SOPA  Panel  at  Documented@Davos  Transcript     Documented@Davos  2012     [MUSIC  PLAYING]  INTERVIEWER:  Welcome  back  to  Documented@Davos,  hosted

 by   Scribd  and  Mashable,  talking  to  technology  leaders  here  at  Davos,  trying  to  figure   out  what  the  future  of  technology  might  be.  Hashtag  is  #davosdocs.  And  I'm   delighted  to  be  joined  by  a  panel  of  experts.  We're  going  to  be  talking  about  SOPA,   which  is  some  legislation  that's  obviously  been  in  the  news  very  recently.       To  my  right,  we  have  David  Drummond,  chief  legal  officer  at  Google.  We  have  Jimmy   Wales,  founder  of  Wikimedia  Foundation,  obviously  Wikipedia  being  your  most   famous  creation.  We  have  Trip  Adler,  who's  the  CEO  and  founder  at  Scribd,  which  is   an  online  document  hosting  service,  obviously  an  opponent  of  SOPA  for  that  reason.   And  we  have  Congressman  Issa,  who,  if  I  remember  correctly,  opposed  SOPA  and   also  introduced  OPEN,  which  is  an  alternative  to  SOPA  which  Google  is  in  favor  of.       So  I  guess  I  could  start  by  asking  the  congressman,  we  had  it  on  our  site  last  week,   but  is  it  true?  Is  SOPA  really  dead?  Could  it  come  back?       DARRELL  ISSA:  Well,  SOPA  is  radioactive.  Now  whether  or  not  somebody  wants  to   handle  very  enriched  uranium  and  pay  the  price  that  comes  with  holding  it,  the  odds   are,  no,  they're  not.  Just  yesterday,  Patrick  Leahy-­‐-­‐  the  author  of  PIPA,  the  equivalent   of  SOPA  in  the  Senate-­‐-­‐  has  said  he's  taking  a  look  at  OPEN.       And  that  is  what  we  predicted  all  along.  That  is,  if  you  stop  them  from  doing   overreach  and  really  excessive  work,  then  they'll  start  going  back  to  something  that   will  actually  attack  the  real  piracy,  which  we  all  agree  has  to  be  stopped  on  the   internet.       INTERVIEWER:  So  are  you  saying  no  probability  of  SOPA  coming  back?       DARRELL  ISSA:  I  would  certainly  think  that  as  they  look  at  OPEN,  they'll  want  to  try   to  bring  in  ideas  or  parts  of  SOPA.  And  that  will  be  part  of  the  challenge,  to  make   sure  that  if  they  have  reasonable  requests,  we  look  at  it.  But  at  the  same  time,  we   defeated  SOPA  because  SOPA  and  PIPA  were  all  about  really  eliminating  creativity   and  stifling  the  internet,  and,  in  fact,  making  it  less  safe  and  probably  unstable.  So   we've  got  to  make  sure  those  elements  don't  creep  back  in.       INTERVIEWER:  And  just  for  our  audience,  explain  a  little  bit  about  what  SOPA   means  and  how  OPEN  is  different.       DARRELL  ISSA:  Well,  one  of  the  most  important  things  that  SOPA  had  was  it  had  a   denial  of  service  implicit  in  it.  And  the  idea  that  you're  going  to  block  the  internet   because  somebody  says  that  some  portion  of  some  site  may  have  some  

infringement-­‐-­‐  and  of  course,  in  real  time,  it  may  not  have  it  this  moment.  It  may   have  it  10  seconds  from  now.  And  it  may  not  have  it  10  seconds  afterwards.       That  kind  of  foolishness  is  really  19th  century  thinking.  The  other  part  was  much   more  20th  century,  which  is  it  had  a  broad  array  of  lawsuit  capability,  including,  if   you  will,  individual  rights  of  action.  So  the  singer  in  the  band  who  may  not  actually   own  the  copyright,  but  is  performing,  could  have,  in  fact,  brought  litigation,  either   directly,  in  the  way  of  a  suit,  or  to  the  Justice  Department.       And  lastly,  it  asked  the  Justice  Department  to  try  to  go  after  this  plethora  of,  quote,   "infringers,"  all  of  whom  were  alleged  to  be  overseas.  But  the  targets  that  Justice   could  go  after  were  all  in  the  US.  Each  of  those  told  us  that  this  was  all  about   wanting  to,  if  you  will,  stifle  the  internet  by  making  the  internet  do  the  work  of,  if   you  will,  the  media  content  people.       We  appreciate  that  their  assets  are  on  the  internet  and  that  they  should  not  be   pirated.  But  at  the  same  time,  look  to  the  foreign  sites  that  are  doing  it.  Get   injunctive  relief  quickly.  And  then  follow  it  to  the  money.       Stop  the  money.  We  believe  that's  going  to  clean  up  the  internet.  We  think  it's  a  good   model  for  the  world,  not  just  for  America.       INTERVIEWER:  David,  Google  opposed  SOPA,  is  supportive  of  OPEN.  What's  the   difference?  Why  is  OPEN  better?       DAVID  DRUMMOND:  Well,  let  me  tell  you.  One  of  the  big  reasons  we  were  opposed   to  this  is  we  have  had  in  our  country  since  the  late  '90s  a  balance  with  copyright  that   kind  of  works  and  that  other  countries  are  trying  to  emulate,  which  is  embodied  in   the  Digital  Millennium  Copyright  Act,  the  DMCA.  And  what  it  basically  says,  you're  a   copyright  holder,  and  you're  dealing  with  an  intermediary,  like  an  ISP  or  a  search   engine.  You  have  to  tell  us  that  your  material  is  being  infringed.       You  tell  us  it's  up  there.  It  shouldn't  be  up  there.  It  gives  a  notice.  We  take  it  down.   Give  someone  else  an  opportunity  to  challenge  that  decision,  et  cetera,  et  cetera.   That's  worked  really  well.       And  so  when  SOPA  came  out,  and  PIPA  before  it,  all  the  talk  was  about  stopping   these  foreign  rogue  sites,  and  that's  what  we're  going  after.  But  when  you  actually   read  the  bills,  what  they  were  doing  was  attempting  to  overturn  this  balance  and   this  structure  that  has  worked  really  well  on  the  internet  by  actually  trying  to   deputize  search  engines,  ISPs,  to  either  block  sites  entirely,  to  remove  search   results-­‐-­‐  a  technique,  I  should  remind  everybody,  that  was  pioneered  by  China.   They're  the  best  practitioner  of  it-­‐-­‐  and  even  other  sites  like  Wikipedia  and  others   that  simply  might  contain  a  link  to  something  that  someone  claims  one  day  is   infringing.  And  so  there  was  this  huge  gulf  between  what  the  proponents  of  the  bill   said  they  were  going  after  and  then  what  the  bills  actually  said.    

