| Rep. Berman Introduces Bill
to Legalize Self Help Technologies to Disable P2P Piracy |
7/25. Rep. Howard
Berman (D-CA) introduced a bill that would permit
copyright owners to employ self help technologies when their
copyrighted works are infringed on peer to peer (P2P)
networks. The bill is intended to enable the music and movie
industries to legally engage in interdiction, decoys,
redirection, file blocking, spoofs, or other technological
tools, to prevent P2P piracy. See, text
of bill [HTML], text of bill [PDF],
and Rep. Berman's section by
section summary.
Rep. Berman is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Court, the Internet and
Intellectual Property. He also represents a Los Angeles area
district. The bill's initial cosponsors are Rep. Howard Coble
(R-NC), the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Rep. Lamar Smith
(R-TX), and Rep. Robert
Wexler (D-FL).
The bill would add a new Section 514 to Chapter 5 (pertaining
to copyright infringement and its remedies) of Title 17 (the
Copyright Act).
The bill provides, in its subsection (a), that
"Notwithstanding any State or Federal statute or other
law, ... a copyright owner shall not be liable in any
criminal or civil action for disabling, interfering with,
blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized
distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or
her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer
file trading network, if such impairment does not, without
authorization, alter, delete, or otherwise impair the
integrity of any computer file or data residing on the
computer of a file trader."
To qualify for this immunity, the copyright owner must notify
the Department of Justice
(DOJ) "of the specific technologies the copyright owner
intends to use to impair the unauthorized distribution,
display, performance, or reproduction". However, such
information is exempt from release under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.
§ 552.
There is no requirement that the copyright owner provide
advance notice to its target that it will employ self help
technologies against it. Nor must the copyright owner notify
its target afterwards. The bill does provide that "At the
request of an affected file trader ... a copyright owner shall
provide notice to the affected file trader or assignee
..." However, since the bill defines copyright owner as
the owner of "an exclusive right under section 106 and
any party authorized to act on the owner's behalf" the
target may not know whom to request for information.
The bill provides for a very limited cause of action against a
copyright owner who engages in self help remedies described by
the bill. The bill provides, in subsection (d), that
"If ... a copyright owner knowingly and intentionally
impairs the distribution, display, performance, or
reproduction of a particular computer file or data, and has no
reasonable basis to believe that such distribution, display,
performance, or reproduction constitutes an infringement of
copyright, and an affected file trader suffers economic loss
in excess of $250 as a result of the act by the copyright
owner, the affected file trader may seek compensation for such
economic loss ..."
This subsection of the bill provides no injunctive remedy. The
bill further defines "economic loss" as
"monetary costs only". Before bringing suit, the
affected file trader must first file an administrative
complaint with the DOJ, and comply with its requirements.
Moreover, the act of engaging in self help technologies to
interfere with file trading alone cannot serve as the basis a
legal action; the bill provides that "The cause of action
established by this subsection shall only be available as a
remedy against impairing actions that would not be lawful but
for subsection (a)."
 Rep. Berman explained his bill in a floor
statement. He said that "the primary current
application of P2P networks is unbridled copyright piracy. P2P
downloads today consist largely of copyrighted music, and as
download speeds improve, there has been a marked increase in
P2P downloads of copyrighted software, games, photographs,
karaoke tapes, and movies."
Rep. Berman also stated that "The massive scale of P2P
piracy and its growing breadth represents a direct threat to
the livelihoods of U.S. copyright creators, including
songwriters, recording artists, musicians, directors,
photographers, graphic artists, journalists, novelists, and
software programmers. It also threatens the survival of the
industries in which these creators work, and the seamstresses,
actors, Foley artists, carpenters, cameramen, administrative
assistants, and sound engineers these industries employ. As
these creators and their industries contribute greatly both to
the cultural and economic vitality of the U.S., their
livelihoods and survival must be protected."
The bill does not address what technological measures are
permissible. However, Rep. Berman commented on this subject.
He said that "Technological innovation, as represented by
the creation of P2P networks and their subsequent
decentralization, has been harnessed to facilitate massive P2P
piracy. It is worth exploring, therefore, whether other
technological innovations could be harnessed to combat this
massive P2P piracy problem. Copyright owners could, at least
conceptually, employ a variety of technological tools to
prevent the illegal distribution of copyrighted works over a
P2P network. Using interdiction, decoys, redirection, file
blocking, spoofs, or other technological tools, technology can
help prevent P2P piracy."
