|House Commerce Committee Approves Spyware
6/24. The House Commerce Committee
amended and approved
the "Safeguard Against Privacy Invasions Act" or "SPY Act" on a
roll call vote of 45-4.
Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA) and
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) introduced
this bill on July 25, 2003. See,
titled "Rep. Bono Introduces Spyware Bill" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 706, July 29, 2003.
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection approved an
amendment in the nature of a substitute [18 pages in PDF] offered by
Rep. Clifford Stearns (R-FL), the
Chairman of the Subcommittee, by unanimous voice vote, on June 17, 2004. See,
titled "House Subcommittee Approves Spyware Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
922, June 21, 2004.
On June 24 the full Committee approved an amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Rep. Stearns. It was approved on a voice vote. The
Committee then approved the bill, as amended, on a roll call vote. All members
present voted yes, except Rep. Anna Eshoo
(D-CA), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA),
Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH), and
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI).
Summary of the Amendment. The bill contains two sets of prohibitions.
First, Section 2 prohibits deceptive acts or practices related to spyware. It
provides that "It is unlawful for any person, who is not the owner or authorized
user of a protected computer, to engage in deceptive acts or practices in
connection with any of the following conduct with respect to the protected
computer". Section 2 then enumerates nine categories of such deceptive acts or
practices, including taking control of a computer, modifying settings related to
a computer's access to the internet, and collecting personally identifiable
information through keystroke logging.
Second, Section 3 prohibits the collection of certain information without
notice and consent. Sections 2 and 3 remain largely unchanged from the
Subcommittee's version of the bill, which is summarized in detail in the June 21
The amendment approved on June 24 made numerous changes to the bill. These
changes include, but are not limited to, the following.
It changes the keystroke logging language in Section 2.
It adds a ban of phishing.
It adds a security exemption. This new language, found at Section 5(a),
provides that "Nothing in this Act shall apply to any monitoring or, or
interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service
by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, or provider of information
service or interactive computer service for network security purposes,
diagnostics or repair in connection with a network or service, or detection or
prevention of fraudulent activities in connection with a service or user
It adds a limitation on liability for certain providers of software or
interactive computer services that attempt to remove programs that violate
Sections 2 or 3.
It expands the "Law Enforcement" exception. The bill had
provided an exception to
only Section 3. The new language provides an exception to both Sections 2 and 3,
and broadens the exception. This exception would be more accurately described as
a governmental, or state action, exception, rather than a law enforcement
It revises the language pertaining to preemption of state laws.
It changes the effective date of the date from 180 days after enactment to
one year after enactment.
It changes the sunset date from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009.
It adds a new exception for currently installed software. It provides that
Section 3, regarding notice and consent, "shall not apply to an information
collection program installed on a protected computer before the effective date
It changes the definition of personally identifying information to reference
It authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to give advisory opinions.
Committee Debate. On most matters, the House Commerce Committee
conducts its public hearings
and mark ups with considerable civility. It strives for consensus on its
legislative output. It seeks to present a common position on bills reported to
the full House. Votes are often unanimous. Dissenters often do not cast votes in
The final vote was lopsidedly in favor. However, there were nevertheless two
major sources of opposition to the bill, or aspects of the bill. First, some members
opposed the procedure used to move this bill. Second, some members opposed the bill's
failure to protect legitimate uses of software, for purposes such as network security,
detecting fraud, and monitoring and updating installed software.
No one expressed opposition to enacting legislation that prohibits harmful
uses of technologies for spying on computer users. The debate was over how not
to also prohibit legitimate uses of the same underlying technologies.
Several members voted for the bill, but stated that it still needs further
amendment. For example, Rep. Rick Boucher
(D-VA), who is also a Co-Chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, stated that
some people have expressed concerns that the bill suffers from "overbreadth", and
that "these do deserve our continued attention in future steps of the process".
Similarly, Rep. Edolphus Towns
(D-NY) stated that "we want to target the bad actors, and not impede network
security". He added that "I have some remaining concerns that we have excluded
some worthy security concerns from the carve out".