  And  so  when  we  looked  at  the  situation,  we've  always-­‐-­‐  we  realize  that  there's  an   issue  with  counterfeiting.  Despite  what  some  of  the  proponents,  who  were  trying  to   say  that  Google  only  opposes  the  bill  because  we  make  all  this  money  off  of  ads  on   pirated  sites,  the  reverse  is  true.  We  don't  want  that  money.  We  take  a  lot  of  steps  to   make  sure  that  doesn't  happen.  Witness,  if  anybody's  read  the  long  complaint,   indictment  against  Megaupload,  there's  a  section  in  there  that  talks  about  how  we   rejected  them  in  our  advertising  program  several  years  ago.       But  what  we  do  recognize  is  if  you  actually  want  to  go  after  this  problem,  these  sites   are  doing  it  for  the  money.  So  the  best  way  to  deal  with  it  is  to  follow  the  money  and   get  at,  actually,  what's  sustaining  them,  either  through  the  provision  of  ads  through   ad  networks,  like  the  one  that  we  operate,  or  payment  systems,  folks  who  are   processing  the  payments  to  these  sites.       And  that's  what  the  OPEN  Act  goes  after,  which  is  something  that  we  support.   Because  we  think  that  that's  a  reasonable  step.  And  it  doesn't  have  all  of  these  other   lawsuit  capabilities  that  Congressman  Issa  was  talking  about  and,  most  importantly,   all  of  these  censorship  provisions,  which  would  do  enormous  collateral  damage  to   the  internet.       INTERVIEWER:  Jimmy,  Wikipedia,  obviously,  went  down,  blacked  out,  started  a   huge  trend  and  a  huge  movement  that  ultimately  helped  to  bring  down  SOPA.  How   did  that  come  about?  And  what's  your  position  on  this  new  OPEN  proposition?       JIMMY  WALES:  So  the  way  this  came  about  is  back  in  early  December,  I  was  starting   to  become  more  aware  that  SOPA  seemed  to  be  really  on  a  fast  track  and  was  really   being  pushed  through.  And  not  a  lot  was  being  done  to  stop  it.  I  remember  watching   the  hearing.       DARRELL  ISSA:  Our  short  hearing  and  long  markup?       JIMMY  WALES:  Yes.  The  long  markup  was  brilliant.  And  actually,  thank  you  very   much,  sir,  for  being  so  wordy  and  slowing  the  whole  process  down.  Because-­‐-­‐       DARRELL  ISSA:  Nothing  would  have  stopped  it  except  for  your  two  websites,   between  your  shutting  off  altogether  and  your  linking  and  educating,  it's  made  a   huge  difference.       JIMMY  WALES:  I  was  talking  to  David  today.  If  it  hadn't  taken  just  long  enough  that   we  went  into  the  Christmas  break,  because  our  process,  we're  a  very  open   community.  So  none  of  this  is  Jimmy  decides  to  shut  down  Wikipedia  for  a  day.       Instead,  I  proposed  to  the  community,  hey,  did  you  see  what  the  Italians  did?  This   law's  really  bad.  I'm  hearing  from  Washington  that  it's  getting  pushed  through  very,   very  quickly.  I  think  we  should  consider  doing  a  protest  like  the  Italians.    

  Opened  the  long  conversation.  We  don't  do  these  things  overnight.  It  was  a  long   debate,  discussion  in  the  community.  What  are  the  pros?  What  are  the  cons?       And  in  the  end,  we  held  a  vote.  And  it  was  like  87%  in  favor,  so  a  massive  vote   within  our  community  that  we  actually  triggered.  We're  Wikipedians.  We  can   discuss  things  forever.  That's  what  we  do.       But  actually,  when  Reddit  announced  their  date,  that  actually  clarified  for  me  and   said,  OK,  look,  here's  a  date.  We  need  to  hold  a  vote.  We  just  need  to  decide.  We  can   discuss  this  forever  and  look  for  the  perfect  solution.  But  actually,  Washington  is   coming  back  to  work.       And  so  we  settled  on  that  date.  It  was  overwhelming.  The  foundation  was   supportive  of  the  idea,  so  they  agreed  to  the  community's  wishes  and  helped  to   create  some  of  the  technical  infrastructure.  The  result  was  unbelievable.       For  people  outside  the  US,  you  just  got  a  message.  But  inside  the  US,  you  had  a  little   tool.  You  could  type  in  your  zip  code,  your  postal  code,  and  get  back  your  phone   numbers  of  your  congressmen  and  senators.  And  8  million  people  did  that.  8  million   people  looked  up  their  phone  numbers.  Now,  we  don't  know  how  many  called  after   that.  Of  course-­‐-­‐       DARRELL  ISSA:  Enough  to  shut  down  the  switchboards.       JIMMY  WALES:  Enough  to  shut  down  the  switchboards.  I  want  to  get  good   confirmation  on  this.  Because  I  heard  that  day  the  House  of  Representatives'  phone   system  crashed.  And  I  said,  well,  that  sounds  good.  That's  what  I  wanted  to  do.       Because  I  had  actually  said  the  day  before,  let's  melt  some  phones  in  Washington.   And  so  we  did.  And  so  I  think  what  was  astonishing  about  that  is  that  for  a  lot  of  the   congresspeople,  it's  not  their  specialty  area.  They  may  not  know  a  whole  lot  about  it.   They  weren't  paying  that  much  attention  to  it  yet.       And  if  you  hear,  oh,  it's  some  kind  of  squabble  between  Hollywood  and  Silicon   Valley,  and,  I  don't  know,  Hollywood  says  Google  is  making  money  from  piracy.  And   I  don't  know.  I'm  not  sure  what  to  do.  But  I'm  against  piracy.  And  save  American   jobs,  right?       What  this  did  is  actually  transform  it  to  say,  oh,  actually  the  public,  the  internet   public,  really  cares  deeply  about  this  openness,  about  the  fact  that  they  can  upload   their  videos  to  YouTube  without  somebody  having  to  check  it  in  advance,  that  they   can  write  in  Wikipedia.      