Rep. Berman argued that this legislation is made necessary
because "technological self-help measures may not be
legal due to a variety of state and federal statutes,
including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. In
other words, while P2P technology is free to innovate new,
more efficient methods of P2P distribution that further
exacerbate the piracy problem, copyright owners are not
equally free to craft technological responses to P2P
piracy." See also, Berman release. |
|
|
| News Analysis: The Berman
Bill |
7/25. Rep. Howard
Berman's (D-CA) bill
to permit copyright owners to employ self help technologies
when their copyrighted works are infringed on peer to peer
(P2P) networks is clearly intended to enable the music and
movie industries to shut down the sorts of rampant copying
that the Court in the Napster case found to constitute
infringement. However, the bill is written with language broad
enough to encompass a variety of other scenarios. The bill
also provides the party engaging in self help remedies with
wide discretion, and offers the target of the self help
remedies very little recourse if self help remedies are
abused.
While Rep. Berman referred to films, music recordings,
photographs, and karaoke tapes in his floor
statement, there is nothing in the bill that restricts the
right of self help to infringement of copyrights in these
media. For example, other content may be made available on a
peer to peer network, such as political expression, religious
discourse, educational materials, social commentary, and news
coverage. These also may be subject to claims of copyright.
And hence, P2P trading of these could be interfered with by
the self help remedies legalized under this bill.
Also, while Rep. Berman referred to the "massive scale of
P2P piracy" by networks such as Napster, the Berman bill
provides a very minimal definition of what constitutes a peer
to peer network. It could be something as small as two
networked computers running file transfer software that are
publicly accessible.
Moreover, while Rep. Berman referred to loss of compensation
by copyright holders as a result of P2P piracy, there is
nothing in the bill that restricts this right of self help to
copyright holders who have lost compensation. That is, the
right of self help could be exercised by a copyright holder to
stop the dissemination of content that the copyright owner has
not sold, and does not intend to sell. Hence, the self help
technologies legalized by this bill could be used to prevent
the dissemination of expression, rather than to prevent
economic loss. Ford Motor Company, The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints, or government entities might exercise
the right of self help created by the Berman bill to suppress
criticism.
Next, while the Berman bill provides for a private right of
action for wrongful interference, in subsection (d), it is a
very limited right of action. The bill requires that the party
engaging in self help technological remedies must be a
copyright owner, and have a "reasonable basis to
believe" that there is an infringement, in order to avoid
being held liable for wrongful conduct. Notably, many things
that are required to prevail in a copyright infringement
action, or to obtain certain remedies in infringement actions,
are not required to obtain immunity from liability under this
bill.
For example, there is no requirement of registration of
copyright.
Second, negligent or unintentional interference is not
actionable under the private right of action provided for in
the bill. The Berman bill requires that the "copyright
owner knowingly and intentionally impairs the
distribution" to be held liable under subsection (d).
Third, there is no requirement of actual infringement to avoid
liability. The "copyright owner" need only own one
of the six exclusive rights of copyright, and have a
"reasonable basis to believe" that there is an
infringement. The "reasonable basis to believe"
standard is a very low threshold.
Furthermore, the "reasonable reason to believe" test
would appear to eliminate or weaken defenses to infringement
available in a suit for infringement. At least, one might
expect the parties engaging in self help remedies to assert
that it does. For example, notwithstanding infringement of an
exclusive right of copyright under Section
106, there are the rights of fair use (Section
107), rights of libraries (Section
108), and rights of teachers (Section
110). In a legal action for infringement, a defendant may
raise any of these, and the court would engage in an analysis
of the requirements of these sections.
However, under the Berman proposal, in an action against a
party engaging in self help remedies, the "reasonable
basis to believe" standard might displace an analysis
under Sections 107, 108 or 110. For example, the self help
party might argue that it can avoid Section 110 consequences
by asserting, "I did not know that the computer I hacked
was being used by an educational institutional for distance
learning purposes." Likewise, the self help party might
argue that Section 107 analysis is irrelevant, provided that
it had a "reasonable basis to believe" that
infringement occurred. Similarly, the defenses of fraud on the
Copyright Office, misuse of copyright, limitations, laches,
estoppel, and unclean hands might not be available.
