|House Commerce Committee Leaders Oppose UN
Efforts to Regulate Internet
10/6. Leaders of the House
Commerce Committee (HCC) wrote a letter to
Gallagher, head of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and David Gross of
the Department of State (DOS), opposing the United Nation's efforts gain
regulatory authority over the operation and use of the internet. The letter
evidences bipartisan Congressional support for the position of the NTIA and DOS.
The HCC leaders wrote that "it is essential that the underlying domain name
system of the Internet remains stable and secure. As such, the United States should take
no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient
operation of the domain name system. Therefore, the United States should maintain its
historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone
On July 18, 2005, the United Nation's (UN) Working Group
on Internet Governance (WGIG) released a
report [24 pages in PDF] titled
"Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance". This report states the UN's
case for acquiring vast power to regulate various aspects of the operation and use of the
internet. See also, story
titled "UN Seeks Vast Authority to Regulate Operation and Use of the Internet"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,178, July 20, 2005.
The International Telecommunications Union
(ITU) will hold the second phase of its meeting titled "World Summit on Information
Society" (WSIS) in Tunis, Tunisia, on November 16-18, 2005. The UN report will be
discussed. See also, WSIS web site.
Gallagher has previously stated that the US will not cede authority to the
UN. See also, story titled "NTIA Rebuffs UN Efforts to Gain Control Over Internet
Governance" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,166, July 1, 2005. See also, story titled
"Ambassador Gross Says UN Will Not Be in Charge of the Internet" in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 1,212, September 13, 2005.
The letter was signed by Rep. Joe
Barton (R-TX) and Rep. John Dingell
(D-MI), the Chairman and ranking Democrat of the HCC, and by
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the Chairman
and ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
The body of the letter contains four paragraphs. They are as follows:
"We are writing in support of the United States position on Internet
governance as the Unites States delegation heads to Geneva for the Preparatory
Committee for the United Nation's World Summit on Information Society.
Consistent with market-based policies and the belief that private sector
leadership has allowed the Internet the flexibility to innovate and evolve, we
believe in the continued growth of the Internet and the variety of applications
it supports. Given the Internet's importance to the world's economy, it is
essential that the underlying domain name system of the Internet remains stable
and secure. As such, the United States should take no action that would have the
potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the
domain name system. Therefore, the United States should maintain its historic
role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the
appropriate technical coordinator of the Internet domain name system. While
improvements continue to be made to the ICANN model, the Bush Administration,
and specifically the Department of Commerce, should continue to maintain strong
oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets it core technical mission.
Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code
top-level domains. The Administration should continue to work with the international
community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure
stability and security of the Internet domain name system."
|Groups Seek Delay in Broadcast Flag
10/6. The Center for Democracy and Technology
(CDT) and other groups wrote a
[PDF] to leaders of the House
Commerce Committee, and a similar
[PDF] to leaders of the Senate Commerce
Committee, arguing that the Congress should not now enact a broadcast flag
mandate. Rather, there should first be hearings.
They write that "The broadcast flag regime would
reach not just the design and manufacture of televisions, but also that of
digital devices networked with televisions, including personal video recorders,
personal computers, and Internet enabled mobile phones. In addition to involving
the federal government in the process of technological innovation, there is a
substantial risk that the flag regime would restrict users from engaging in a
wide variety of fair uses critical to public affairs, education, and culture."
They want the Congress to examine numerous issues, including "What impact
would the flag regime have on the development of new technologies?"
The signers of the letters are the CDT, American Library Association,
American Association of Law Libraries, Association of Research Libraries,
Consumers Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Medical Library Association,
Public Knowledge, and the Special Libraries Association.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
adopted a broadcast flag rule, which was overturned by the
U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir), for
lack of statutory authority. See, story titled "DC Circuit Reverses FCC's
Broadcast Flag Rules" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,131, May 9, 2005.
Digital Radio. The FCC's broadcast flag
rule pertained to digital television. The letter also notes that "the record
industry is advocating expanding flag legislation to authorize a comparable
regime for digital radio -- an idea that has received virtually no congressional
consideration to date."
In addition, one of the signers of these letters,
Public Knowledge (PK), stated in a
separate release that the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) "is floating on the Hill another version of
content control language for digital radio".