And  as  David  said  earlier,  the  notice  and  takedown  provisions  of  DMCA,  they  work   quite  well.  It's  a  safe  harbor  for  us.  Wikipedia  couldn't  exist  without  that  safe   harbor.       If  we  were  responsible  from  the  moment  everything  is  uploaded  for  everything   everybody  does,  we  would  have  to  pre-­‐vet  everything.  It  would  take  hundreds  of   employees.  We  couldn't  afford  it.  Wikipedia  would  not  exist.       It's  really  important  to  us  that  we  have  a  system  in  place  where  yeah,  you  can   upload  something  that's  illegal  to  Wikipedia,  and  we  have  a  legal  responsibility  to   take  it  down.  We're  actually  even  a  lot  more  proactive  than  that.  Our  community  is   quite  proud  on  moral  grounds.  We  wrote  it  ourselves.       Which  is  one  of  the  things  that  irritates  me  when  I  get  in  a  conversation  with  some   people  from  Hollywood.  But  what  about  the  creative  people?  I'm  like,  that's  us.  We   created  Wikipedia.       We  wrote  it  ourselves.  And  we  took  all  these  pictures.  And  maybe  it's  not  Police   Academy  8,  but  we  think  it's  pretty  important.       So  anyway,  the  decision  came  from  the  community,  which  is  very  powerful.  I  think   one  of  the  things  that  was  powerful  about  it  is  this  argument-­‐-­‐  oh,  Google  just  wants   to  make  money  off  of  piracy-­‐-­‐  it's  not  true.  Right?  But  people  are  like,  hmm,  I  don't   know.  Is  that-­‐-­‐  I  don't  know.       Nobody  ever  suggested  for  one  second  Wikipedia  wants  to  make  money  off  of   piracy,  right?  I  mean,  god,  at  least  we'd  have  a  way  of  making  money  then,  you   know?  So  it  sort  of  woke  people  up  that,  oh,  actually,  the  public  cares  about  this.  And   I  think  it's  quite  heartwarming  that,  you  can  get  quite  cynical  about  politics,  that   occasionally  the  voters  do  matter,  which  is  a  good  thing.       INTERVIEWER:  Trip,  Scribd  also  had  a  protest  against  SOPA.  How  would  it  affect   your  business?       TRIP  ADLER:  So  in  our  case,  Scribd  is  a  good  example  of  a  startup  that  would  be   really  affected  by  SOPA.  So  in  our  case,  Scribd  wouldn't  be  able  to  exist  if  SOPA  was   in  play.  So  since  we  first  became  public  in  2007,  we've  been  very  conscious  of   copyright,  complying  with  the  DMCA.  We've  also  gone  above  and  beyond  the  DMCA,   built  a  copyright  filter  where  we  work  with  publishers,  let  them  upload  their  text   and  store  a  digital  copy  of  their  text.  If  the  same  thing  gets  uploaded,  we  remove  it   immediately.       And  we  actually  learned  about  SOPA  maybe  a  month  or  two  ago  when  a  document   on  Scribd  started  getting  really  popular  about  how  SOPA  was  unconstitutional.  And   we  realized  that  we  had  missed  the  first  wave  of  companies  taking  a  stand  against   SOPA.  So  we  decided  to  do  our  own  protest.    

  And  in  our  case,  since  we  were  a  little  bit  late,  we  wanted  to  do  something  a  little   more  creative.  So  when  people  first  hit  the  site,  we  had  all  of  the  words  on  the  page   begin  to  disappear  with  this  kind  of  cool  effect.  And  it  actually  got  quite  a  bit  of   attention.       And  in  our  case,  the  goal  was  really  just  to  educate  people  on  what  SOPA  was.   Because  this  was  over  a  month  ago  when  it  wasn't  being  talked  about  quite  as  much.   So  we  gave  people  more  information  about  what  SOPA  was.  And  following  our   protest,  there  seemed  to  be  a  much  bigger  wave  of  protests,  ending  with  the  tidal   wave  created  by  Wikipedia.       JIMMY  WALES:  Since  he  called  radioactive  earlier,  I  wanted  to  say  it  wasn't  a  tidal   wave.  It  was  the  nuclear  option.       TRIP  ADLER:  OK,  the  nuclear  bomb  dropped  by  Wikipedia.       DARRELL  ISSA:  But  it's  made  a  change  that  I  think,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  is   profound,  and  it's  forever.  And  that  is,  the  next  time  the  content  community  comes   with  a  prepackaged  bill  that  they've  written,  every  office  is  going  to  say,  and  how   does  the  tech  community  feel  about  it?  And  they're  going  to  ask  for-­‐-­‐  obviously,   there's  no  one  voice.  But  they're  going  to  ask  that  question.       The  reason  this  legislation  came  so  close  to  passing-­‐-­‐  voted  unanimously  with   Republicans  and  Democrats,  people  who  got  off  the  bill  once  they  found  out  what   they'd  already  voted  for,  amazingly-­‐-­‐  was  because  there  was  sort  of  an  assumption   that  Hollywood  always  wins.  And  Hollywood  has,  historically,  always  won.  But  in   this  case,  they  were  really  wrong  in  what  they  were  asking  for.       And  my  goal  with  the  OPEN  Act  with  Senator  Wyden  and  others,  Zoe  Lofgren  out  of   San  Jose,  is  we  need  to  make  sure  that  they  do  win,  but  they  win  appropriately.  We   want  to  protect  against  piracy  because  everybody  who-­‐-­‐  and  we  saw  it.  The  7,000   sites  that  went  down,  in  one  way  or  the  other,  every  one  of  them  has  a  huge  amount   of  intellectual  property.       Their  names.  They  resolve  to  a  name.  That  is  crucial  to  them  that  it  be  theirs  and   they  be  able  to  protect  it.  So  the  amazing  thing  is  we  want  to  represent  the  7,000   every  bit  as  much  as  the  others.  And  we  think  one  bill  can  do  it  for  both.       INTERVIEWER:  You  just  hinted  at  an  issue  that  came  up  on  our  site  a  few  times.  Is   there  a  disconnect  in  terms  of  technical  knowledge  among  your  peers  in  terms  of   these  new  bills  coming  along?  Do  they  fully  understand  them?  Do  they  fully   understand  the  technological  implications?       DARRELL  ISSA:  As  far  as  I  know,  the  only  person  who  has  written  software  and   made  money  at  it  is  Blake  Farenthold  of  Texas,  a  freshman  on  my  committee.  And  he  