Many members complained about procedure. While Rep. Bono and Rep. Towns
introduced the bill in July of 2003, the original bill was essentially a rough
draft. The Committee then took no action until April 29, 2004 when the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing. Then, in the course of just
over one week, the Committee released an extensive redrafting of the bill, the
Subcommittee approved that amendment, the Committee released an further
redrafting of the bill, and the Committee approved that amendment.
Members complained that it was not until just before midnight on June 23 that
the Committee e-mailed to them the 21 page bill to be approved at 9:30 AM on June
24. For example, Rep. Strickland said that "many of us have not had the
opportunity to study the manager's amendment".
Rep. Eshoo complained that while the Committee held a meeting for members and
staff on June 23, her office was not invited.
When Rep. Issa attempted to offer amendments to Rep. Stearn's amendment in
the nature of a substitute, or to the base bill, Rep. Stearns objected, citing
the Committee's procedural rules. The Chairman appropriately ruled the amendments out
of order. But, the claims of the bill's proponents that the Committee followed
an open process were further undermined.
Eshoo, who represents a Silicon Valley district, spoke at length about her concerns
about the bill. She said that "I just don't think that there has been sufficient
opportunity to fully consider the implications of this bill."
She said that "these are not easy issues. The technology is complicated.
The privacy issues are difficult. And, the different business models at stake are really
varied and complex. And, I don't think that this is something that we should
"I think that we should take the time to really get this thing right.
And with all do respect, I think that this thing has been rushed. There are many
legitimate processes that are enabled by monitoring web usage, such as protecting
consumers against fraud, providing customer support, permitting personalization of
content, and targeting advertising that will be of most interest to the
user. There is a very long list of companies and organizations that I would like
to mention that have problems with one thing or another with the bill.
She named "Dell, Microsoft, eBay, Yahoo, America Online, Amazon, the
Business Software Alliance, the
Center for Democracy and Technology, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Information
Technology Association of America, the Information Technology Industry
Council, and the
Software and Information Industry Association.
That is a handful of problems. I mean, we have got to work some of these things
She added, "I may not agree with all of the reasons that all of these
organizations and companies have weighed in. But I think that that is a pretty broad
She gave examples. "Yahoo might monitor for personalization accuracy";
"eBay, they monitor ... people on their website for fraud"; "Microsoft
analyzes users to see what security patches are needed, and to see how the software is
She then asked rhetorically, "How does this bill affect that? Do it cut it off?
Does it damage that? These are very legitimate uses. So what I am suggesting Mr. Chairman,
is, I don't know what the rush is. I think that rushed legislation, that is so complex
and far reaching, has to be, when in doubt, a bit better."
She concluded, "I don't think that it is ready for prime time."
No amendments to the Rep. Stearn's amendment were considered. Rep. Eshoo
pointed out that she couldn't offer amendments, because to do so would first
require an understanding to the manager's amendment, which was not sent to her
until about midnight the night before the markup. Rep. Eshoo is normally a
non-confrontational conciliatory legislator. Yet, on this occasion her exchanges with
Rep. Stearns were combative and heated.
Rep. Issa (at left) did attempt
to offer two amendments.
Section 2 prohibits deceptive acts or practices, and begins with the language
that "It is unlawful for any person, who is not the owner or authorized user of
a protected computer, to engage in deceptive acts or practices in connection
with any of the following conduct with respect to the protected computer".
Rep. Issa's first amendment would have replaced this language with the
following: "It is unlawful for any person, who is not the owner or authorized user of a
protected computer, to engage in any of the following conduct with respect to a
protected computer with an intent to deceive:"
That is, the bill prohibits certain conduct, but contains no mental state
requirement. Rep. Issa proposed adding an "intent to deceive" element.
His second amendment would have provided that "It is unlawful for any
person, who is not the owner or authorized user of a
protected computer, to engage in intentionally deceptive acts or practices in
connection with any of the following conduct with respect to a protected
Section 2 of the bill enumerates certain acts, such as taking control of a
computer and keystroke logging, and prohibits "deceptive acts or practices in
connection with any" of these acts. Rep. Issa's first amendment, but not his
second amendment, would have applied the prohibition to the acts themselves, but
not to acts "in connection with".
