Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

As president and chief executive of the Business Software Alliance (BSA), Robert Holleyman has helped lead the software industry's crusade against piracy. The BSA represents software giants like Microsoft, Adobe Systems, Network Associates and others in Washington and around the world.

BSA helped negotiate a series of copyright "principles" agreed upon by the software, hardware and recording communities. Entertainment, Tech Firms Reach Truce on Digital Piracy (The Washington Post, Jan. 14, 2003)

Holleyman discussed those principles and the broader topic of intellectual property rights.

washingtonpost.com tech policy reporter David McGuire moderated the discussion.

An edited transcript follows:

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

David McGuire: Thanks for joining us Robert. Yesterday's joint announcement between representatives of the software, hardware and recording industries outlined a series of steps Congress should -- and shouldn't -- take to combat online piracy. These industries haven't always seen eye to eye on this issue. Where were you able to find common ground? And do you think Congress will be swayed by your cooperative efforts?

Robert Holleyman: Thank you for holding this event.

Yesterday's announcement is very important in two respects for the coming Congressional debate. First, we think that Congress has a very important role to play in ensuring that laws are enforced when software and other forms of content are stolen. Second, Congress can play an important part in educating Americans about the rights and wrongs of Internet use and piracy. But, as the announcement makes clear, neither the tech industry nor the recording industry believe that Congress should dictate how technology works, and what technological protection measures should be developed and deployed. Those tasks should be left to private parties and the marketplace to work out based on consumers' needs, and technological advances.

We have already had a great deal of Congressional interest in our announcement, and every indication is that the members are treating this as an important development.

Destin, Fla.: The principles you released yesterday cover a lot of ground, but why wasn't the Motion Picture Association of America included in your "coalition?" Isn't that a huge disadvantage since they represent major power from Hollywood?

Robert Holleyman: It is our sense that the motion picture industry shares many of the principles we announced yesterday. They disagree on one major point. Some movie companies believe the government should be in the business of setting standards for how technology works. Obviously we disagree, thus their absence from the statement.

Alexandria Va.: Your anti-piracy education campaigns been targeted toward everyone from corporations to college students. Will you work with the RIAA on a combined message?

Robert Holleyman: The goal of the objectives we released yesterday was to spell out our joint views on how to make the Internet a commercially viable distribution model. We think that effective enforcement of the laws against those who steal music or software is a part of that. The software industry has had a long-standing program to combat piracy, and we will continue in those efforts. It is not our intention to do joint litigation with the record industry or any other industry.

Rising Sun, Md.: What kind of under-the-table carrot are you guys going to offer to consumer groups and Boucher types so they don't tear down this "accord?" People need their home recording rights -- the Betamax decision gave it to them, DMCA is piecemealing it away. How hard could it be to support your deal AND H.R. 107?

David McGuire: This is one of a number of questions we've received about "fair use," that is, the right of consumers to make legal copies of the music, movies and software they buy. Congressman Rick Boucher (D.-Va.) has a bill pending to bolster fair use rights. Do these principles address that legislation?

Robert Holleyman: Neither the recording nor the software industry want to change current law, including the Betamax decision of the Supreme Court, which permits time shifting copies of free over-the-air broadcasts. We believe that Congressman Boucher has identified important issues which merit full debate and consideration, but we have substantial reservation about some of his proposed solutions. In particular, we fear that some of his proposals would make it virtually impossible for us to use technological protection measures to thwart piracy. We have an ongoing dialogue with Mr. Boucher, which will continue.

Washington, D.C.: Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina must not like your new plan, since it flies in the face of his Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act. What are your group's plans to lobby against this proposed legislation?

Robert Holleyman: You are probably aware that technology companies have opposed the bill introduced by Senator Hollings in the last Congress. We have been active in our opposition, and will continue those efforts.

Our principal concern with the Hollings approach has been that we think technology should develop at its own pace, not at a pace or in a direction dictated by the government. Through the joint announcement yesterday, the recording industry made it clear that they also think this should be a marketplace decision, and not a government mandate.

Annandale, Va.: Please address the question of whether this agreement condones hacking into users' computers for the purposes of stopping illegal file sharing. If it does, what makes you so sure this approach won't backfire? At the very least, it seems such actions could simply alienate a huge market, and infuriate them into counteraction at worst.

