Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2010/02/16.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:13:53+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,045, February 16, 2010.
February 16, 2010, Alert No. 2,045.
2/16. Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) introduced HR 4504 [LOC | WW], the "Standards for Internet Non-Censorship Act of 2010", on January 26, 2010.
It has been over one month since Google announced that following cyber attacks on its systems, and the systems of other companies, by the People's Republic of China (PRC), for the purpose of surveilling "human rights activists", it is "no longer willing to continue censoring" search results in the PRC, and that it may "shut down Google.cn".
See, Google's January 12, 2010, statement, and story titled "Google Accuses Red China of Cyber Attacks Directed at Human Rights Activists" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,036, January 19, 2010.
See also, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech of January 21, 2010, in which she stated that "Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They've expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech."
However, Rep. Foster has introduced a bill that grasps at several possible approaches. He proposes to delegate legislative authority to the President -- to write standards for internet search providers. He proposes that the "free" nations of the world write international standards. Finally, he proposes that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) write rules regulating internet search.
HR 4504 was referred to the House Commerce Committee (HCC) and the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC). Rep. Foster is a member of neither. He is a physicist who was elected to the House in 2008. His bill is inexpertly drafted. The language of the bill lends the appearance that Rep. Foster did not avail himself of drafting advice from the Office of Legislative Counsel.
This bill states that it is the sense of the Congress that both the President of the U.S. and a "coalition of free countries" should set internet search standards.
First, the bill urges the President "establish interim minimum standards of non-censorship for Internet search providers and create programs to restrict access to domestic online information by search providers determined to be censoring nonviolent political speech".
Second, this bill urges that free countries should act in concert "to adopt minimum standards for non-censorship of nonviolent political speech as a condition for access to the Internet".
Third, the bill provides that the FCC "may" adopt regulations that "restrict repressive Internet search providers from accessing domestic online information". The bill further provides that the FCC may prevent "any other person or entity from colluding to evade such regulations".
The bill defines "domestic online information" as "Web sites, databases, and other digital information that is housed or hosted on computers located in the United States or any territory or possession of the United States". Taken literally, this would preclude offending search providers in the U.S. from spidering web sites to create the indices upon their search services are based.
The bill defines "repressive Internet search provider" as "an Internet search provider that censors search results for the purpose of suppressing nonviolent political speech".
Rep. David Wu (D-OR) and Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) are cosponsors of this bill.
On February 4, 2010, Rep. Wu introduced a more focused and less ambitious bill that addresses internet freedom. He and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) introduced HR 4595 [LOC | WW], the "Internet Freedom Act of 2010".
HR 4595 would create a body at the National Science Foundation (NSF) titled "Internet Freedom Foundation", and authorize the appropriation of funding. The purpose of this body would be to "promote Internet freedom through education, advocacy, and research". This bill was referred to the House Science Committee.
On Wednesday, February 24, 2010, at 10:00 AM, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host a news conference to discuss "the global challenges to Internet freedom". The CDT will also teleconference this event.
2/13. The Public Knowledge (PK) released a first paper [15 pages in PDF] titled "Introduction to the Copyright Reform Act", and a second paper [37 pages in PDF] titled "Report 1: Updating Fair Use for Innovators and Creators in the Digital Age: Two Targeted Reforms".
The PK has not released the entire draft of its "Copyright Reform Act". Rather, its first paper presents arguments in favor of changing copyright law, and summaries of numerous proposals for changes to the U.S. Code.
The second paper contains the text of a few of the PK's proposed changes: a statement of purposes for the Copyright Act, a broadening of the fair use exemption, and limitations on the recovery of both statutory damages and costs and attorneys fees from an infringer where the infringer has asserted the fair use defense.
The PK stated that it intends to release the rest of the text of its proposed legislation, over time, piece by piece, with accompanying explanatory language.