It is perhaps also notable that the Berman bill, which adds a
new section to the Copyright Act, defines "copyright
owner". The Copyright Act already defines this term, at Section
101. The two definitions are different. The Berman bill
states that "the term 'copyright owner' means a legal or
beneficial owner of an exclusive right under section 106 and
any party authorized to act on the owner's behalf." The
Copyright Act states that a " ``Copyright owner´´,
with respect to any one of the exclusive rights comprised in
copyright, refers to the owner of that particular right."
The difference may be substantial. There are six enumerated
exclusive rights of copyright in Section
106. Under the Berman bill, anyone who holds any exclusive
right in a copyrighted work is a copyright owner, and can
exercise the self help remedies against anyone who has
infringed the copyrighted work. The infringement need not be
of the exclusive right owned by the party engaging in self
help. Also, under the Berman bill, an agent of a copyright
owner could employ the actual self help remedies. Both of
these characteristics would make it difficult for the target
of the interference to know who is employing the interference.
The bill also provides for no effective notice to the party
whose computer is interfered with, either before or after the
interference. The copyright owner must give the Department of
Justice advance notice, but this information is confidential.
The copyright owner must give its target notice, but only if
the target first asks for notice. But then, anyone who is able
to ask for notice, does not need notice. Some parties who have
been subjected to wrongful self help technological measures
may find it difficult simply to establish whom to sue.
Finally, if a victim of interference succeeds in bringing and
prevailing in an action against someone who has wrongfully
interfered with his computer, the bill limits damages to
"monetary costs only". The bill also does not list
injunctive relief as an available remedy. |
|
|
|
| Edelman Sues N2H2 |
7/25. Benjamin
Edelman filed a complaint [PDF]
in U.S. District Court
(DMass) against N2H2, Inc.
seeking various declaratory and injunctive relief pertaining
to copyright law.
This is essentially a policy oriented law suit brought by
Edelman, and his ACLU attorneys, seeking broad declarations
from the court that would have the effect of altering various
aspects of copyright law, including the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA). They seek new and novel applications of
the First Amendment and fair use. They also seek to generally
make life miserable for the companies that make blocking
software, and the schools and libraries that use this
software.
Edelman is a first year law student at Harvard Law School, and
a Technology Analyst at the Berkman Center for
Internet and Society. He does research on Internet
blocking programs, such as those made by N2H2. He is concerned
about the erroneous over blocking of web sites. N2H2 encrypts
its block lists; so he seeks to decrypt them, and then
disseminate them.
He is represented by the ACLU. The attorneys listed on the
complaint are Ann Beeson, Christopher Hansen, Kevin Bankston,
and Sarah Wunsch. Beeson and Hansen have long been active in
policy oriented litigation directed against the use blocking
software by schools and libraries.
N2H2 makes software products that enable the blocking of web
sites based upon certain criteria. Its product named Bess
is sold to schools and libraries. Its product named Sentian
is sold to businesses and government. These programs employ
lists of web site URLs, based upon type of content, that can
be blocked. There are block lists, for example, for
pormography and gambling.
N2H2 states in its web site that it is a "a global
Internet content filtering company. N2H2 software helps
customers control, manage and understand their Internet use by
filtering Web content, monitoring Internet access and
delivering concise reports on user activity. These safeguards
enable organizations of any size to limit potential legal
liability, increase user productivity and optimize network
bandwidth. N2H2's Bess and Sentian product lines are powered
by N2H2's premium quality filtering database -- a list
consistently recognized by independent and respected
third-parties as the most effective in the industry."
The complaint states that "N2H2 refused Mr. Edelman's
direct request for a copy of the block list. Thus, in order to
conduct his research, Mr. Edelman must ``reverse engineer´´
N2H2's blocking program. ``Reverse engineering´´ is a
process used to gain access to the functional elements of a
software program in order to learn how it works." The
complaint further states that his research will "consist
of five primary steps: (1) reverse engineering a licensed copy
of the blocking program in order to discover what measures
prevent access to and copying of the block list; (2) creating
and using a software tool (``the circumvention tool´´) to
circumvent those measures and access the block list; (3)
analyzing the block list to determine its accuracy; (4)
publishing the results of his analysis and the block list; and
(5) distributing his circumvention tool to facilitate other
fair and non- infringing uses of the block list."