made  enough  money  that  that's  what  he  spent  getting  elected.  It  really  is  pretty  rare.   Internet  entrepreneurs  have  not  yet  come  to  Congress.  Doctors  are  coming  to   Congress  in  mass  numbers  after  health  care  reform.       But  it  is  one  of  our  challenges,  the  amount  of  people  that  when  you  say  "Cerf,"  they   know  who  he  was,  not  what  you  do,  or  that  when  you  say  "IPv4,"  actually  get  what  it   really  means.  But  they're  learning.  And  they're  learning  as  a  result  of  this,  that  trying   to  block  domains,  trying  to  have  a  denial  of  service  on  how  something  resolves  from   four  or  six  groups  of  numbers,  they  kind  of  go,  OK,  I  don't  really  need  to  know  about   that.       I'm  not  going  to  learn  how  to  talk  in  hex,  either.  But  I  get  it  that  this  is  critical  that   you  be  able  to  go  to  sites  all  over  the  world  and  easily  resolve  to  a  name.  That's  why   the  magic  works.       Congressmen,  and  particularly  their  staffs,  do  care  about  this  issue  now.  And  I  know   for  David,  when  Google  and  other  tech  companies  come  in,  and  they  want  to  talk   about  technology  and  the  internet,  there  will  be  a  go-­‐to  staff  person  in  435  house   offices  and  100  senate  offices,  as  there  never  was  before.  And  that's  a  huge  tidal   change.       INTERVIEWER:  David,  we  just  hinted  at  the  issue  as  well.  There's  a  lot  of  money   behind  these  bills.  Is  the  tech  industry  lobbying  hard  enough?  Can  we  be  doing  more   proactively?       DAVID  DRUMMOND:  Sure.  It's  a  great  question.  And  I  think  what  Congressman  Issa   was  saying,  is  this  was  kind  of  a  watershed  moment.  I  think  he's  absolutely  right   about  that.       What's  been  going  on  is  the  content  industry,  for  example,  on  Capitol  Hill  has  been   playing  the  traditional  Washington  game  with  contributions  and  so  forth  for  a  long,   long  time.  And  whatever  you  feel  about  our  system-­‐-­‐  I  happen  to  be  somebody  who   thinks  we  ought  to  do  some  reforming  about  how  this  all  operates.  We  can  have  big   debates  on  that.       But  whatever  you  feel  about  it,  if  you're  in  business,  and  you  really  care  about  the   world  and  your  users  and  laws  that  might  come  out,  you  have  to  be  involved  in  that,   right?  So  Google,  you  see  lots  of  the  companies  that  have  started  to  do  that  in  a   bigger  way  than  historically  we've  done  before.  But  there's  a  lot  of  catching  up  to  do.       We  started  Google  13  years  ago.  So  we're  not  very  old.  Facebook,  YouTube,  well,   YouTube's  part  of  Google  now.  But  all  of  our  companies  are  very  young.  So  the   notion  that  we'd  be  able-­‐-­‐  through  political  action  committees  and  donations  and  all   these  kinds  of  things-­‐-­‐  to  match  what  Hollywood  has  been  able  to  do  over  all  of   these  years  is  just  questionable.      

So  we've  been  doing-­‐-­‐  the  two  things  that  we  had  lacked  before  this  fight,  I  think,   was  number  one,  a  coalition.  One  of  the  reasons  they're  so  effective  in  Hollywood  is   you  have  the  Motion  Picture  Association.  You  have  the  Record  Industry  Association   of  America.       So  individual  companies  are  part  of  that.  And  they  have  a  very  strong-­‐-­‐  and  they  all   walk  in  lockstep.  And  they  agree.       We've  never  had  such  an  organization.  We've  had  Net  Coalition.  We've  been  trying   to  build  that.  I  think  what  you  saw  here  was  the  web  community,  not  only  driven  by   web  users  and  what  the  public  wants,  but  the  organizations,  whether  it  is  Wikimedia   to  Facebook  to  Twitter  to  Google,  all  coming  together.  And  out  of  this,  I  think  we   have  now  the  prospects  of  a  lasting  coalition  that  will  give  us  a  bigger  voice  in   Washington.       But  the  second  part,  that  was  even  a  bigger  deal,  was,  whether  you  call  it  the  nuclear   option  or  whatever  it  is.  But  it  was  mobilizing  the  users.  And  that's  something  that   web  companies,  we've  had  this  possibility.  And  we've  seen  glimpses  of  it  in  the  past.   But  here's  an  example  where  it  really  happened.  And  that,  I  think,  is  a  big  equalizer.       INTERVIEWER:  Well,  Congressman,  is  it  an  equalizer?  Is  it  an  antidote?  To  what   extent  can  money  influence  these  bills  getting  passed?  And  to  what  extent  can  things   like  what  Jimmy  started  and  what  Trip  started,  can  these  social  movements  really  be   powerful  enough  to  be  the  antidote  to  money  coming  in  and  pushing  through  a  bill?       DARRELL  ISSA:  I  don't  want  to  understate  the  importance  of  money.  I  think   everyone  gets  it  that  that's  part  of  the  process  of  politics  at  all  levels.  But  money   normally  gets  you  access.  Access  gets  you  education.  Education  builds  over  time.       The  tech  community,  if  I  went  to  a  Google  fundraiser  in  the  past,  you  know  what   they  wanted  to  talk  about?  H-­‐1B  visas,  high  tech  visas,  primary  education,  free  trade   issues.  In  other  words,  they  wanted  to  talk  about  things  that  were  broadly  good  for   America.  I've  never  been  lobbied  that  I  can  recall-­‐-­‐  and  I'm  pretty  sure  I  recall  them   all-­‐-­‐  I've  never  been  lobbied  by  a  tech  company  based  on  something  that  was  sort  of   tech,  per  se.  That's  one  of  the  challenges.       And  I'm  the  past  chairman  of  the  Consumer  Electronics  Association.  When  we  had   the  fight  with  the  Motion  Picture  Association  over  the  very  recording  that  at  that   time  was  Betamax,  oddly  enough.  And  now  it's  morphed  generation  after   generation.  The  idea  that  you  could  do  it  went  all  the  way  to  the  Supreme  Court  in   this  Motion  Picture  Association  v.  Sony  Betamax  case.  This  was  before  Sony  had  as   many  movies.       But  the  fact  was  that  mobilized  our  industry.  And  the  consumer  electronics  industry   never  forgot.  And  they've  continued  to  support  copyrights  rights  acts  and  fair  use.  