PK also wrote that the RIAA's latest proposal is that the FCC be given authority "to
adopt regulations requiring licensees broadcasting using digital audio broadcast
systems to encrypt the transmission of copyrighted material and to regulate
devices that receive such transmissions as may be necessary or appropriate to
permit the reception of such encrypted transmissions and to implement any
authorized copying and redistribution limitations authorized under such
regulations as may be adopted pursuant to this section, provided, however, that
the Commission may not authorize any digital audio broadcast transmission system
that does not include such encryption at the source; the adoption of any digital
audio regulations pursuant to this section shall not delay the adoption of final
operational rules for digital audio broadcasting".
|FTC Files Complaint Against Spyware
9/21. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a civil
pages in PDF] in U.S. District Court (DNH) against
Odysseus Marketing Inc. (OMI), and an officer of OMI, Walter Rines, alleging unfair and
deceptive trade practices in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) in
connection with their distribution of spyware.
The Complaint alleges violation of Section 5(a) of the FTCA, which is codified at
15 U.S.C. § 45. It provides, in part, that "Unfair methods of competition in
or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce,
are hereby declared unlawful." The Congress has not enacted any legislation giving
the FTC specific authority to regulate spyware. However, there have been significant
efforts in recent years to enact spyware legislation.
The FTC filed this action on September 21, 2005.
The complaint alleges that "Since at least September 2003, and continuing
thereafter, OMI has developed, advertised, promoted, and distributed to the public various
software products, including a purported ``computer file-sharing anonymizer´´
called Kazanon and other products that purportedly increase the speed of a
computer in downloading information from the Internet and in browsing the
It continues that OMI operates various web sites "to distribute
software products, collect information from computers, and send pop-up and other
It alleges that OMI and Rines "distribute to consumers'
computers a software program, known as ``Clientman,`` that disseminates pop-up and
other Internet advertisements and installs a number of third-party advertising
and other programs without notice to consumers. Clientman and the additional
programs that it installs interfere with consumers' normal use of the Internet
and degrade their computers' performance. In some cases, Defendants induce
consumers to download Clientman by including it with software products for which
Defendants make false performance, efficacy, and benefits claims. Defendants
fail to disclose the consequences of downloading these various software products
and their included software, Clientman. After Clientman has been installed to
computers, it cannot be uninstalled through reasonable means."
The complaint alleges three unfair or deceptive acts or practices violate the
FTCA. First, it alleges that the defendants have falsely represented to consumers that
"Kazanon makes users of P2P file-sharing programs anonymous, and that therefore no
one will discover their identity, or their computers' IP address or location, when they
download or trade music, movies, software, or any other data, sound, or video file
through the Internet."
Second, the complaint alleges that the defendants "have represented, expressly
or by implication, that consumers who download Kazanon will receive a file-sharing
anonymizer." However, the complaint alleges, "installing Kazanon also causes
the installation of additional software programs, some of which replace search results
provided by search engine web sites, collect and transmit information from computers to
third parties, send pop-up advertisements and other Internet ads, and download more
software programs." The complaint alleges that failure to disclose this
information constitutes a deceptive act or practice.
Third, the complaint alleges that consumers cannot locate the software installed
by defendants on their computers and remove it through the use of reasonable efforts.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief, rescission
of contracts and restitution, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.
This case is FTC v. Odysseus Marketing Inc. and Walter Rines, U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire, D.C. No. 05-CV-330.
Computer security companies have published information about Odysseus Marketing and
Clientman. Symantec states that
"Spyware.ClientMan is a spyware application that sends Internet usage information to
a server, including email and Instant Messenger information. It also sends confidential
information, such as IP address, browser used, and user details to a remote
Trend Micro states in its
summary of Clientman that it is a "browser hijacker" that opens pop up ads,
"attempts to read a user's name", "crashes IE randomly", and "hijack
search engine results". F-Secure states
in its summary of Clientman
that it is "Malware" and an "Advertising parasite" that "opens popups,
and redirects search engine results". See also, Computer Associates' (CA) Spyware
This action follows related actions taken by the FTC.
FTC v. Seismic Entertainment, Inc. On October 6, 2004, the FTC filed a civil
[14 pages in PDF] in U.S. District Court (DNH) against several defendants
alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Section 5(a) of
the FTC Act, in connection with fraudulent dissemination of spyware.
The defendants are Seismic Entertainment Productions, Inc., Smartbot.net,
Inc., and Sanford Wallace.