Robert Holleyman: The agreement makes clear that violating individuals' privacy is wrong. The agreement in no way suggests that hacking into a person's computer is justified. Just the opposite. It states that any efforts to stop illegal file sharing should be subject to requirements that the measures be designed to be reasonable, are not destructive to networks, individual users' data or equipment, and do not violate individuals' legal rights to privacy or similar legally protected interests of individuals.

We agree completely with you that denial of service attacks and other similar measures would alienate our customers, and are wrong. Thus, the statement makes clear that we are against such action, which violates laws or individuals' rights.

Alexandria, Va.: Hi Robert -- so you guys have arrived at a truce, some of you at least. That means what to me? I mean, is this something that changes what you guys are doing on the Hill or is there some applicability to the record store customer, the video store customer, the person who wants to tape movies on a vcr or someone who likes to share music files every now and again?

Robert Holleyman: Our goal is to promote commercially viable distribution of all forms of content over the Internet. Our customers want it, and we are determined to meet that demand. But piracy poses an enormous threat to making these commercial distribution models a reality. Both recording and software companies are already making many of their products available on line. We want to do more. The announcement yesterday is all about how to make this a reality. So, if we are successful in implementing our announcement, and we are determined to succeed, you should have more choice and better products available to you.

Washington, D.C.: It seems as though encryption techniques and other examples of anti-piracy technology are cracked within a very short amount of time... I seem to recall a Microsoft music protection scheme being cracked on the same day it was released.

Because of this, do you think that anti-piracy efforts should be more focused on punishing wrongdoers than trying to protect the material itself?

Robert Holleyman: We believe that both prosecuting infringers and using effective technological protection measures play important roles in the fight against piracy. I agree that all technological protection measures are vulnerable to both hacking and becoming outdated as technology progresses. That is why we believe that mandating through law a "one size fits all" solution, which cannot be updated as circumstances demand, is the wrong approach.

Fairfax, Va: This cannot be a groundbreaking deal without the chief reps of the movie industry and the electronics makers. They're not backing off their support for (or against) Berman's p2p bill, Hollings's broadcast flag bill, etc. They're just going to get more entrenched because you guys seem to have frozen them out. How do you say a deal will change the world if only one hemisphere agrees on it?

Robert Holleyman: You are quite right in stating that the movie and consumer electronics industries are critical to a finding lasting solutions. We are working closely with both groups on a number of both engineering and policy fronts to find answers.

The statement we issued with music yesterday is a beginning. We invite both movie and consumer electronics groups, and all other affected interests, to work with us, based on these principles. So you should not see this statement as an end point, but a starting point, where we think the debate is framed on what the marketplace and consumers want, rather on what the government imposes.

Alexandria, Va.: I doubt Rick Boucher's going to take his fair use bill home and say, "Oh, I guess this deal means we don't need my bill anymore." Heck, this bill is probably more necessary than ever. Why couldn't you guys get it together on fair use?

Robert Holleyman: As I noted earlier, we are talking regularly to Mr. Boucher. He has identified important issues, for example labeling of products for playability and compatibility. The software industry has long labeled its products voluntarily about chip, memory and other requirements, to ensure our customers are not frustrated when they try to use the product. We think that other industries should do the same.

David McGuire: These joint principles come out strongly against any attempt to force computer and electronics manufacturers to install government-mandated copyright protection devices in their products. Your members are copyright owners who lose a great deal of money to piracy. Why do you oppose such a requirement?

Robert Holleyman: The software industry, we estimate, loses over $11 billion each year in lost sales to pirates. Many software companies have used technologic protection measures to thwart pirates. These measures have changed dramatically over the years as technology has evolved, and frankly as pirates have gotten more sophisticated. We think that we should decide what measures to use, when and how. Not the government.

David McGuire: We're almost out of time. Do you have any closing thoughts?

Robert Holleyman: Just to thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate. And to thank all those who took the time to submit questions.

This has been a very good event.

David McGuire: Unfortunately, we are out of time. I'd like to thank our readers for all of their thoughtful questions and Robert Holleyman for taking the time to join us today.