The complaint also states that "Using information derived
through reverse engineering, Mr. Edelman intends to create a
software tool to circumvent the block list’s protection
measures. The sole function of this circumvention tool, when
executed, will be to interoperate with the N2H2 blocking
program in an attempt to circumvent the measures preventing
access to and copying of the encrypted block list." Then,
"After using his circumvention tool to create a readable
copy of the block list, Mr. Edelman intends to use a variety
of manual and automated systems to identify URLs on the list
that have been miscategorized and therefore erroneously
blocked by the program." Finally, the complaint states
that he intends to publish analyzes of erroneous web site
blocking by N2H2, publish N2H2's block lists, and disseminate
his circumvention tool.
However, Edelman goes on to assert that N2H2 holds copyrights
on its programs, and claims trade secrets. He asserts that he
fears that his research could violate software license terms,
the DMCA, and trade secrets, unless the Court declares that
his planned research activities are protected by the free
speech clause of the First Amendment, the fair use doctrine,
and other legal theories.
The DMCA, 17
U.S.C. § 1201, was enacted by the Congress in 1998.
It provides at § 1201(a)(1) that "No person shall
circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title." It further
provides at § 1201(a)(2) that "No person shall
manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or
otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part thereof, that (A) is primarily designed or
produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected
under this title; (B) has only limited commercially
significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a
work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that
person or another acting in concert with that person with that
person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected
under this title."
Edelman seeks a wide range of declaratory relief. For example,
he claims that "proposed circumvention of the access
and/or copy control of N2H2's block list does not violate 17
U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)" of the DMCA because it is protected
fair use. He also claims that his "proposed creation and
distribution of a software tool, for the purposes of achieving
the circumvention ... does not violate 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)
or 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b) of the DMCA, because" it is fair
use, it enables the public to make fair use of the block
lists, and because the tool will be capable of substantial
non-infringing uses.
He also seeks a declaration that his actions would not violate
N2H2's software license, on several grounds, including
preemption by federal copyright law, unconscionability, misuse
of copyright, and enforcement would be contrary to public
policy.
He also seeks a declaration that he would not be liable for
direct copyright infringement for any intermediate copying of
the N2H2 program or the N2H2 block list because such copying
is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment and or
constitutes a fair use. See also, ACLU
release. |
|
|
| People and Appointments |
7/25. President Bush nominated Jeffrey
White to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (NDCal).
White is a partner in the San Francisco office of Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe. He is a litigator who focuses on employment
trials, fraud, white collar crime, SEC investigations,
antitrust, and other issues. He has represented Siebel
Systems, Oracle and Lucent. See, White
House release.
7/25. President Bush nominated Sandra Feuerstein to be
a Judge of the U.S. District Court (EDNY). See, White
House release.
7/25. President Bush nominated Kent Jordan to be a
Judge of the U.S. District Court (DDel). See, White
House release.
7/25. The Senate
Banking Committee approved the nominations of Paul
Atkins, Harvey Goldschmid, Cynthia Glassman,
and Roel Campos to be a members of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) on Thursday morning, July 25. The full Senate approved
their nominations Thursday evening. |
|
|
| Reaction to the Berman Bill |
7/25. Rep. Howard
Berman's (D-CA) bill
to permit copyright owners to employ self help technologies
when their copyrighted works are infringed on peer to peer
(P2P) networks has drawn praise from some groups representing
copyright owners, but harsh criticism from some others.
Hilary Rosen, Ch/CEO of the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA), praised the Rep.
Berman's bill in a release.
She said that "We applaud Congressman Berman for
introducing bipartisan legislation that takes an innovative
approach to combating the serious problem of Internet piracy.
Online piracy undermines the growth of legitimate music sites
and hurts all consumers in the long run -- every dollar lost
to piracy is a dollar that cannot be invested in the fresh,
new artists we have all come to expect and enjoy."
Rosen continued that "The current landscape for online
music is dangerously one-sided, with the peer-to-peer pirates
enjoying an unfair advantage. It makes sense to clarify
existing laws to ensure that copyright owners -- those who
actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work
-- are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy.
We look forward to working with Congressman Berman, Chairman
Coble and other members of Congress on this important
initiative."