The complaint alleges deceptive marketing by the defendants of purported
anti-spyware software named "Spy Wiper" and "Spy Deleter", that is
The complaint alleges that "Defendants, in numerous instances, have exploited
particular vulnerabilities in certain versions of the Microsoft Internet
Explorer web browser (“IE web browser”) to reconfigure consumers’ computers by
installing software code onto their computers without their knowledge or
authorization. The software code, among other things, (a) changes the IE web
browser’s home page; (b) modifies the IE web browser’s search engine; and (c)
downloads and installs various advertising and other software programs ... ; and
(d) causes an incessant stream of pop-up advertisements to be displayed."
See also, story titled "FTC Files Complaint Against Spyware Con
Artists" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 994, October 11, 2004.
In the Matter of Advertising.com. On August 3, 2005, the
FTC issued an administrative
[3 pages in PDF] against Advertising.com and John Ferber alleging violation of
Section 5 of the FTC Act in connection with their deceptive marketing and
installation of adware on consumers' computers. The parties simultaneously
entered into an
Agreement Containing Consent Order [7 pages in PDF].
See also, story titled "FTC Takes Action Against Deceptive
Marketing of Adware" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,188, August 4, 2005. See also, FTC
|Senate Subcommittee Holds Hearing
10/5. The Senate Commerce Committee's
(SCC) Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development held another hearing
Deborah Majoras, Chairman of the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), wrote in her
[PDF] that "Spyware is a serious and growing problem that is causing substantial
harm to consumers and to the Internet as a medium of communication and commerce.
Preventing spyware that causes such harms is a priority for the Commission."
She discussed the nature of spyware, how it harms consumers, what actions the FTC
has taken against spyware distributors, and education of consumers. She also discussed
legislative approaches. She did not endorse any broad legislation to regulate spyware.
She testified that "the FTC supports legislation that would enhance its ability to
investigate and prosecute spyware distributors that are located abroad or who try to mask
their location by using foreign intermediaries to peddle their scams."
She said that "The FTC's ability to pursue distributors of spyware, spam, and
other Internet threats to consumers would be significantly improved if the Congress were to
pass the US SAFE WEB Act, introduced by Chairman Smith in the Senate as S.1608.
The Act makes it easier for the FTC to share information and otherwise cooperate
with foreign law enforcement officials."
She also said that the FTC "believes that legislation
granting the Commission authority to seek civil penalties against spyware
distributors may be useful in deterring the dissemination of spyware. As
described above, the Commission has challenged conduct related to spyware
dissemination as unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5
of the FTC Act. Under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, the Commission has the
authority to file actions against those engaged in this conduct in federal
district court and obtain injunctive relief, including monetary relief in the
form of consumer redress or disgorgement of ill-gotten profits. However, it may
be difficult in some instances for the FTC to prove the sort of financial harm
to consumers needed to order consumer redress, or the ill-gotten gains necessary
to order disgorgement."
However, she also wrote that "the best and most comprehensive responses to
misuse of technology will often be improved technology."
Smith (R-OR) presided. He stated in his opening statement that "I believe we
must limit the abusive and deceitful practices while allowing industry the
ability to build-on and improve existing technologies. To that end, I introduced
the US Safe Web Act to expand the Federal Trade Commission's current authority
to enforce existing laws and allow the agency to coordinate with foreign law
enforcement officials to prosecute deceptive online activities. I have also
co-sponsored legislation with Senator Allen to increase the FTC's current
authority to enforce existing laws to prevent deceitful acts of spyware. We need
to give the FTC the necessary tools to go after the individuals who are already
violating current federal law. We need to address the most egregious activities
and behaviors online without placing unnecessary restrictions on the entire
Sen. Smith introduced, on July 29, 2005,
S 1608, the
"Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders
Act of 2005", which produces the near acronym of "U.S. SAFE WEB Act" of
This bill would amend the FTC Act to increase the authority of the FTC to
pursue cross border fraud, particularly internet related conduct. For example,
it would add to the definition of "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" acts
or practices that "cause or are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury
within the United States". The bill also addresses multi-national law
enforcement efforts and information sharing.
See also, opening statement of Sen. Conrad
The full SCC also held a hearing on spyware in May. See, story titled "Senate
Commerce Committee Holds Hearing on Spyware" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,136, May 16, 2005.
There have also been efforts to enact broad legislation that would regulate
spyware. In the present Congress, the House has passed legislation.
Sen. Burns, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and others
sponsored S 2145,
"The Spy Block Act", in the 108th Congress. The SCC, but not the full Senate,
approved that bill. See, stories titled "Senate Commerce Committee Approves
Spyware Bill" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 983, September 24, 2004, and "Senators Introduce
Anti-Spyware Bill" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 847, March 2, 2004.