The first paper was authored by Pan Lee, Daniel Park, Allen Wang, and Jennifer Urban of the UC Berkeley. The second paper was authored by Urban.
These legislative proposals contained in these papers, and forthcoming PK papers, are likely an exercise in public debate. There is not likely to be sufficient support in the current Congress to enact these proposals. Indeed, some were included in bills introduced in prior Congresses, but did not advance.
Introductory Paper. This first paper argues that "the recent speed and unpredictability of technological advances have sometimes outpaced the courts' ability to address all of the relevant issues reactively through common law".
This paper then proposes in broad strokes numerous changes to law. Most of these changes would affect the Copyright Act, which is codified in Title 17. However, the PK also proposes to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act, which is codified in Title 15. The PK's first paper is not clear as to whether it will propose changes to the criminal copyright infringement provisions of Title 18.
First, this paper proposes "extending the list of explicitly favored uses in the preamble to section 107 of the Copyright Act to include incidental uses, non-consumptive uses, and uses that are both personal and non-commercial". 17 U.S.C. § 107 codifies the fair use exemption.
Second, the paper also proposes changes to 17 U.S.C. § 504 and 17 U.S.C. § 505, regarding the award of damages for copyright infringement, and the award of cost and attorneys fees, respectively.
Third, it proposes that "incidental or transient copies necessary to technological processes, such as running computer programs, transmissions over a network, or other automatic processes, should not be considered infringements of copyright".
Fourth, it proposes that "copies of works made by a service provider for the purposes of developing or maintaining information location tools should not be considered infringements of copyright".
Fifth, it proposes amending the DMCA "to allow the use or distribution of circumvention tools for solely non-infringing uses". This would create a broader exemption than that proposed by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) in the 107th, 108th, 109th and 110th Congresses. None of his bills were approved by either the House or Senate, or any committee of either body. See, story titled "Rep. Boucher Introduces FAIR USE Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,545, February 28, 2007.
Sixth, it proposes that "the Federal Trade Commission Act and DMCA should be updated to prohibit unfair and deceptive copyright notices and to require notice of contractual or technological restrictions. Rights holders should not be allowed to deceptively claim limitations that are not actually imposed by the law, and should accurately describe any limitations imposed by contract or technological measures."
Seventh, it proposed that the music licensing system be reformed.
Paper Regarding Fair Use, Damages, Costs and Attorneys Fees. The second paper released by the PK offers actual statutory language regarding the purposes of the Copyright Act, fair use, damages, and costs and attorneys fees.
(5) to promote the fair use of copyrighted works, to enable the development of information location tools, and to encourage creative building upon existing works."
This proposal contains three far reaching changes.
The PK's discussion of "incidental" offers examples where the copying is accidental and de minimis, such as a few seconds of music playing in the background of a family video. However, the PK offers no definition of the term "incidental" that would limit it to these circumstances.
Non-consumptive uses would encompass, for example, many of the uses of copyrighted books made by Google in its Google Book Search service, and by others who provide related services.
Exempting copying for "both commercial and personal" purposes would do much to remove rights holders' ability to protect and commercially exploit their works. This exemption would reduce the likelihood of litigation against consumers for copying works in their homes which they do not then sell. But then, except for the music industry's short lived and ill fated litigation campaign against peer to peer infringers, consumers have had little to fear. On the other hand, this proposal would do much to protect those business models that are built upon providing technologies to consumers that enable them to copy protected works. Currently, rights holders can use copyright law, and various theories of secondary liability, to pursue these commercial operations. However, their liability is only secondary, and can only exist if the consumers who use their services are primarily liable. If the consumer is not to be liable, as the PK proposes, then the businesses that exploit copyrighted works cannot be held secondarily liable.
The PK could have offered a legislative proposal that offers relief to consumers for their personal and non-commercial copying, without letting businesses that induce infringement off the hook. But, it did not.
The PK next proposes to amend 17 U.S.C. § 504 regarding the award of damages for copyright infringement. Subsection 504(c)(2) provides for the award of statutory damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement.