This  industry,  if  you  will,  broadly,  the  internet  users  and  entrepreneurs,  need  to   build  over  time.       It's  all  about  the  internet,  not  about  our  company.  And  that  means  the  internet  day   on  the  Hill,  which  does  not  yet  exist,  being  something  that's  broadcast  on  websites   and  that  brings  perhaps  1,000  or  10,000  small,  medium,  and  large  and  emerging   entrepreneurs  to  simply  say,  don't  screw  up  the  net.  And  we  have  these  issues,  and   you  need  to  help  us.       That  broad  coalition  is  more  powerful  than  any  amount  of  money,  because  it's  how   you  get  to  educate  a  member.  One  way,  historically,  is  you  write  him  a  check.  He   comes  to  the  event.  You  tell  him  about  your  issues.       It's  effective  in  Washington.  It's  not  nearly  as  effective  as  sort  of  occupy  people's   offices  with  real,  live  people  from  the  district.  And  that's  what  I  think  is  going  to   come  out  of  this  is  the  kind  of  annual  grassroots  "save  the  net."       And  Jimmy,  you  probably  have  more  to  do  with  making  sure  it  happens.  Hollywood   people,  they  bring  in  movie  stars.  They  bring  in  rock  stars.  That's  part  of  it,  too.       You're  a  rock  star  on  the  net.  If  you  say,  I'm  coming  here  on  this  day,  and  I  want   people  who  care  about  the  net  to  be  there,  they'll  be  there.  And  not  because  there's  a   single  bill,  but  because  there  will  always  be  another  bill  that  Congress  is  thinking   about  that  will  screw  up  innovation.       INTERVIEWER:  Well,  David,  is  there  a  case  for  the  tech  industry  being  more   proactive  about  these  things?  And  what  do  you  see  as  the  probability  of  a  new  bill   coming  along?       DAVID  DRUMMOND:  Well,  I  think  that's  what  we're  saying.  If  you  have  a  coalition,   and  we're  actually  working  together,  as  Congressman  Issa  says,  to  protect  the   internet  at  large  and  not  looking  at    it  in  the  parochial  interests  of  our  own   companies.  Because  we've  seen  some  of  that.       Because  we  have  different-­‐-­‐  some  are  social  networks.  Some  are  search  engines.   Some  do  other  things.  And  we  haven't  come  together.       This  has  brought  everybody  together.  And  I  think  if  that's  lasting,  we're  going  to  be   able-­‐-­‐  we're  going  to  have  early  warning  systems.  We'll  know  what's  happening.   And  we'll  be  much  more  proactive.       Look,  I  think  there  will  be  more  attempts  to  do  this,  and  not  just  in  the  US.  One  of  the   things  I  wanted  to  make  a-­‐-­‐  not  directly  answering  your  question.  But  I  wanted  to   make  sure  we  covered  the  international  implications  of  this  fight.      

INTERVIEWER:  Well,  as  I  was  just  saying  earlier  to  you,  in  the  spirit  of  this  kind  of   bottom  up  movement,  we  posted  to  our  social  networks  earlier  today  asking,  what   would  our  community  ask  you  guys.  And  the  thing  that  came  up  in  over  50%  of  the   comments  was  ACTA,  which  has  just  been  signed  in  Poland  today,  I  believe.  Poland   has  just  signed  on  to  it.       What  is  ACTA?  Should  we  be  concerned?  Is  it  on  the  same  level  as  SOPA?  Maybe  you   could  give  us  some  back  story.  And  obviously,  the  international-­‐-­‐       DAVID  DRUMMOND:  I  think  the  congressman  could  probably  give  a  good  overview.       DARRELL  ISSA:  And  as  a  member  of  Congress,  it's  more  dangerous  than  SOPA.  It's   not  coming  to  me  for  a  vote.  And  in  fact,  it  purports  that  it  doesn't  change  existing   laws.       Well,  it  very  cleverly  says,  well,  within  existing  laws,  these  things  were  already   wrong.  But  once  implemented,  it  creates  a  whole  new  enforcement  system.  And  it   virtually  will  tie  the  hands  of  Congress  to  undo  it.       Because,  in  a  sense,  you're  in  this  international  agreement.  Therefore  Congress  is   told,  well,  you  can't  do  this.  You're  being  a  bad  global  citizen.  Well,  quite  frankly,   that's  why  treaties  are  supposed  to  be  ratified  by  the  Senate.       So  that's  what  makes  ACTA  very  dangerous.  It  sounded  probably  to  people  like  a   good  idea.  But  people  should  have  asked,  why  did  they  work  around  the  WTO  and   around  all  the  other  existing  bodies?       And  I  think  the  answer  is  because  they  could  work  in  secret.  They  could  get  it  done.   And  then  they  could  tell  people  you  couldn't  change  it.       And  that's  what  we're  afraid  of  with  ACTA.       INTERVIEWER:  What  will  ACTA  do?  How  will  it  affect  the  web?       DARRELL  ISSA:  Well,  many  of  the  things  in  SOPA  are  basically  implied  in  ACTA.  I   mean-­‐-­‐       DAVID  DRUMMOND:  I  would  say  that  the  censorship  provisions  are  not  as-­‐-­‐  there   aren't  explicit  censorship  provisions.  But  it  talks  in  broad  ways  which  could  lead  you   to  believe  that  a  country  fulfilling  its  obligations  under  ACTA  could  come  up  with   blocking,  for  instance,  as  one  of  the  mechanisms.  And  so  we  were  concerned  about   this  all  along.  But  again,  this  was  a  project  that  was  done  in  secret.  It  didn't  get  a  lot   of  notoriety.       INTERVIEWER:  Well,  but  Google  has  been  opposed  to  ACTA.      

DAVID  DRUMMOND:  Yeah,  we  were  opposed  to  it.       DARRELL  ISSA:  But  you  had  to  get  a  copy  of  it.  And  that  was  hard  for  you  to  get.       DAVID  DRUMMOND:  That's  right.  It  was  very  hard.  This  has  all  been  disclosed  now.   But  some  of  the  companies  were  able  to  get  a  copy  and  see  what  was  in  there.  And   we  pushed  back.       And  actually,  there's  language  in  ACTA,  if  you  see  it,  about  at  least  respecting  free   expression.  That  had  to  be  put  in  there.  That  wasn't  in  there  from  the  beginning.       INTERVIEWER:  So  is  this  the  start?  Because  I  checked  our  social  accounts  earlier   today.  And  it  was  ACTA  all  over,  and  people  really  wanting  to  know  more  about  this.   It  seems  like  the  movement  that  was  opposed  to  SOPA  is  now  suddenly  turning  its   attention,  just  waking  up  to  this  reality.       I'm  just  seeing  it  in  the  news  today.  Jimmy,  do  you  think  there  is  perhaps  going  to  be   a  social  movement  behind  this?  Might  we  see  Wikipedia  blacking  out  again?       JIMMY  WALES:  Well,  I  hope  we  won't  see  Wikipedia  blacking  out  again,  because  I   really,  really  like  Wikipedia.  I  missed  it  that  day.       DARRELL  ISSA:  And  people  were  trying  to  look  up  the  leaders  on  each  side  of  this   issue.  And  they  couldn't  find  out  who  we  were.       JIMMY  WALES:  So  I  do  think  there  is  a  building  social  movement  around  this.  And  in   fact,  one  of  the  things  that  I  think  is  interesting  about  this  whole  thing  is,  again,  if  we   think  of  it  as  Silicon  Valley  versus  Hollywood,  we're  missing  the  point  of  the  users.   The  users  of  the  internet  care  very  deeply  about  these  issues.       And  for  something  like  ACTA,  I  think  there's  a  much  deeper  political  point  that   people  are  going  to  get  very  upset  about.  And  that  is  this  idea  that  these  kinds  of   rules  are  being  passed  in  secret  where  even  companies  that  are  affected  can't  even   get  a  copy  of  it  without  a  lot  of  rigmarole.  Where  we  all  think-­‐-­‐  I  remember  in  school   when  I  learned  that  the  Senate  ratifies  treaties.  And  all  of  a  sudden,  I  hear,  well,  I   can't  complain  to  my  congressman  because  my  congressman  has  nothing  to  do  with   it.       And  in  Europe,  it's  this  similar-­‐-­‐  it's  a  bad  situation.  And  I  think  that  kind  of  thing  is   to  say,  wait,  there's  something  fundamentally  wrong  with  the  way  these  agreements   are  put  into  place  that  is  undemocratic,  that  is  counter  to  the  overwhelming  spirit  of   the  age,  which  is,  ask  Mubarak  in  Egypt,  right?  Which  is  that  people  are  demanding   to  be  heard.       We  want  openness,  transparency.  We  want  a  dialogue,  a  discussion,  a  real  genuine   debate,  and  not  even  necessarily,  I  think,  within  the  internet  community.  I  think  