On March 20, 2005, Sen. Burns, Sen. Wyden,
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) reintroduced this
bill as S 687,
also titled "The Spy Block Act". It has not yet been approved by the SCC.
The House Commerce Committee (HCC)
promptly approved its bill to regulate spyware,
HR 29, the
"Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act", or SPY Act, sponsored by
Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA) and others. See,
titled "House Commerce Committee Approves Spyware Bill" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,092, March 10, 2005. The full House then approved this bill on
May 23, 2005, by a vote of 393-4. See,
Roll Call No. 201.
HR 29 (109th) is a revised version of
(108th), also titled the SPY ACT, which the House approved by a vote of 399-1 on
October 5, 2004. See, Roll
Call No. 495. HR 2929 was the HCC's spyware bill. HR 29 (109th Congress),
like HR 2929 (108th Congress) prohibits certain conduct with respect to spyware,
and gives the FTC
civil enforcement authority. See also,
titled "House Passes First Spyware Bill" and story titled "Summary of House
Commerce Committee Spyware Bill" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 991, October 6, 2004.
There is also a spyware bill that falls within the jurisdiction of the
House Judiciary Committee (HJC),
(109th), the "Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2005", sponsored by
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA),
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and others.
It amends Title 18 to provide criminal penalties for certain conduct related to
spyware. HR 744 (109th) is a re-introduction of
(108th Congress), titled the "Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2004".
The House approved HR 4661 by a vote of 415-0 on October 6, 2004. See,
Roll Call No. 503. See
also, story titled "House Approves Second Spyware Bill" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 993, October 8, 2004. The House approved HR 744 on May 23, 2005 by
a vote of 395-1. See, Roll
Call No. 200.
|Copyright Office Announces Proceeding on DMCA
10/3. The Copyright Office (CO)
notice in the Federal Register announcing a rule making proceeding to adopt
exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) ban on circumvention
of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works.
The DMCA requires this proceeding.
The CO notice states that "The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to
determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are,
or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing
uses due to the prohibition on circumvention. This notice requests written
comments from all interested parties, including representatives of copyright
owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives, scholars, researchers
and members of the public, in order to elicit evidence on whether noninfringing
uses of certain classes of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by
this prohibition on the circumvention of measures that control access to
The CO notice describes this as a "Notice of Inquiry" or NOI, rather than as
a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" or NPRM. The notice does not contain
any proposed rules, or describe any proposed exemptions. Nevertheless, the notice states the
purpose of this proceeding is to promulgate rules.
Initial comments are due by December 1, 2005. Reply comments are due by
February 2, 2006.
The CO has not yet announced the dates and places of public hearings.
However, the notice does state that the CO "plans on holding public hearings in
the Spring after receipt of the comments and reply comments. The tentative dates
for the Washington, DC hearings are currently March 29 and 31, 2006, and April 3
and 4, 2006, and the hearings most likely will take place in the James Madison
Memorial Building of the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. The dates and
location of hearings for the West Coast have yet to be decided."
Anti-Circumvention Statute. The Congress enacted the DMCA in 1998. This is a large
statute that includes, among other provisions, a
prohibition on circumventing technological
measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works, and a prohibition
on trafficking in circumvention technology. The anti-circumvention provisions
are codified at
17 U.S.C. §§ 1201 - 1205.
17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A) provides that "No person shall circumvent a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under
Then, § 1201(a)(2)(A) provides 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;"
Furthermore, § 1201(b)(1)(A) provides 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 protection afforded by a
technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner
under this title in a work or a portion thereof;"
Unlike the prohibition of infringement of copyrighted works, the prohibition of
circumvention provides no defense based upon fair use. Nor is it a defense that the
circumvention, or circumvention technology, does not result in infringement of copyrighted
The DMCA does, however, provide that the CO shall conduct rulemaking proceedings
every three years to establish exemptions to the general ban on circumvention.
§ 1201(a)(1)(C) provides that the CO "shall make the
determination in a rulemaking proceeding ... of whether persons who are users of
a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period,
adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to
make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted
works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine--
(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works;
(ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation,
and educational purposes;
(iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological
measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;
(iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for
or value of copyrighted works; and
(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate."