Similarly, Jonathan Zuck, P/CEO of the Association for Competitive
Technology (ACT), wrote a letter to Rep. Berman and other
leaders of the House Judiciary Committee expressing support
for the bill. He wrote that "Piracy is a significant
challenge for the digital media and IT industry and we applaud
your effort to promote technological rather than regulatory
solutions. I must qualify this support by pointing out that
when crafting copyright legislation, we should maintain a
dialogue to avoid untended consequences that could harm small
IT companies."
In contrast, Ed Black, P/CEO of the Computer & Communications
Industry Association (CCIA) said in a release
that "We reject the premise of this bill that content
owners should be entitled to ‘vigilante justice’ for
suspected copyright violations ... Hollywood moguls have long
railed against illicit tampering with their protected content
by ‘hackers’ and ‘Internet pirates.’ Now the Hollywood
studios and the recording industry seek statutory authority
for their own hacking, spoofing, and virus attacks, with the
capability to shut down many Internet websites and services at
their discretion."
"The breadth of the safe harbor provisions, combined with
the severe limitations on suits by aggrieved parties, are
really tantamount to license for content owners to strike
wherever they see fit ... Our industry has recently
experienced a rapid rise in cyber-attacks against our networks
and secure systems, and the last thing we need is to create a
protected group of hackers. No other industry has been
deputized to prosecute its own enforcement actions, and we see
no compelling reason to provide this enormous grant of power
to Hollywood." |
|
|
|
| House Begins Consideration
of Homeland Security Bill |
7/25. The House began its consideration of HR 5005,
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, a bill to create a new
Department of Homeland Security. The House is scheduled to
complete its consideration of the bill on Friday, July 26.
On July 24, the House
Rules Committee adopted a rule for
consideration of the bill that allows certain enumerated
amendments to be offered. The full House approved this rule
Thursday evening, July 25.
The House also agreed late on July 25 to the Cox Amendment
[PDF], which provides specific examples of the types of
critical cyber security infrastructure which the
Undersecretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection must develop a plan to protect, the Israel Amendment
[PDF], which establishes within the Department a Homeland
Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, and the Woolsey
Amendment [PDF], which adds a new section to the bill
creating a Homeland Security Institute as a federally funded
research and development center.
See, Rules Committee summary
of amendments that are in order. See also, texts of all
amendments in PDF: Oberstar
Costello Roemer Amendment, Young Amendment,
Waxman
Amendment, Cox
Amendment, Israel
Amendment, Rivers
Amendment, Woolsey
Amendment, Cardin
Amendment, Hunter
Amendment, Ose
Amendment, Velazquez Issa
Wilson Amendment, Hastings
Amendment, Kingston
Amendment, Rogers
Amendment, Rush
Amendment, Shays
Watson Amendment, Shays Amendment,
Morella
Amendment, Quinn
Amendment, Waxman
Frost Amendment, Armey Amendment,
Turner
Amendment, Oberstar
Menendez Amendment, Schakowsky
Kucinich Mink Amendment, Tom Davis
Amendment (which expands the existing FOIA exemption in
the bill to other federal agencies as the Secretary of
Homeland Security determines as appropriate), Chambliss
Harman Shays Menendez Amendment, and Weldon Amendment. |
|
|
| Friday, July 26 |
The House will meet to resume consideration of HR 5005,
the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
10:00 AM. The House
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Oath
Taking, Truth Telling, and Remedies in the Business
World". See, notice.
Press contact: Ken Johnson or Jon Tripp at 202 225-5735.
Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the FCC regarding
its Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking clarifying that providers of Internet protocol
telecommunications relay services are eligible for
reimbursement from the Interstate TRS Fund. See, FCC
notice [PDF]. |
|
|
| Monday, July 29 |
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board (FASAB). RSVP by July 22 by calling 202
512-7350. See, notice
in Federal Register. Location: Room 5N30, GAO Building.
1:30 - 3:30 PM. The FCC's WRC-03
Advisory Committee, Informal Working Group 7: Regulatory
Issues and Future Agendas, will hold a meeting. See, notice
[PDF]. Location: The Boeing Company, 1200 Wilson Blvd.,
Arlington, VA.
Deadline to submit comments to the FCC's regarding
its Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the
Market for the Delivery of Video Programming. See, notice
in Federal Register. |
|
|
| Tuesday, July 30 |
8:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Information
Technology Association of America (ITAA) and the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) will host a conference titled
"Wireless Security: Challenges and Solutions".