there's  quite  a  healthy  and  interesting  debate  about  what  should  copyright  be  and   how  do  all  these  things  work.       And  it's  not  driven  by  partisan,  moneyed  interests  and  so  forth.  It's  people  going,   yeah,  actually,  what  should  we  do  about  this?  This  is  really  interesting.  And  of   course,  you  get  voices  that  are  extreme  on  either  side.       But  this  kind  of  agreement,  ACTA,  never  mind  the  details  of  it.  It's  that  agreements   like  this  can  happen  with  so  little  democratic  oversight  that  I  think  is  going  to  really   energize  people.  Because  I  think  most  people  don't  know  it.  They  just  don't  realize   how  this  stuff  works.       INTERVIEWER:  Well,  Congressman,  is  there  something  that  people  can  do?   Obviously,  the  Wikipedia  blackout  gave  people  something  to  rally  around  and  to  talk   about  on  their  social  networks.  If  people  are  concerned  about  ACTA,  where  can  they   go?  What  can  they  do?       DARRELL  ISSA:  Well,  first  of  all,  a  Google  search  will  get  you  an  awful  lot  to  read.  But   one  of  the  things  that's  going  to  happen,  speaking  sort  of  for  the  body  I  belong  to,   we're  holding  a  series  of  hearings.  ACTA's  going  to  be  part  of  it.  The  whole  question   of,  how  do  you  get  it  right,  and  what  has  already  been  done  in  advance,  and  quite   candidly,  what's  being  done  in  other  countries?       Because  there  are  millions  of  points,  but  there's  only  one  web.  And  so  any  country   that's  taken  unilateral  action  begins  to  erode  the  overall  value  of  the  web.  And  if  you   shut  down  my  access  to  something  in  Italy,  you  shut  down  my  access  to  the  web   piece  by  piece.       And  we  already  mentioned,  David  said  it  very  well.  Look,  China  already  has  been   doing  things  that  cause  many  players  to  say,  I  won't  be  there  because  what  you're   doing  is  wrong.  And  we  need  to  make  sure  that  the  rest  of  the  First  World,  if  you   will-­‐-­‐  in  the  sense  of  people  who  generally  are  better  players  and  international   players  than  China  has  been-­‐-­‐  find  themselves  not  doing  the  same  thing.  Because  it   empowers  China  to  say,  you're  doing  it.  Of  course  what  we're  doing  is  the  same   thing.       Hearings  are  going  to  happen.  Senator  Leahy  has  said  he's  going  to  look  at  OPEN.   We're  going  to  try  and  look  at  the  entire  process.  Now  I'm  hoping  that  the  House   Judiciary  Committee,  which  held  one  hearing,  ordered  one  company  to  be  there  to   be  whipped  while  the  others  were  there  to  object,  is  going  to  make-­‐-­‐       DAVID  DRUMMOND:  I  will  admit  that  was  us.       DARRELL  ISSA:  Fortunately,  you  were  unavailable.       DAVID  DRUMMOND:  Yes.    

  DARRELL  ISSA:  But  the  fact  was  it  was  not  the  kind  of  hearing  I'm  proud  of.  And  I've   been  a  member  of  that  committee  for  11  years.  And  it  is  the  constitutional   committee  to  boot.       But  it  has  agreed  to  hold  hearings.  Hopefully,  we're  going  to  see  a  number  of  these   hearings  on  people's  First  Amendment  rights.  Not  just  protecting  the  First   Amendment  one  way  of,  if  you  will,  the  implied  right  of  a  free  press  to  protect  its   assets.       How  about  the  right  of  a  people  to  have  access  to  information?  And  we're  going  to   hold  a  series  of  them  in  the  Oversight  Committee  because  we  have  the  authority  to   do  it.  And  Ways  and  Means,  which  is  one  of  the  most  powerful  committees,  now  has   put  their  staff  directly  on  the  trade  issue  of  getting  it  right.  And  that's  where  ACTA  is   really  going  to  get  questioned  is,  is  this  an  overall  bad  trade  policy  to  the  committee   that  actually  approves  and  negotiates  these  trade  agreements?       INTERVIEWER:  So  would  I  be  right  in  concluding  that  there  is  a  new  movement   starting,  that  this  group  that  has  kind  of  coalesced  around  SOPA  is  now  looking   towards  the  kind  of  issues  that  Jimmy  mentions,  which  is  around  secrecy,  around   the  public  really  demanding  access  to  these  things  before  they  become  a  reality?   Will  Google  be  getting  involved  in  any  of  this  stuff  around  ACTA  going  forward?       DAVID  DRUMMOND:  Well,  look,  we  have  been  opposed  to  it  from  early  on.  I  think   that  what  you're  seeing  here  is  these  two  things  go  in  hand,  an  open  internet,  and   transparency  in  the  governance  of  the  internet,  and  transparency  in  legislative  and   other  kinds  of  political  processes  that  are  going  to  impact  the  internet.       They  go  hand  in  hand.  And  I  think  what  you're  seeing  is  people  are  saying,  at  the  end   of  the  day,  we  want  the  internet  to  remain  open.  And  we're  going  to,  because  the   internet  is-­‐-­‐  we're  going  to  use  it  to  make  sure  that  our  elected  officials  let  us  know   what's  going  on  and  are  accountable  for  doing  things  to  it.       INTERVIEWER:  Jimmy,  I'm  not  sure  we  got  your  opinion  yet  on  OPEN.  Are  you   supportive  of  OPEN?       JIMMY  WALES:  Unfortunately,  I  don't  know  enough  about  OPEN.  One  of  the  great   benefits  of  not  being  a  politician  is  I  am  not  required  to  have  an  opinion  on  such   things.       DARRELL  ISSA:  Please  will  develop  one  in  time,  though.       JIMMY  WALES:  I  will  develop  one  in  time.  In  due  course,  I  will  develop  one.  I  haven't   had  a  chance  to  read  it  or  really  dig.  I've  been  busy,  you  know,  shutting  down   Wikipedia.      