Also, § 1201 itself enumerates numerous exemptions. There is a blanket exemption for
state and federal law enforcement and intelligence activities. There is also an encryption
research exemption. There is also an exemption for a "nonprofit library, archives, or
educational institution which gains access to a commercially exploited copyrighted work
solely in order to make a good faith determination of whether to acquire a copy
of that work ..."
Previous Anti-Circumvention Rulemaking Proceedings. The just announced
proceeding is the CO's third rule making proceeding on DMCA anti-circumvention
exemptions. It concluded its first proceeding in October of 2000. See, CO's
web page on this
first proceeding. It concluded its second rulemaking proceeding in October of
2003. See, CO's web
page on this second proceeding. The CO received
comments in its 2003 proceeding.
In 2003, the CO ultimately adopted a rule that exempted four classes of works. First, it
exempted circumvention of certain lists of web sites
blocked by filtering software, such as lists of indecent web sites. It
exempted compilations consisting of lists of internet locations blocked
by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to
prevent access to domains, web sites or portions of web sites. However, this
exemption does not extend to lists of internet locations blocked by software
applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer
or computer network, or to lists of internet locations blocked by software
applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email. See also,
submitted by Seth Finkelstein.
Second, the CO exempted computer programs protected by dongles that
prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
Third, the CO exempted computer
programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and
which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access.
Finally, the CO exempted literary
works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work,
including digital text editions made available by authorized entities, contain
access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and
that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a
Notice of Inquiry. The just published notice does not propose any
exemptions. Rather, it solicits comments on what exemptions it should adopt.
However, the notice does list and describe the four exemptions adopted in its
Instead, much of the just published notice addresses how the CO will go about
determining whether a requested exemption is warranted. It provides guidance to
prospective commenters on what information the CO seeks.
The notice states that "a determination to exempt a class of works from the
prohibition on circumvention must be based on a showing that the prohibition has
or is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on noninfringing uses of a
particular class of works".
It further states that "proponents of an exemption must provide evidence
either that actual harm exists or that it is ``likely´´ to occur in the ensuing
3-year period. Actual instances of verifiable problems occurring in the
marketplace are generally necessary in order to prove actual harm".
It also states that "a proponent must show that such problems warrant an
exemption in light of all of the relevant facts".
This proceeding is RM 2005-11. The notice is published at
Federal Register, October 3, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 190, at Pages 57526 - 57531. See
also, the CO's web page
for this proceeding.
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Friday, October 7
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative
business. It will consider, pursuant to a rule,
the "Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005". See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 8:15 AM. It will resume consideration of
the defense appropriations bill.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will hold a workshop on the
security of electronic voting systems. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 9, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 174, at
Pages 53635 - 53636. Location: NIST, Building 820, Room 152, Gaithersburg, MD.
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Sabre v. Department of
Transportation, No. 04-1073, a case regarding wether the DOT can expand its
regulatory authority to include computer reservation systems (CRS). See,
brief [25 pages in PDF] of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the
Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) in support of
Sabre. Judge Rogers, Brown and Williams will
preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
10:00 AM. The Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a business meeting to consider
the nomination of Julie Myers to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. See,
notice. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.
12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications
Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Telecommunications Practice Committees will
host a lunch titled "CMRS Issues". The price to attend is $15.
Registrations and cancellations are due by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, October 5, 2005. See,
registration form [PDF].
Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, NW., 6th
Day two of a two day conference titled "Identity
Management: Creating A Trusted Identity" hosted by the
Information Technology Association of America
notice. For more information, contact Jennifer Kerber at jkerber at itaa
dot org. Location: Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, VA.
|Tuesday, October 11
1:30 - 4:30 PM. The Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC)
will meet. The agenda includes presentations by John Chambers (Ch/CEO of
Cisco Systems) and Thomas Noonan (P/CEO of Internet
Security Systems). See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 2, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 170, at
Pages 52420 - 52421. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Day one of a two day conference hosted by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and the Open Web Application Security Project
regarding the OWASP. See,
conference web site.
Location: NIST, Green Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.
Deadline to submit comments to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) regarding proposed changes to Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)
Publication 201, titled "Standard for Personal Identity Verification of
Federal Employees and Contractors. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 173, at
Pages 53346 - 53347.
|Thursday, October 13
11:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The President's
National Security Telecommunications
Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will hold a meeting by teleconference. The first part
of the meeting, which will be open to the public, will be a discussion of issues
related to Hurricane Katrina. The second part of the meeting, which will be closed
to the public, will be a discussion of the shutdown of cellular services in the tunnels
into and out of Manhattan following the terrorist attacks in London on July 7, 2005.