Richard Clarke, Special Advisor to the President for
Cyberspace Security, will give the keynote address at 8:50 AM.
See, notice
and agenda. RSVP by July 26, 2002 to kwoolley @itaa.org or 703
284-5323. Location: CSIS, 1800 K Street, NW.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board (FASAB). RSVP by July 22 by calling 202
512-7350. See, notice
in Federal Register. Location: Room 5N30, GAO Building.
9:30 AM. The Senate
Commerce Committee will hold a hearing "to examine
finances in the telecommunications marketplace, focusing on
maintaining the operations of essential communications
facilities". Press contact: Andy Davis at 202 224-6654.
Location: Room 253, Russell Building.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The State Department's International
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet. See, notice
in Federal Register. Location: Room 5533, State Department.
1:30 - 4:30 PM. The U.S. Trade
Representative's Industry Sector Advisory Committee on
Services (ISAC-13) will hold a meeting. The meeting will be
open from 1:30 until 2:10. The remainder of the meeting is
closed. See, notice
in Federal Register. Location: Room 6087B, Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW. |
|
|
| Wednesday, July 31 |
10:00 AM. The Senate
Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to examine class
action litigation issues. Press contact: Mimi Devlin at 202
224-9437. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
11:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce will host a luncheon titled "The
President's Homeland Security Strategy: Implications for
Business". The speaker will be Tom Ridge. The price
to attend is $55 for members and $95 for non-members. See, notice.
Location: 1615 H Street, NW.
12:30 PM. Sen. Max Baucus
(D-MT) will give a luncheon speech. Location: Ballroom,
National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Second of three deadlines to submit proposals to the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) for FY 2002 Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) funds. See, notice
in Federal Register, April 18, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 75, at Pages
19160 - 19164. |
|
|
| Thursday, August 1 |
9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Spectrum Policy Task
Force will hold a public workshop titled "Experimental
Licenses and Unlicensed Spectrum". See, FCC
notice [PDF]. Webcast. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting
Room, 445 12th Street, SW.
2:00 PM. The Senate
Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on pending
judicial nominations. Press contact: Mimi Devlin at 202
224-9437. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) regarding Qwest
Communications' Section 271 application for authorization
to provide in region interLATA service in the states of
Montana, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. See, FCC public
notice [PDF]. This is WC Docket No. 02-189. |
|
|
| Friday, August 2 |
9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The FCC's Spectrum
Policy Task Force will hold a public workshop titled
"Interference Protection". See, FCC
notice [PDF]. Webcast. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting
Room, 445 12th Street, SW.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) in response to its request for comments on the draft of
its revised strategic plan for 2003-2008. See, FCC
notice [PDF].
Deadline to submit comments to the FCC in response
to its request for comments on the FCC's Office of Plans and Policy's
(OPP) Working
Paper No. 35 [PDF], titled "Horizontal Concentration
in the Cable Television Industry: An Experimental
Analysis" authored by Mark Bykowsky, Anthony Kwasnica and
William Sharkey. See, Public
Notice [PDF]. |
|
|
| Bush Makes Judicial
Appointments a Campaign Issue |
7/25. President Bush gave a speech
at an Elizabeth
Dole for Senate dinner in Greensboro, North Carolina. He
argued that judicial appointments is a reason why voters
should elect Republican Senators, and thus return control of
the Senate to the Republicans.
He said this. "You know else why I need Elizabeth Dole? I
want my judges to get a fair hearing. I picked -- I nominated
good people to serve on the bench, good, qualified,
distinguished Americans -- like Terry Boyle. I put his name
out there. I put his name out there 14 months ago, and he
can't get a hearing. I nominated a fabulous woman from Texas
named Pricilla Owen, a great jurist ranked at the highest
rating by the ABA, ran twice statewide in Texas and won. And
yet, when you listen to the rhetoric up there, it's all
politics in Washington, D.C. They're not willing to give these
judges their fair shake and a fair due. It's time to get the
Senate in the hands of people who will approve the good
jurists I send, so we can have a federal bench that will not
-- that will strictly interpret the Constitution of the United
States of America." |
|
|
| About Tech Law Journal |
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for entities with multiple subscribers. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for law students, journalists,
elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch, and state officials. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert and
news items are not published in the web site until one month
after writing. See, subscription
information page.
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy
Policy
Notices
& Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2002 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|