Hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens recently asked the FCC to protect the open Internet, but broadband providers filed comments that are the hundreds of pages equivalent of “take our word for it, everything will be fine” or “move along, nothing to see here.” In preparing our reply comments to the FCC’s open Internet proceeding, we’ve been examining the most recent comments of the big fixed and mobile broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.

What we found could be striking or completely obvious, but is probably both at the same time. Broadband providers primarily occupy themselves with aggressive posturing and finger-pointing aimed at content providers like Netflix and backbone providers like Cogent and Level 3. The big industry players’ comments also make clear that the big broadband providers apparently do live in an alternate universe to most Americans. In this universe, the vast majority of Americans can easily switch between an ample number of broadband providers on a whim, and where any real rules to protect the open Internet as we know it are unnecessary because… well, because… just take our word for it.

Here are some of the lowlights:

Comcast:

“If a provider were to block or degrade Internet applications or content, the provider would incur substantial subscriber losses and reputational harm. Thus, in order to undertake such a strategy, a broadband provider would first need to conclude that any theoretical benefits of the strategy outweigh these very real costs.” (pg. 6)

Ok, a couple points here. First, the basic assumption that this argument relies on is that subscribers actually have another provider to switch to, which many people who live in Comcast territory know is simply fantasy. That said, the point about reputational harms also seems to ignore the fact that broadband providers are already considered the worst companies in America. Subscriber bases and profits are maintained due to these companies entrenched, excessive market power, not customer service. But then, I suppose you can?t blame Comcast for trying: They were neck and neck with Monsanto this year for “worst company in America.”

After discussing at length the importance of a mercurial, end-around category of “specialized services,” and why the FCC should properly leave them beyond the scope of Open Internet rules, Comcast states:

“While it is unnecessary to impose additional mandates on specialized services, the Commission should clarify the definition of specialized services to provide increased certainty regarding the scope of its open Internet rules.” (pg. 30, emphasis added)

Comcast?s argument here can best be summed up as follows: “Specialized services are perhaps the greatest thing we have ever thought of, and the FCC has wisely chosen to not regulate them. By the way, what are specialized services anyway?” If you?re confused, you?re not alone.

Who’s next?

Verizon:

“A policy of impeding access [instituted by a broadband provider] to services customers wish to access would only push those customers to other providers. Other ISPs face the same incentives. Under these ? in which users demand access to all lawful content and ISPs are committed to fulfilling customers? needs ? there is no need for a prescriptive no-blocking rule.” (pg. 26)

Verizon asks that we set aside any silly preconceived notions we may have about the lack of alternative providers (discussed above) and how poorly broadband providers have been known to respond to their subscribers (Matt Stone and Trey Parker may have summed it up best already), and then essentially says that we hardly need rules in place when we can just take their word for it.

“Just because the Commission could prohibit such practices [such as blocking or degrading content] in some contexts, does not mean that it should do so at the present time and instead could wait to see whether any such theorized harms actually materialize.” (pg. 37)

Translation: Just because the Commission could stop us from experimenting in ways that break the open Internet to extract more money from both content providers and our subscribers does not mean they should do that. Instead, why don’t we wait to even think about doing anything until we’ve locked in business practices that ensure the open Internet as we know it disappears?

“Applying Title II to the American broadband industry would be like tying a cinder block to the ankle of an Olympic sprinter in the midst of a race and then wishing her luck.” (pg. 50)

You should first know that Verizon spent a fair amount of time making accusing proponents of Open Internet regulations of being “sensationalistic” and “superficial” and of spouting “politically motivated fantasy.” The only “fantasy” here is Verizon likening the American broadband industry to an Olympic sprinter. It is more akin to Godzilla: more prone to simply crush the competition than to race against them.

AT&T:

“To engage in end-to-end prioritization of Internet traffic across connecting networks, it would be necessary to have a system coordinated among edge providers, backbone providers, and ISPs to mark certain packets for priority and to handle them accordingly. No such system exists today.? (pg. 18)

AT&T may be right that no such system of coordination between edge providers, backbone providers, and ISPs exists today, but that overlooks the reality that broadband providers have already found a better way to achieve this goal while also cutting out backbone providers: Directly connecting to edge providers, like Comcast has done with Netflix. Not only that, but cutting out the middle man (backbone providers) has an added benefit for last-mile providers (like Comcast and AT&T) in that it cuts off revenue sources for backbone providers (as edge providers rely on their data transport services less often), weakening them and making them more susceptible to increasing demands from the last-mile broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and others.

The FCC has an opportunity here to spur competition and innovation, but it starts with recognizing that “take our word for it,” “move along, nothing to see here” are not the cornerstones of a framework to protect an open Internet.

Art Neill is the Founder and Executive Director of New Media Rights, and Kyle Reynolds is a legal intern with New Media Rights. New Media Rights is a nonprofit program that provides legal services and advocacy for internet users and creators.

It’s not surprising that a year-old proceeding launched by the U.S. Copyright Office, toying with the idea of creating a copyright-focused small claims court, has gone largely unnoticed. Private meetings in Dubai about the future of the internet, and copyright proposals in Germany that could change the way search engines work have been vying for people’s attention around the same time.