However, the statute currently adds that "The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was" either "an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives" or "a public broadcasting entity".
The PK proposes to amend this provision so that it applies to anyone -- not just a non-profit educational institution or public broadcaster. That is, a business that has been found by the court to have infringed willfully and for commercial gain would be entitled to this remiture if it had reasonable grounds for believing that its copying was fair use.
Next, the PK proposes to amend 17 U.S.C. § 505, regarding the award of cost and attorneys fees to the prevailing party, by adding the following language: "The court shall not award costs or an attorney's fee to a copyright holder in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107."
There is asymmetry and imbalance in these proposals. That is, in litigation in which the copyright holder and copier have reasonable grounds for believing in the merits of their arguments regarding fair use, the PK proposal would offer relief to the copier, but not to the rights holder.
Fair use is a fact intensive and legally complex issue over which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. These three factors render it enormously expensive to litigate. Legal fees in a case that turns on fair use can run into the millions of dollars. In many of these cases both sides have reasonable grounds for believing in the merits of their arguments. Yet, the PK proposes that the copier, but not the rights holder, be relieved of paying the other sides costs and attorneys fees, if it loses.
This could create a perverse incentive for a copier's attorneys not only to litigate fair use defenses, but to prolong the dispute, and run up the costs and attorneys fees of both sides. The copier's attorney would enter into such litigation with the expectation that its client would face a much reduced likelihood of having to pay either statutory damages, or the other side's costs and attorneys fees if it lost, but would still be able to ding the rights holder for its costs and attorneys fees if it prevailed.
The PK could have offered a balanced legislative proposal that offers relief to both copiers and rights holders in good faith disputes regarding fair use. But, it did not.
2/8. The Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJ) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, recites, and sets the effective date (March 10, 2010) for, its regulations "governing the statutory minimum fees to be paid by Commercial Webcasters under two statutory licenses, permitting certain digital performances of sound recordings and the making of ephemeral recordings, for the period beginning January 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2010." See, Federal Register, February 8, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 25, at Pages 6097-6098.
2/3. The Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJ) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, recites, and sets the effective date (March 5, 2010) for, its regulations "governing the rates for the preexisting satellite digital audio radio services' use of the ephemeral recordings statutory license under the Copyright Act for the period 2007 through 2012". See, Federal Register, February 3, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 22, at Pages 5513-5514.
2/1. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register in which it announced that it has extended, through June 30, 2010, its temporary program titled "Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan". The USPTO notice explains that "a small entity applicant may have an application accorded special status for examination if the applicant expressly abandons another copending unexamined application. The Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan allows small entity applicants having multiple applications currently pending before the USPTO to have greater control over the priority with which their applications are examined while also stimulating a reduction of the backlog of unexamined patent applications pending before the USPTO." See, Federal Register, February 1, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 20, at Page 5041.
2/1. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register that states that it is modifying the computer program it uses to calculate patent term adjustments in light of the January 7, 2010, opinion [14 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) in Wyeth v. Kappos. The USPTO stated that it "expects to complete this software modification by March 2, 2010. In the meantime, the USPTO is providing patentees with the ability to request a recalculation of their patent term adjustment without a fee as an alternative to the petition and fee required by 37 CFR 1.705(d). In order to qualify, a form requesting a recalculation of the patent term adjustment must be submitted no later than 180 days after the patent has issued and the patent must be issued prior to March 2, 2010. In addition, this procedure is only available for alleged errors that are specifically identified in Wyeth. The USPTO is deciding pending petitions under 37 CFR 1.705 in accordance with the Wyeth decision. This notice also provides information concerning the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) screen that displays the patent term adjustment calculation." See, Federal Register, February 1, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 20, at Pages 5043-5045.
The House will not meet the week of February 15-19, 2010. See, 2010 House calendar.