INTERVIEWER:  Isn't  there  just  a  big  switch?       JIMMY  WALES:  Yeah.  No,  I  think-­‐-­‐  it's  not  just  a  big  switch,  no.  Actually,  our  staff  was   amazing.  They  put  in  long  hours  making  sure  everything  went  smoothly.  There  are  a   lot  of  moving  parts  and  a  lot  of  ways  to  get  it  wrong.  We  didn't  want  to  break   everything.       For  me,  what  I  plan  to  do  is  I  do  want  to  continue  having  some  kind  of  a  leadership   role  with  the  internet  community.  I'm  thinking  of  how  to  do  that.  What  I'd  like  to  do   is  bring  together  the  voices  of  the  internet  community  as  a  participant  in  this,  as  an   equal  participant,  so  that  we  don't  end  up  in  a  situation  where  it's  a  handful  of   companies  lobbying  Congress  from  different  industries,  which  I  think  is  fine.       Certainly,  I  hope  Google  will  do  everything  they  can  to  defend  the  net  and  their  own   interests.  But  I  think  that  there  needs  to  be  an  organization  of  this  energy  online  for   some  of  these  broader  issues  that  aren't  just  about  the  internet,  but  are  really  about   good  governance,  about  what  we  expect  from  how  governments  function.       And  I  think  there's  a  huge  opportunity  here,  as  we've  seen.  We've  seen  the  Arab   Spring.  I  guess  we  could  call  this  the  Hollywood  Spring.  And  I  think  there  should  be  a   lot  more  "springs."  And  I  hope  that  I  can  play  at  least  some  small  role  in  helping  that   happen.       TRIP  ADLER:  So  as  an  internet  entrepreneur,  I  think  it's  great  that  we're  having   these  conversations  online  about  SOPA.  But  one  thing  that  I  don't  think  is  getting   discussed  enough  is  the  benefits  that  the  internet  has  brought  to  Hollywood  and   other  content  producers.  Because  if  you  look  at,  let's  take  music,  for  example,  from   what  I  can  tell,  piracy  has  dropped  dramatically  over  the  last  10,  10-­‐plus  years,   right?  If  you  go  from  the  Napster  days  to  the  iTunes  days  and  now  to  the  Spotify   days,  people  are  just  paying  more  and  more  for  content.  And  piracy  is,  meanwhile,   diminishing.       And  it's  sometimes  hard  to  use  our  imagination.  But  there's  probably  another  step   beyond  Spotify  that  will  only  deliver  a  better  user  experience  to  people  which  will   get  them  to  contribute  more  dollars  to  help  the  content  owners.       So  I  would  like  to  think  that  we  can  continue  to  just  develop  the  web  going  forward   and  maybe  take  a  longer-­‐term  perspective,  and  realize  that  if  we  look  forward  as   opposed  to  backwards,  we  can  innovate  our  way  to  a  solution  that's  good  for  users,   and  for  the  internet,  and  for  content  owners.       INTERVIEWER:  I'd  love  to  get  your  thoughts,  just  wrapping  up,  on  next  steps  and   where  we  go  from  here.  And  Congressman,  you  had  some  thoughts  there.       DARRELL  ISSA:  Well,  one  thought  I  wanted  to  get  in  is  when  we  put  the  OPEN  Act   out,  we  put  it  on  what  we  call  Madison,  named  for  the  president,  as  an  open  bill.  And  

it  was  a  little  bit  of  a  learning  curve,  quite  frankly  a  little  bit  like  Wikipedia.  Because   we  didn't  know  who  was  going  to  be  a  genuine  amender  and  who  was  going  to  be   there  for  mischief.       And  we  allowed  the  bill  to  have  something  beyond  just  public  comment,  actually   allow  people  to  offer  their  comments,  be  identified  as  an  author,  saying,  I  think  you   should  change  this.  And  then  people  could  look  and  say,  who  was  it  that  said  this?   And  they  could  question  their  motives  and  so  on.       We  think  that  that's  part  of  the  open  process  is  that  if  you  can't  come  to  Washington   and  have  a  lobbyist,  but  there's  a  piece  of  legislation,  being  able  to  question  it,  being   able  to  amend  it  or  propose  an  amendment.  We  had  about  11  amendments  that   went  into  the  next  generation  of  draft  bill  that  now  technically  has  a  number.  So  we   think  that's  part  of  the  process.       SOPA  would  not  have  ended  up  being  rushed  in  if  each  time  before  the  secret   versions  showed  up,  if  these  had  actually  been  open  for  genuine  public  access  for  a   period  of  time.  And  I  don't  mean  a  PDF  posted  somewhere.  I  mean  an  interactive,   available  document  where  people  can  make  comments  and  the  others  can,  too.       TRIP  ADLER:  A  PDF  could  be  OK.       DARRELL  ISSA:  No,  but  PDF  is  not  OK  when  you  want  to  say,  this  line,  this  place,  this   problem.  And  then  you  want  people  to  easily  be  able  to  mark  it  up.  There  are  tools   to  make  PDF  look  like  something  else.       TRIP  ADLER:  We're  working  on  that.       DARRELL  ISSA:  And  please  do.  But  we  all-­‐-­‐  and  I'll  use  Wikipedia  because  Jimmy's   here  and  I  want  to  suck  up  to  him.  I  am  a  politician,  after  all.  Really,  Jimmy,  what   you've  been  able  to  do,  to  have  open  sites,  then  sites  that  are  a  little  less  open   because  they've  been  subject-­‐-­‐  and  then  ultimately,  like  the  president's  site  where,   make  all  the  comments  you  want.  It's  not  going  to  change  quickly.       Was  a  learning  curve  of  how  to  create  total  openness  but  then  protect  against   mischief.  Congress  needs  to  get  there.  We  need  to  have  that  total  openness.  That's   one  of  the  projects  that  I'm  hoping  the  internet  community  will  say,  we  want  to  help   get  Congress  more  open.       We  want  to  demand  they  do  the  tools.  But  we  want  to  help  them  get  to  those  tools.   And  that's  a  challenge.  Because  I've  been  pushing  a  very  well-­‐cooked  wet  noodle   trying  to  get  this  technology.       Last  year,  by  the  end  of  the  year,  we  had  finally  gotten  to  where  we  were  streaming   all  the  committees'  hearings  so  that  people  could  stream  them  and  download  most  