However, about a week ago, a small number of rights holders organizations, attorneys, and artists were invited by the Copyright Office for panels at Columbia & UCLA’s law schools to debate the details of what a copyright small claims court should look like.

Here’s some context about why these details are so important: if some of the more short-sighted special interests monopolize how these proceedings go, it could lead to a situation worse than bogus DMCA takedowns. Right now, internet users have to worry about abuses of the DMCA that lead to content takedowns; imagine adding to that a situation where it’s even easier to have them bullied and brought into a real courtroom.

If this court is shaped without your input, we could be faced with a situation where it makes economic sense for media companies to sue many more average internet users over the photos they post on Facebook and Tumblr. The tens of thousands of Bittorrent filesharing lawsuits over the last two years might pale in comparison.

Even though it’s a ways off from completion, a small claims system for copyright would have a bigger impact on the day-to-day of copyright law than any “reform” to copyright since the DMCA in the late 1990’s, so we should pay attention.

Who wants a small claims copyright system, and why?

Some rightsholders say formal copyright lawsuits in the current system are too expensive. Evidence from the ABA IP law section shows that federal copyright trials are expensive (pdf), with cases where less than $1 million is at issue costing an average of over $200,000 in legal fees before trial, and nearly $350,000 once they’ve gone through to an appeal.

So the argument from some rightsholders is that it simply isn’t practical to bring legitimate smaller disputes. This argument says that while attorneys fees and costs are available if you’ve registered your work, many smaller disputes involve unregistered works and fees and costs are unavailable..

The ABA’s comments tried to give a sense of where the line is for attorneys to actually bring a federal lawsuit.

Approximately one-third of the respondents would turn away a copyright case where the likely recovery would be less than $60,000. But about two-thirds of the respondents would accept an uncomplicated case with a likely recovery of less than $60,000. Only about one-third of respondents would accept an uncomplicated case with a likely recovery of less than $30,000.

In short, some rightsholders want a new forum to bring suits against small-scale defendants.

What is the practical impact of a small claims copyright court?

The organization I direct, New Media Rights, provides one-to-one legal services to all kinds of folks who would end up being both defendants and plaintiffs in the new system. Why we’re participating so extensively is because we’re in a unique position: we’re (1) a user-oriented organization (for example, defending innocent internet-users who are wrongly implicated in filesharing cases). BUT we’re also an organization for (2) independent creators: the type of people who make their livelihood by sharing their creativity online.

We see a lot of the bullying and trolling that takes place in the informal copyright system, where overreaching DMCA takedown notices and cease and desist letters are common. As many people reading this may know, bogus copyright claims are regularly misused to takedown otherwise legal content.

So we have to balance the need of independent creative people to get “justice” for their works being wholly misappropriated by bad actors, while keeping life sane for average internet users. These are some of the details that I shared with the Copyright Office to balance those interests…

How to keep a new small claims system fair?

1. Defendants need to have access to all defenses normally available to them including the fair use and DMCA safe harbor defenses. At least one misplaced comment suggested getting rid of the DMCA safe harbor all together and raising statutory damages to $650,000 (from $150,000).

2. Any small claims system will need to address current misuse of copyright law. Threats of lawsuits and settlement demands from copyright trolls are a big problem. Currently, because this abuse takes place outside the formal court system, there are few consequences for the troll. Our suggestions highlight the need to keep trolls out while allowing legitimate cases to go forward.

3. Defendants have to have adequate legal representation. Plaintiffs will have had months to prepare a complaint and consult attorneys. A small-scale defendant will have limited time and resources to figure out how to defend themselves. Small defendants without adequate representation shouldn’t simply get steamrolled or coerced into settlements by overreaching copyright owners (example: The mass filesharing lawsuits of the last two years).

Self-help systems like FLASH in Northern California, and legal assistance projects like New Media Rights in San Diego, provide help for these types of people. BUT as the Executive Director of New Media Rights, I can tell you that we don’t have even 1% of the capacity to deal with and correct all of the misuses of copyright law that we see.

4. Defendants need to have access to fees and costs. Under section 505 of the Copyright Act, a court is permitted to award fees and costs to the prevailing party. Despite the Supreme Court’s finding in the early 1990’s in the Fogerty case that the standard is the same for plaintiffs and defendants, plaintiffs regularly get fees simply by registering while defendants have to show the plaintiff’s lawsuit was in bad faith and frivolous. The result is a disincentive for defendants to challenge copyright holders, and an incentive for innocent defendants to settle. This is because even if a defendant wins in federal court, they will still likely have to pick up the tab for attorneys fees.

Why this is important and what you can do

Even though the small copyright claims discussion is speculative, making it difficult to simply be for or against it, it definitely isn’t a discussion that should be ignored.

Internet users need to stay involved with the proceeding and make sure the new system is something more than a new venue for porn companies to coerce settlements out of internet subscribers. For now, the best thing we can do as internet users is raise awareness and be involved, so that by the time a full proposal is on the table at the Copyright Office, it includes safeguards that will make sure the new court provides a fair playing field.