The Senate will not meet the week of February 15-19, 2010. See, 2010 Senate calendar.
10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's HIT Policy Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 3, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 22, at Page 5595. Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert St., NW.
11:00 AM. The Consumer Federation of America (CFA), Consumers Union (CU), Free Press (FP), Media Access Project (MAP), New America Foundation (NAF), and Public Knowledge (PK) will host a news conference regarding the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) drafting of a document titled "National Broadband Plan". Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Telecommunications and Young Lawyers Committees will host a brown bag lunch titled "Developing a Career in International Communications". The speakers will be Steven Lett (Department of State), John Giusti (Chief of Staff and Legal Advisor to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps), Janet Hernandez (Telecommunications Management Group, Inc.), and Gonzalo de Dios (Intelsat Corporation). For more information, contact Jennifer Hindin at jhindin at wileyrein dot com or Micah Caldwell at mcaldwell at fh-law dot com. Location: Wiley Rein, 10th floor, 1750 K St., NW.
Day one of a two day conference hosted by the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA) titled "Federal Networks 2010". At 1:30 PM, US-CERT acting Director Randy Vickers will speak on cybersecurity. See, notice. Location: Hilton McLean Tyson's Corner, 7920 Jones Branch Road, McLean, VA.
Day four of a four day event hosted by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) titled "Winter Committee Meetings". See, notice. Location: Renaissance Washington Hotel, 999 9th St., NW.
Statutory deadline for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to submit a report titled "National Broadband Plan", as required by HR 1 [LOC | WW]. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stated in letters on January 7, 2010 that the FCC will complete this report on March 17, 2010.
8:30 AM. Day one of a two day partially closed meeting to the Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC). This meeting will focus on deemed exports. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 5, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 24, at Page 5952. Location: Room 3884, Department of Commerce Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW.
9:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering Council (NANC) will meet. See, FCC notice and notice in the Federal Register, January 28, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 18, at Pages 4557-4558. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.
RESCHEDULED FROM FEBRUARY 11. 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an event titled "Open Meeting". Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.
EXTENDED FROM FEBRUARY 16. 5:00 PM. Deadline for all commenters (except foreign governments) to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) to assist it in making determinations that identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. The OUSTR is required to make these Special 301 determinations by Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, which is codified at 19 U.S.C. § 2242. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 15, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 10, at Pages 2578-2580. See, notice of extension.
Deadline to submit reply comments on proposals to be designated database administrator in the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) white space proceeding. See, Public Notice [4 pages in PDF]. It is DA 09-2479 in ET Docket No. 04-186. See also, story titled "FCC Requests Proposals to Be Designated White Spaces Database Administrator" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,018, November 30, 2009.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding its e-rate program, and the "Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act". See, notice in the Federal Register, January 19, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 11, at Pages 2836-2843, and story titled "FCC Adopts E-Rate NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,011, November 9, 2009. The FCC adopted this NPRM on November 4, 2009, and released the text on November 5, 2009. It is FCC 09-96 in CC Docket No. 02-6.
8:30 AM. Day two of a two day partially closed meeting to the Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC). This meeting will focus on deemed exports. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 5, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 24, at Page 5952. Location: Room 3884, Department of Commerce Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW.
5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) regarding the "modernized electric grid", and especially "issues related to Smart Grid implementation options, including the ways in which each option would support open innovation in home energy services". See, notice in the Federal Register, February 9, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 26, at Pages 6414-6416.
10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Improving Energy Efficiency Through Technology and Communications Innovation". Location: Room 253, Russell Building.
TIME CHANGE. 6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host an event titled "Protecting Content on the Internet". The speaker will be Jay Westermeier (Finnegan Henderson). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. Most DC Bar events are not open to the public. See, notice. This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. For more information, call 202-626-3488. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Nominations". See, notice. The SJC will webcast this event. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

References: § 107
 § 504
 § 505
 § 504
 § 505
 v. 
 § 2242