of  them  from  archives.  So  that  when  you  hear  something  happened  in  Congress,  you   can  go  get  it.       The  next  generation  has  to  be,  no,  somebody's  saying  something  now.  And  I  want  to   be  able  to  online,  quickly,  ask  a  few  questions  and  see  what  Darrell  Issa  or  John   McCain  or  somebody  else  said  six  years  ago  in  a  committee  hearing.  That's  where   we're  going  to  get  open  governments  and  responsiveness.  Because  I  guarantee  you,   making  us  accountable  for  what  we  said  in  committees  and  subcommittee  activities,   or  for  that  matter,  just  knowing  what  somebody  else  said,  will  allow  the  public  to   make  a  difference  in  how  politicians  act  when  no  one's  looking.       No  one's  looking  at  subcommittee  hearings.  If  you  put  them  online,  they  will  be   looking  then.  And  the  same  thing  with  our  bills.  And  that's  a  challenge  for  the   internet.       INTERVIEWER:  Jimmy,  some  thoughts  on  next  steps?  You  see  this  openness  coming   to  bear  any  time  soon?       JIMMY  WALES:  I  think  in  steps,  actually,  it  is  happening.  It's  sort  of  funny,  actually.  I   just  realized  that  I  was  watching  some  of  the  markup.  It  was  streaming.  And  that's   actually  remarkable,  and  it's  amazing.  I  just  assumed  it  existed  when  I  went  to  look   for  it.  It's  kind  of  surprising  that  it  exists,  now  that  I  stop  to  think  about  it  for  a   minute.  But  those  kinds  of  steps-­‐-­‐       DARRELL  ISSA:  Thanks  to  a  nonprofit,  it  does  exist.       JIMMY  WALES:  So  those  are  the  kinds  of  steps.  And  I  do  think  there  is  an  increasing   groundswell  of  public  opinion  around  these  kinds  of  issues,  that  people  do  feel  like,   if  you  look  at  the  approval  rating  of  Congress,  I'm  sorry  to  have  to  say,  it's  like  5%.  I   just  saw  the  most  recent  numbers.  Now,  for  some  reason,  people  do  like-­‐-­‐       DARRELL  ISSA:  We'll  go  lower.  We  can  go  lower.       JIMMY  WALES:  People  do  like  their  own  congressman.  They  just  hate  Congress  as  a   whole,  which  sounds  paradoxical.  I  think  that  is  true.       But  I  actually  think  it's  not  as  paradoxical  as  it  sounds.  It's  perfectly  OK  to  say,  I  like   this  person.  Actually,  I  like  all  of  them  individually.       But  the  system  is  actually  broken.  And  it's  broken  in  ways  that  lead  to  this  lack  of   transparency.  And  bad  decision-­‐making  happens.  And  I  think  there  is  a  ripe   movement  here  for  true  reform.       INTERVIEWER:  Can  the  web  community  create  that  degree  of  change?  With  SOPA,   we  had  something  very  specific.  Everyone  was  focused.  And  when  you  have  these   large,  distributed  groups,  can  we  solve  complex  problems  like  this  one?    

  JIMMY  WALES:  Well,  I  think  some  of  the  challenges  we  have  is  that  some  of  these   issues  are  actually  incredibly  boring.  If  you  really  want  to  know-­‐-­‐       DARRELL  ISSA:  You  want  to  talk  about  postal  reform?  We've  got  all  night.       JIMMY  WALES:  Yeah,  exactly.  Or  even  how  are  these  trade  agreements  negotiated?   And  how  does  this  pass,  and  what  does  it  all  mean?  It's  really  complicated  and  quite   boring.       It's  easy  enough  to  mobilize  10  million  people  to  contact  Congress  by  saying,  look,   Wikipedia's  dark  today  because  something  really  bad  is  about  to  happen.  Please  let   the  Congress  know  about  it.  It's  a  lot  harder  to  get  sustained  interest,  even  if  in  the   abstract,  people  say,  yes,  I  want  to  see  a  better  governance  system  here.  And  that's  a   challenge.       But  there  are  always  political  activists.  There's  a  lot  of  political  energy  out  in  the   world  that  hasn't  been  harnessed  because  we've  gone  from-­‐-­‐  there  was  an  era  when   politics  was  about  really  grassroots,  door-­‐to-­‐door  campaigning.  And  then  through   technology,  we  got  to  the  broadcast  era,  and  politics  became  broadcast.  And  it's  all   about  the  sound  bite.       I  think  we  are  now  coming  back  finally  to,  as  we  go  from  broadcast  media,  broadcast   politics,  participatory  media,  participatory  politics.  That  there  are  new  ways  that   people  can  get  involved.  And  if  you  feel  like,  it  doesn't  matter.  I  shouldn't  be  an   activist  because  whatever.  It's  all  going  to  be  a  TV  debate.  People  are  going  to  vote   based  on  that.       Instead,  if  you  feel  like,  oh,  actually,  I  can  have  an  impact.  I  can  change  things.  I  can   organize  my  friends  in  a  way  that's  actually  meaningful.  I  think  that  is  a  growing   trend.  And  I  think  it's  something  that  we  should  all  think  about.  What  are  the  tools   that  we  need  to  build  in  our  community  to  allow  us  to  do  that?       INTERVIEWER:  David,  a  final  thought  on  where  we  go  from  here?       DAVID  DRUMMOND:  Yeah.  Taking  a  slightly  different  direction  on  next  steps,  I  think   we  should  also  remember  that  the  legislative  route  on  this  piracy  issue  is  not  the   only  route  to  try  to  figure  this  thing  out.  You  heard  Trip  talk  about  how  his  company   had  already  created  a  way  to-­‐-­‐  through  technical  means,  because  they  have  smart   engineers  in  his  company-­‐-­‐  figure  out  how  they  can  solve  this  by  matching  a   reference  sample  of  text  that  the  copyright  holder  gives  them  to  what  somebody   tries  to  upload.       We  do  the  absolute  equivalent  thing  on  YouTube.  We  figured  out  a  way  to  get   snippets  that  we  get  from  the  content  owners.  And  then  we  match  it.  And  things   don't  go  up  if  it  matches.    

  There  are  ways  to  deal  with  these  problems  with  technology  and  being  smart  about   it,  where  we  don't  actually  have  to  have  legislation  where  we're  not  really  sure  what   the  outcome's  going  to  be.  So  I  think  that  one  next  step  could  be,  with  this  dying   down  and  us  adopting  a  legislative  approach  that  we  are  comfortable  is  not  going  to   have  all  this  ancillary  damage,  that  we  could  produce  conversations  among  startups   and  bigger  companies  and  so  forth  with  Hollywood  about  how  we  can  solve  some  of   this  stuff  without  the  political  fights.       INTERVIEWER:  And  that's  a  great  note  to  end  it  on.  So  Congressman  Issa,  Trip  Adler,   Jimmy  Wales,  David  Drummond,  thanks  for  joining  us  at  Documented@Davos  with   Scribd  and  Mashable.  You  can  find  out  more  at,  also,  M-­‐A-­‐ S-­‐H-­‐A-­‐B-­‐L-­‐E,  where  I'm  sure  the  conversation  will  continue  on  issues  such  as  SOPA   and  ACTA.       Thanks  for  joining  us  at  Davos.  That  hashtag  is  #davosdocs.       [MUSIC  PLAYING]  

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful