‘It is an invitation’ is correct and proper.

Self-promotion is much better if you’re not being an ass about what you’re promoting.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Language, spelling and grammar are simply methods or tools used to convey meaning. When you become more concerned about the tool itself than the meaning you intend to convery then you become a pedantic jobsworth and an idiot. I doubt anyone is impressed with your knowledge of grammer, because just about everyone recognises the general unimportance of such.

Anonymous Coward says:

if the fcc were to somehow get isp’s to police thier networks wouldnt that effectively allow them to not be “dumb pipes” anymore, and as such allow them to skirt around net neutrallity, ie “we only slowed down our competiters VOD service because we wernt 100% sure it wasnt infringing” and “our customers can only use bittorrent software that we provide so we can effectivley police it without them having to give up an effective way to download and distribute files, and anyway our software only requires an additional $20 to the subsciption to use” and so on and so forth….

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...