Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2006/08/11.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:13:02+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,430, August 11, 2006.
August 11, 2006, Alert No. 1,430.
8/10. The Copyright Office (CO) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes and sets comment deadlines for its notice of inquiry (NOI) regarding the reporting practices of cable operators that retransmit broadcast signals in accordance with the provision governing the statutory license set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 111.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and other program suppliers filed a Petition for Rulemaking [25 pages in PDF] with the CO on June 7, 2005. See also, attachments [49 pages in PDF].
The petition states that "There have been significant technological, marketing and regulatory changes in the cable television industry during the more than twenty-five years since Congress enacted the Section 111 cable compulsory licensing provisions. Nevertheless, there have been relatively few modifications to the statement of account ("SOA") forms that cable operators must file to account for either these industry changes or the significant experience that copyright owners have gained from reviewing SOAs and dealing with cable operators concerning their filings. Indeed, the SOA forms, and related Copyright Office ("Office") regulations, have remained essentially the same since the mid-1980s."
Hence, the petition states that the "Program Suppliers seek clarification and modification of the existing regulations and pertinent sections of the SOA forms. First, Program Suppliers request that the Office improve the nature of the information reported on the SOAs by cable operators, particularly information relating to gross receipts, service tiers, subscribers, headend locations, and cable communities. The proposed changes are necessary to keep current with a changing industry and are critical to efficient and effective compliance review by Program Suppliers and other copyright owners as well as the Licensing Division of the Copyright Office. Second, Program Suppliers request regulatory clarification regarding the effect of cable operators’ interest payments that accompany late-filed SOAs or amended SOAs – specifically, that payment of such interest does not impair the ability of copyright owners to bring infringement actions against cable operators that fail to pay the full amount of the royalties they owe on a timely basis. Finally, Program Suppliers request that the Office clarify the definition of the term cable "community" in its regulations to comport more clearly with the meaning of "cable system" as defined in Section 111, and to avoid misinterpretation by cable operators. That definition is crucial to determining the amount of Section 111 royalties that cable operators must pay."
The CO seeks comments on the points raised in this petition.
Initial comments are due by September 25, 2006. Reply comments are due by October 24, 2006.
For more information, contact the CO's Ben Golant, who until recently worked at the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau.
The CO's notice is published at Federal Register, August 10, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 154, at Pages 45749-45752. This proceeding is CO Docket No. RM-2005-6.
The CO also published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, and sets the effective date (October 1, 2006), for its final rule that amends its rules to require the submission of royalty fees to be made by electronic funds transfer. This affects fees paid by cable systems and satellite carriers that retransmit broadcast signals in accordance with the provisions governing the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 111 and 17 U.S.C. § 119, respectively. It also affects fees paid by manufacturers and importers of digital audio recording devices and media who distribute these products in the U.S., pursuant to the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which is codified in Title 17, at Chapter 10. See, Federal Register, August 10, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 154, at Pages 45739-45740. This proceeding is CO Docket No. RM 2006-4.
8/9. A grand jury of the U.S. District Court (DUtah) returned an indictment that charges William Kurt Dobson with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) in connection with his alleged accessing of e-mail of persons at a company where he was previously employed.
This case illustrates some of the cyber threats posed by disgruntled or disloyal former employees and contractors.
The indictment states that Dobson was the Chief Technology Officer and a Director of S5 Wireless, Inc., a Utah based company that "was developing a wireless tracking technology that would use radio frequencies to track the location of packages and containers."
The indictment further alleges that after Dobson resigned from the company, he "accessed the computer that hosted S5's e-mail using his home computer's Internet connection in Sandy, Utah. He did so using a user name and password that he had learned during his employment with S5. Dobson accessed the computer without the authorization of S5 or any S5 officer or employee."
It states that "During this access, Dobson created a new mailbox on that server, named ``archive@s5w.com,´´ and secured it with a password."
The indictment continues that David Carter was the CEO of S5, and that Dobson "sent the server interception instruction that caused the e-mail server to place a copy of each incoming e-mail addressed to Carter in the ``archive@s5w.com´´ mailbox contemporaneously with placing the incoming e-mail in Carter's mailbox." The indictment adds that Dobson later did the same for a second S5 officer.
The indictment alleges that Dobson configured his home computer to automatically download all of the messages on S5's server in the "archive@s5w.com" mailbox. He thus obtained copies of e-mails sent to these two persons over a six week period.
The indictment contains two counts of violation of § 2511(1)(a), which provides that "any person who -- (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication ... shall be punished ..." There is one count for each of the two persons whose e-mail he obtained.
Subsection (a)(2)(C) provides that "Whoever ... intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains ... information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication ... shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section."
Subsection b prohibits attempts. It provides, in full, that "Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section."
Subsection c is not a prohibition. Rather, it contains punishments. Subsection e is not a prohibition. Rather, it contains definitions.
7/31. The U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) issued its opinion [44 pages in PDF] in NASUCA v. FCC, petitions for review of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) order preempting the states from requiring or prohibiting the use of line items in customer billing for cellular wireless services.
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A) provides, in part, that "no State or local government shall have any authority to regulate the entry of or the rates charged by any commercial mobile service or any private mobile service, except that this paragraph shall not prohibit a State from regulating the other terms and conditions of commercial mobile services ..."
The Court of Appeals granted the petition. It held that the FCC exceeded its authority when it preempted the states from requiring or prohibiting the use of line items. It wrote that "The scope of federal authority to regulate ``rates´´ or ``entry´´ does not include the presentation of line items on cellular wireless bills. ... This billing practice is a matter of ``other terms and conditions´´ that Congress intended to be regulable by the states."
Steve Largent, head of the CTIA, stated in a release that "This decision highlights the need for Congress to re-establish a firm and consistent national regulatory framework for wireless service. Creating a mish-mash of inconsistent state-by-state wireless regulations will do nothing to benefit consumers and doesn’t make sense. Quite the contrary, this type of piecemeal regulation will dismantle the national business models that wireless companies have built to deliver consumers highly innovative products and services at lower prices. Forcing wireless providers to establish different business models in different states, whether it’s in all 50 or just a handful, for the sole purpose of complying with disparate regulatory regimes will only increase consumer costs and slow innovation."
This case is National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, et al. v. FCC, et al., App. Ct. Nos. 05-11682 and 05-12601, petitions for review of a final order of the FCC. Judge Pryor wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Black and Cox joined.
8/10. Randal Quarles will leave the Department of the Treasury, effective on the adjournment of the 109th Congress. He is currently the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance. From 2001 through 2005 he was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. See, Treasury release.
8/10. Alexis Fabbri joined Washington Internet Daily as a reporter. She recently received a masters degree in journalism from American University.
8/9. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) promoted Dennis Wharton to Executive Vice President, Media Relations. See, NAB release.
9:00 AM - 3:15 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). It will meet in closed session from 9:00 to 10:00 AM to discuss consolidation and staffing issues. It will meet in open session from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM to discuss other issues, including network neutrality and e-rate subsidies. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 7, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 151, at Page 44716. Location: West Dining Room, Madison Building, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE.
9:00 AM - 1:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). See, notice in the Federal Register, August 7, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 151, at Page 44716. Location: West Dining Room, Madison Building, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE.
6:00 - 9:15 PM. Day one of a two day continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Software Patent Primer: Acquisition, Exploitation, Enforcement and Defense" hosted by the DC Bar Association. The speakers will include Stephen Parker (Novak Druce), Brian Rosenbloom (Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck), David Temeles (Temeles & Temeles), and Martin Zoltick (Rothwell Figg). The price to attend ranges from $95-$170. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice and notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.
6:00 - 9:15 PM. Day two of a two day continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Software Patent Primer: Acquisition, Exploitation, Enforcement and Defense" hosted by the DC Bar Association. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice and notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.