Further Consideration of HR 2929. Several members of the Committee
stated that the House Judiciary Committee has also sought a referral of this
bill. Any such referral would delay consideration by the full House.
Also, the House is about to recess for its Independence Day break. It will
meet for several weeks in July. However, little legislative activity will take
place after that, because of the political conventions, primaries, and general
Moreover, the Senate must pass a bill. No companion bill has yet been
introduced in the Senate.
Given the membership of the Senate
Commerce Committee, the other body is more
likely to consider in more detail how this legislation would impact legitimate use of
technologies. Three of the six west coast Senators hold seats on the Committee.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) will be concerned
with how this bill affects Microsoft and other Washington state tech companies. Washington
has not been represented on the House Commerce Committee since former Rep. Rick White
lost his bid for re-election in 1998. Sen.
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will be attentive to the interests of her Silicon
Valley constituents. Sen. Ron Wyden
(D-OR) also sits on the Committee.
In addition, several of the Republican Senators on the Committee, including
Sen. George Allen (R-VA) and
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH), have a history
of opposing regulation that might inhibit innovation and growth in the tech sector.
Hence, the bill faces enormous obstacles to being enacted into law in the
little remaining time of the 108th Congress. The efforts by the House Commerce
Committee may merely serve as a prelude to the rewriting and enactment of a
spyware bill in the 109th Congress.
|House and Senate
Committees Take Up US Australia FTA Implementation Act
6/24. On June 23, the
House Ways and Means Committee
approved HR __, the "United
States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act".
On June 24, the Senate Finance Committee
(SFC) voted against favorably reporting its version of the U.S. Australia Free
Trade Agreement Implementation Act, by a vote of 7-14.
On June 23 the SFC
approved an amendment offered by Sen. Kent
Conrad (D-SD) to protect South Dakota and other cattle ranchers from competition from
imported Australian beef. The amendment directs the
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to
obtain approvals from the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance
Committee for any waiver of the beef safeguard provisions contained in the FTA.
Charles Grassley (R-IA) (at right), the Chairman of the SFC, stated that this
amendment is unconstitutional in light of the holding of the Supreme Court
opinion in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
Sen. Grassley voted against favorably reporting the bill (as
amended by the Conrad amendment). He expressed his strong support for the FTA.
And, he urged the Senate to approve the House version of the bill (which does not
contain the Conrad amendment). See also, Sen. Conrad's
|More Capitol Hill News
6/23. The House Judiciary
Committee amended and approved
the "Defense of Privacy Act", a bill to require that when agencies
write rules, they take into consideration the impact of these rules on the privacy of
6/23. The House Judiciary
Committee amended and approved
the "Anti-Counterfeiting Amendments of 2003".
6/22. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) introduced
S 2556, an untitled bill that would "direct the establishment of a technology
assessment capability in the General Accounting Office". It was referred to the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
6/24. The House Science Committee's
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards held a hearing
titled "Testing and Certification for Voting Equipment: How Can the Process
Be Improved?" See,
tesimony [PDF] of Hratch Semerjian (acting Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology),
testimony [PDF] of Carolyn Coggins (SysTest Laboratories), and
testimony [PDF] of Michael Shamos (Carnegie Mellon University).
6/24. The House Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property held a hearing
titled "Patent Quality Improvement: Post-Grant Opposition". See,
prepared testimony [6
pages in PDF]
of James Toupin (General Counsel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office),
prepared testimony [PDF]
of Jeffrey Kushan (outside counsel for Genentech),
of Michael Kirk (Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law
prepared testimony [PDF] of
Karl Sun (Google).
|People and Appointments
6/24. The Senate confirmed Diane Sykes to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 7th Circuit by a vote of 70-27. See,
Roll Call No. 152.
|Notice of Change of E-Mail
The e-mail address for Tech Law Journal has changed. The new address is
All previous e-mail addresses no longer operate. This new address is
published as a graphic to avoid e-mail address harvesting, and the associated
spam messages and malicious code messages. If your e-mail system does not
display graphics, see notice in TLJ website.
|Next Issue of TLJ
Two U.S. Courts of Appeals handed down major opinions this week that have not
yet been reported in the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert. On June 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals
(3rdCir) issued its
pages in PDF] in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, overturning some of the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) media ownership rules. On June 21, the
U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its
split opinion [26
pages in PDF] in Costar v. Loopnet, a case involving a claim of copyright
infringement by an ISP, Loopnet, arising from the publication of copyrighted
photograph by its subscribers. The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's
summary judgment for the ISP, and in so doing, addressed direct infringement,
the Netcom case, the DMCA, and the impact of the DMCA on Netcom.
These opinions will be covered in the next issue of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert.
On June 24, President Bush gave a long
in which he addressed innovation, information technology, broadband deployment,
fiber optic networks, broadband over powerline, taxation of internet access,
electronic medical records, Federal Communications Commission regulation,
spectrum management, and other tech issues. This speech will be covered in the
next issue of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert.
On June 24, the House Commerce Committee
amended and approved
the "Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004". This markup will be
covered in the next issue of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert.
|4th Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc in
PSINet v. Chapman Following Procedural Flukes
6/24. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(4thCir) issued its
pages in PDF] denying Virginia's motion for rehearing en banc in PSINet v.
Chapman. This lets stand the three judge panel's split
pages in PDF] that affirmed the District Court's opinion that held
unconstitutional a statute enacted by Virginia in 1999 that criminalizes the
dissemination of material harmful to minors over the internet.
That is, Virginia's attempt to regulate online smut has been struck down.
Virginia Code Ann. Stat. § 18.2-391, as amended in 1999, provides, in part,
"It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, rent or loan to a
juvenile, or to knowingly display for commercial purpose in a manner whereby
juveniles may examine and peruse:
1. Any picture, photography, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film,
electronic file or message containing an image, or similar visual representation
or image of a person or portion of the human body which depicts sexually
explicit nudity, sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse and which is harmful to
2. Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced, electronic
file or message containing words, or sound recording which contains any matter
enumerated in subdivision 1 of this subsection, or explicit and detailed verbal
descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct or
sadomasochistic abuse and which, taken as a whole, is harmful to juveniles.
However, if a person uses services of an Internet service provider or an
electronic mail service provider in committing acts prohibited under this
subsection, such Internet service provider or electronic mail service provider
shall not be held responsible for violating this subsection."
This statute was not written from scratch in 1999. Rather, the legislature
merely amended it to add reference to electronic media.
The earlier version of the statute was upheld against a constitutional
challenge in American Booksellers Ass’n v. Virginia, 882 F.2d 125 (1989).
District Court. Several parties, including PSINet and
People for the American Way filed a complaint
in U.S. District Court (WDVa)
against Warren Chapman, in his capacity as Commonwealth Attorney, alleging that
Section 18.2-391 violates the First Amendment and the commerce clause of the
On August 10, 2000, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction. See,
enjoining enforcement of portions of the statute, and
memorandum opinion. See also, TLJ
"Judge Overturns Virginia Internet Porm Statute", August 12, 2000.
On October 11, 2001, the District Court granted summary judgment to the
plaintiffs, and enjoined enforcement of the statute. See, story titled "District
Court Grants Summary Judgment in PSINet v. Chapman" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 291, October 22, 2001.
Three Judge Panel. On March 25, 2004, a three judge panel of the
U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued
opinion [44 pages in PDF] affirming the District Court's opinion that the
statute banning the dissemination of material that is harmful to minors over the
internet is unconstitutional.
First, the majority rejected the argument that American Booksellers Ass’n
v. Virginia is binding on the Court. Second, the majority held that the
statute "unconstitutionally chills free speech and therefore violates the First
Amendment." And third, the majority upheld the District Court "on the separate
ground that the statute violates the Commerce Clause".