To participate, contact Elizabeth Hart at 703 289-5948 or hart_elizabeth at bah dot com
by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, October 11, 2005. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 28, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 187, at
2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of States' (DOS)
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for ITU-T
Advisory Group. See,
notice in the Federal Register, July 13, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 133, at Page
40414. Location: undisclosed. The DOS states that "Access to these meetings
may be arranged by contacting Julian Minard at minardje at state dot gov.
Deadline to submit comments to the Interim Chief Copyright Royalty
Judge, on behalf of the Copyright Royalty Board, on the existence of controversies
to the distribution of the 2003 cable royalty fund. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 13, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 176, at
Pages 53973 - 53974.
|Friday, October 14
5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
regarding its out of cycle reviews of Ukraine and Saudi Arabia. Section 182 of
the Trade Act of 1974 requires the USTR to identify countries that deny adequate and
effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market
access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 173, at
Pages 53410 - 53412. See also, story titled "USTR Lifts Trade Sanctions on
Ukraine and Announces Special 301 Out of Cycle Review" in TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,205, September 1, 2005. See also,
notice in the Federal Register, September 14, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 177, at
Pages 54436 - 54437.
10/6. The Copyright Office (CO) published a
notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, recites, and sets the
effective date (July 1, 2005) of new regulations governing the adjustment of the royalty
rates for the cable statutory license. See, Federal Register, October 6, 2005, Vol. 70, No.
193, at Pages 58310 - 58311.
10/6. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir)
[14 pages in PDF] in Music Choice. v. Broadcast Music, Inc., again vacating
and remanding the District Court's rate setting decision regarding the price for Music
Choice's licensing of BMI's music on its cable, satellite, and internet services. This
case is U.S., plaintiff, Music Choice, movant/appellant v. Broadcast Music, Inc.,
defendant/appellee, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, App. Ct. No. 04-3444-CV,
an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Stanton
presiding. Judge Parker wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Wesley
and Sotomayor joined.
10/6. The Senate Judiciary Committee
(SJC) held an executive business meeting. The SJC held over its consideration of Timothy
Flanigan to be the Deputy Attorney General, and
Susan Neilson to be a Judge of
the U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir). The SJC
also held over numerous bills related to personal data and privacy, including
the "Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005", and
S 751, the
"Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act", and
S 1326, the
"Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act". It also held
over two bills pertaining to trademark protection,
the "Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005", and
the "Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005". It also held over
S 443, the
"Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005". Most
of these items have been on the SJC's agenda before, only to be held over.
10/6. The Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) released a
statement by spokesman Christin Baker regarding EU support of the A350
Airbus. He wrote that "The United States has been clear in its message: Launch
aid for the A350 or any other Airbus aircraft is completely unacceptable. The
commitment of launch aid by any of the EU Member States is yet another step in
the wrong direction. We want to negotiate an end to aircraft subsidies,
but the commitment of aid makes that even harder to do. It's clear that the EU
countries are unwilling to stop subsidizing Airbus. Therefore, we will continue
to push ahead with our WTO case. We take no comfort from any offer to postpone
the actual payment of the launch aid these countries have already promised to
provide. The announcement of their commitment to back the A350 will affect
Airbus's financing costs regardless of when they formally write the check." This
statement pertains to US concerns about EU support for its aircraft industry,
and the EU's concerns about US support for Boeing. This also implicates the US's
FSC, ETI, and Jobs Act tax regimes. See, story titled "WTO Concludes AJCA Still
Violates DSB's FSC/ETI Rulings" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,225, October 3,
2005. And generally, failure by the US and EU to resolve trade disputes
involving aircraft, and other non-technology sector disputes, has the potential
to adversely impact technology related trade.
10/6. The Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) published a report
titled "Registered Traveler Card: A Privatized Passenger ID". This
pertains to Verified Identity Pass,
Inc.'s fee based program titled "Clear Registered Traveler" for air
travelers. The EPIC complains that this program, which will involve the
maintenance of electronic databases of personal information, will not be subject
to the protections of the Privacy Act of 1974. It also states that "the
program has a risk of mission creep -- a risk that information volunteered will
be used for reasons not related to their original aviation security purposes".
It suggests that this private program might be used for admission to office
buildings and other locations. It concludes that "The development of such an
unregulated ID system has significant implications for Americans. Entry into an
office building or stadium should not be conditioned upon whether the person can
afford a privatized ID card."
|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 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All