Deadline to submit comments to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN) General Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) regarding its report titled "GNSO Initial Report: Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains". See, request for comments.
8/11. The Research Institute of Telecommunications and Economics, Japan (RITE) and the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) are relocating their Washington DC offices, effective August 11, 2006. The new address is 1020 19th Street, NW, Suite 880, Washington, DC, 20036. The phone numbers and e-mail addresses remain the same.
8/10. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice [10 pages in PDF] the describes and sets the comment deadlines for its 2006 biennial review of telecommunications regulations. Initial comments are due by September 1, 2006. Reply comments are due by September 15, 2006. This is CG Docket No. 06-152, EB Docket No. 06-153, IB Docket No. 06-154, ET Docket No. 06-155, WT Docket No. 06-156, and WC Docket No. 06-157.
8/10. The U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) issued its opinion [15 pages in PDF] in Imaging Business Machines v. Banctec, a trade secrets case involving high speed document scanner technology. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. This case is Imaging Business Machines, LLC v. Banctec, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 05-10835, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, D.C. No. 04-01104-CV-J-S.
8/10. The Common Cause (CC) released a report [16 pages in PDF] titled "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing, Part II: More Telecom Industry Front Groups and Astroturf". The report states that "Telephone and cable industry giants are fiercely lobbying for a telecommunications reform bill pending in the Senate. Some of their methods are easy to spot: campaign contributions, television ads that run only inside the Beltway, and meetings with influential members of Congress. Other tactics are more insidious. One of the underhanded tactics increasingly being used by telecom companies is ``Astroturf lobbying´´ -- creating front groups that try to mimic true grassroots, but that are all about corporate money, not citizen power." CC identifies five such groups that oppose Congressional legislation that would impose a network neutrality mandate. See also, CC's first report [28 pages in PDF], released in March of 2006, that makes similar allegations regarding nine other groups. Some, but not all, of the groups identified by the CC have been in existence for many years, and have been active on a wide range of issues. CC is a Washington DC based interest group that supports a network neutrality mandate, a position that is also supported by large companies such as Microsoft and Google. See, CC web page titled "Net Neutrality".
8/10. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) has formed a new ad hoc committee on Homeland Security and Emergency Communications. The Committee plans to host an event for the leadership of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) new Homeland Security Bureau. It is also planning an event on emergency alert systems. The Committee will also host a brown bag lunch on September 27 to discuss what events it should host. The Co-Chairs of the Committee are Jennifer Manner (Mobile Satellite Ventures), Greg Cook (FCC's Enforcement Bureau), Bob Gurss (Association of Public Safety Communications Officials) and David Wye. For more information, contact Jennifer Manner at 703-390-2730 or jmanner at msvlp dot com.
8/10. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) has formed a new committee on Communications Law, Copyright & Digital Rights Management. There will be an organizational meeting on September 21. For more information, contact Seth Davidson at sdavidson at fw-law dot com, Ben Golant at bgol at loc dot gov or Ann Bobeck at abobeck at nab dot org.
8/8. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that it will host a series of meeting to discuss its revised policy for exports and reexports of dual use items to the People's Republic of China (PRC). These meetings will be in Boston on August 15, Chicago on August 17, Houston on August 21, and La Jolla, California on August 22. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 8, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 152, at Pages 44943-44944.
8/4. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, recites, describes, and sets the effective date (August 4, 2006) for, its final rule that revises the rules of practice relating to the filing date requirements for ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings for consistency with the provisions of the patent statute governing ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings, and to permit the USPTO to have the full statutory three months to address a request for reexamination that is complete. See, Federal Register, August 4, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 150, at Pages 44219-44223.
7/25. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Directive [18 pages in PDF] that states the mission, responsibilities, functions, relationships, and authorities of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA).

References: § 111
 § 111
 § 119
 § 1030
 § 2511
 § 2511
 v. 
 § 332
 v. 
 v. 
 v.