See, story titled "Divided 4th Circuit Affirms in Internet Smut Case, PSINet
v. Chapman" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 864, March 26, 2004.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc. And now the Fourth Circuit, en banc,
has denied hearing. The Court's order states, "On the poll requested by a member
of the court on the petition for rehearing
en banc, Judges Widener, Niemeyer, Luttig, and Duncan voted to grant rehearing
en banc, and Judge Michael voted to deny rehearing en banc. Chief Judge Wilkins,
and Judges Wilkinson, Williams, Motz, Traxler, King, Gregory, and Shedd
disqualified themselves from participating in this case."
The order adds that "The petition for rehearing is denied, and, because
the poll on rehearing en
banc failed to produce a majority of judges in active service in favor of
rehearing en banc, the petition for rehearing en banc is also denied. Judge
Niemeyer wrote an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc."
Judge Niemeyer, who dissented on the
three judge panel, and was one of the four judges voting for en banc review,
wrote a livid opinion, dissenting from the denial of en banc review. He wrote
that the two judges sitting by designation incorrectly ignored, and effectively
reversed, the 4th Circuit's precedent in American Booksellers. He wrote that the
two judges incorrectly applied Supreme Court precedent. He wrote that the two
judges relied "on propositions that are unsupported by the record or that are
irrelevant to a determination of the scope of the statute".
He lamented that "the law of the Fourth
Circuit is now written solely by two district judges who were designated to sit
on the three-judge panel, and not by any circuit judge". He concluded that what
has transpired is "a procedural injustice worked by the rules of judicial
assignments", and "a substantive injustice for the people of Virginia, who have
carefully crafted legislation to regulate commercial pormography on the Internet
for the safety and well being of the juveniles in the Commonwealth without
denying such material to adults."
Judicial Politics and Judicial Assignments. How the court got to this
point warrants review. The 4th Circuit includes many judges who are, relative to
judges on other circuits, more deferential to legislative bodies, more
supportive of states rights, and more reluctant to overturn criminal statutes on
constitutional grounds. The makeup of this court was long influenced by former
Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), a former member and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and other Republicans, such as former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC).
In contrast, the makeup of the 3rd Circuit has been influenced more by
Democratic Senators, and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). The U.S. District Court (EDPa)
and the 3rd Circuit are forums of choice for those bringing First Amendment
challenges to federal statutes, where venue is not restricted to any locality.
However, since the present case involves a Virginia state statute, the
plaintiffs could not file this case in the 3rd Circuit.
This case received an unusual assignment of judges to the three judge panel
assigned to hear the appeal. It was comprised of only one member of the 4th
Circuit (Niemeyer). The two other members of the panel were District Court
Judges sitting by designation (James Spencer and Andre Davis). Spencer and Davis
joined together to form a two judge majority to overturn the Virginia statute.
Niemeyer wrote a vigorous dissent.
Then, Virginia petitioned for rehearing en banc. Then, an unusual number of
judges -- eight -- disqualified themselves from participating. The remaining
five members of the 4th Circuit voted 4-1 to rehear the case. However, because
the 4th Circuit's Local Rule 35(b)
provides that an en banc rehearing requires a vote of a majority of the judges
who are in regular active service, the four judges did not constitute a majority.
A review of the opinion of the three
judge panel, and the names of the eight judges who disqualified themselves,
would lead a casual observer of the 4th Circuit to conclude that, but for the
disqualifications, there would have been enough votes for en banc review.
Unless the Supreme Court overturns the 4th
Circuit, PSINet v. Chapman will remain the law of the 4th Circuit. The
Supreme Court has not identified anomalies in judicial assignments,
disqualifications or recusals as criteria for granting certiorari.
Finally, if Virginia were to tweak and re-enact
its statute once again, for example, by adding a clause regarding peer to peer
networks, this statute would likely be challenged. Appellate review would then
test Judge Niemeyer's commitment to the doctrine of stare decisis.
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Friday, June 25
The House will meet at 9:00 AM. See,
5:45 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications
Bar Association (FCBA) Cable Committee and Legislation Committee will hold a joint
brown bag lunch. The speakers will be majority and minority counsel for the
House Commerce Committee. RSVP to Wendy
Parish at email@example.com. Location:
Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1875 K Street, NW.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response
to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding presubscribed interexchange
carrier (PIC) change charge policies. This NPRM is FCC 04-96 in CC Docket No. 02-53. See,
notice in the Federal Register, May 26, 2004, Vol. 69,
No. 102, at Pages 29913 - 29917.
|Monday, June 28
The House and Senate will not meet on June 28 through July 5.
The Supreme Court will return from the recess that
it began on June 21.
1:00 PM. The Center
for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host a telephone press conference
to discuss the Supreme Court's opinion in Ashcroft v. ACLU, a
challenge to the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).
If the Supreme Court does not issue the opinion on this date, then the CDT
will reschedule this conference for the next likely date for the issuance of
the opinion -- June 28. To participate, call 334 260-2557 and provide security
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [97 pages in PDF] regarding issues relating to services
and applications utilizing internet protocol (IP). This NPRM is FCC 04-28 in WC
Docket No. 04-36. See,
notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 60, at Pages 16193 -
16202. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Regulation of Internet
Protocol Services" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 837, February 16, 2004.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) regarding changes to the FCC Form 477 local competition and broadband data
gathering program. This NPRM is FCC 04-81 in WC Docket No. 04-141. See,
notice in the Federal Register, May 27, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 103, at Pages
30252 - 30277.
|Tuesday, June 29
2:00 - 4:00 PM. There will be a meeting of the WRC-07
Advisory Committee, Informal Working Group 5: Regulatory Issues. See, FCC
notice [PDF]. Location: The Boeing
Company, 1200 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.
3:00 - 5:00 PM. The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel
discussion titled "Terror, Torts, and Teleco: The Supreme Court's 2003-2004
Term". The speakers will be Viet Dinh (Georgetown University Law Center), Richard
Garnett (Notre Dame Law School), Edward Warren (Kirkland & Ellis), and Michael Greve
notice and registration page. Location: AEI, Twelfth floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Global Positioning System will
hold a closed meeting to discuss Galileo and other future radio navigation satellite
notice in the Federal Register, May 18, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 96, at Pages 28125 -
28126. Location: Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
|Wednesday, June 30
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Mass Media Practice Committee will host a
brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Ken Ferree, Chief of the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Media
Bureau. Location: 8th Floor Conference Room,
Dow Lohnes & Albertson, 1200 New Hampshire
2:00 PM. The Japan International
Transport Institute and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport will host
a conference titled "Aviation Security of Tomorrow". There will be a technology
demonstration from 1:00 - 7:00 PM that will feature an IPv6-based secure peer-to-peer
communication service platform, information secrecy management solutions using a
multi-purpose smartcard, and radio frequency tags. The speakers will include
Hutchinson, Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security at
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Masayuki Nomura (NTT
Communications Corporation) will give a technology demonstration. There will
be a reception from 5:30 - 7:00 PM. See,
page. Registration is required by June 25. Location: Grand Hyatt
Washington, 1000 H Street, NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) regarding its
titled "Exposure Draft, Share-Based Payment, an Amendment of FASB Statements No.
123 and 95", in which it proposes to that companies must expense employee stock
Deadline to submit applications to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for
grants for homeland security related information technology demonstration
projects. See, DHS
The research and development tax credit provision of the Internal
Revenue Code expires. Both the House and Senate bills to repeal the ETI tax regime
would extend the R&D credit through December 31, 2005. The House has passed its bill,
the "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004". The Senate has passed its bill,
the "Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act". However, the two bills have
not been reconciled.
|Thursday, July 1
Deadline to submit to the
Copyright Office (CO) updated notices
of intent to use the statutory licenses under
17 U.S.C. §§ 112
and 114. On March
11, 2004, the CO published a
notice in the Federal Register regarding its "interim regulations
specifying notice and recordkeeping requirements for use of sound recordings
under two statutory licenses under the Copyright Act." The CO further
announced that "Electronic data format and delivery requirements for records
of use as well as regulations governing prior records of use shall be
announced in future Federal Register documents." The interim notice and
recordkeeping regulations took effect on April 12, 2004. See, Federal
Register, March 11, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 48, at Page 11515-11531.
|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 subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2004 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All