3/21. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Shannon Miller v. United States (No. 04-38) a challenge to President Bush's recess appointment of Judge William Pryor. See, Order List [21 pages in PDF] at pages 8.

Shannon Miller was convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, by the U.S. District Court (SDFl). Miller appealed. A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) affirmed the conviction in a per curiam opinion. This panel included Judge William Pryor, who sits on the Court of Appeals pursuant to a recess appointment. Miller petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari on the basis of Pryor's participation.

The Solicitor General filed an opposition to the petition.

Senate Democrats have opposed many of President Bush's nominees for the federal courts, including Pryor. Lacking the 50 votes needed to defeat the nominees, Senate Democrats have employed the filibuster. President Bush lacks the 60 votes necessary to end a filibuster. So, in several instances, President Bush has given temporary recess appointments to his nominees.

The Supreme Court also denied certiorari in Charles Franklin v. United States (No. 04-5858), another petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) regarding the Pryor appointment. See, Order List [21 pages in PDF] at page 10. Franklin was convicted of driving a truck into a mosque. There is another petition for writ of certiorari in Peter Evans v. Stephens (No. 04-828). Evans was convicted of reckless driving.

3/18. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion [18 pages in PDF] in Yamaha v. Jim's Motorcycle, a case involving the dormant commerce clause. This case does not involve technology. It is a dispute between a motorcycle manufacturer and a motorcycle dealer. However, this opinion is also favorable to e-commerce companies that face discriminatory state statutes.

Yamaha brought a constitutional challenge to the state of Virginia's motorcycle dealer franchise law, which allows any motorcycle dealer in the state to protest the establishment of a new dealership for the same brand anywhere else in the state. The District Court rejected Yamaha's dormant commerce clause challenge. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the state statute unduly burdens interstate commerce, and therefore violates the dormant Commerce Clause.

The dormant commerce clause is often invoked by entities engaged in electronic commerce, such as internet wine sales, to challenge protectionist state statutes designed to discriminate against internet based competitors. The Court of Appeals' holding may assist e-commerce entities in future challenges to state statutes.

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution provides that "The Congress shall have Power ... to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States ..." The dormant commerce clause is the judicial concept that the Constitution, by delegating certain authority to the Congress to regulate commerce, thereby bars the states from legislating on certain matters that affect interstate commerce, even in the absence of Congressional legislation. It is applied to block states from regulating in a way that materially burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. See, Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), and Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299 (1851). More recent treatments of the concept include Healy v. The Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324 (1989), and CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U.S. 69 (1987).

This case is Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. v. Jim's Motorcycle, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 03-2070, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, D.C. No. CA-01-471. Judge Michael wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Luttig and Baldock, of the 10th Circuit, joined.

3/22. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will hold a meeting at 10:00 AM on Thursday, March 24. It will discuss a draft notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) regarding regulation of internet communications.

The FEC's notice of this meeting in the Federal Register states only that the items to be discussed included "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Internet: Definitions of ``Public Communication´´ and ``Generic Campaign Activity,´´ and Disclaimers." See, Federal Register, March 18, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 52, at Page 13197.

The FEC press office states that there is a draft NPRM, that it has not yet been released, that it will be released before the Thursday meeting, and that this NPRM will be the first item of the Commission's agenda.

Introduction. The Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) in early 2002, a bill that expands federal regulation of election campaign finance and political speech. It amends the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which is codified at 2 U.S.C. § 431, et seq. The BCRA also required the FEC to write rules to implement many provisions of the BCRA. The FEC did so.

Then, two sponsors of the bill filed a complaint in U.S. District Court challenging many of the FEC's BCRA regulations. The District Court, Judge Colleen Kotelly presiding, overturned 14 different parts of the FEC's rules, and remanded to the FEC to rewrite its rules that are consistent with her opinion. Two of the overturned portions of the rules pertain to exemption of certain internet based activities.

After the District Court issued its opinion, only three members of the six member FEC voted to appeal the internet related provisions of the District Court's decision. Four votes are required to authorize an appeal. The three Republicans on the Commission voted to appeal, and thus sought to maintain the exemptions for internet based activities. The three Democrats voted against an appeal, and thus acquiesced in the District Court's opinion that these internet based activities must be regulated.

The FEC has not yet promulgated the new rules that Judge Kotelly directed the FEC to write. Nor has the FEC released, or announced the adoption of, any notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) or notice of inquiry (NOI). Nor has it held any public hearings.

The FEC has only publicly announced that it will hold a meeting on Thursday, March 24, and the the agenda includes a discussion of "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Internet: Definitions of ``Public Communication´´ and ``Generic Campaign Activity,´´ and Disclaimers."

John Morris works for the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which submitted a lengthy comment when the FEC issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding internet speech back on November 1, 1999. This NOI was published in the Federal Register, November 5, 1999, Vol.  64, No. 214, at Pages 60360 - 60368. The CDT also wrote a report in 1999 titled "Square Pegs and Round Holes: Applying the Campaign Finance Law to the Internet -- Risks to Free Expression and Democratic Values".

Morris stated in a release on March 21 that "We don't know exactly what to expect, but there is certainly a risk to the Internet as an open, inexpensive forum for independent voices. CDT will be urging the Commission to take a cautious approach consistent with the goal of McCain-Feingold and the underlying campaign finance laws, which is to promote independent speech and to decrease big money's dominance of the political process. The Internet lets individuals participate. Imposing regulations on independent bloggers would produce exactly the opposite of the goal of McCain-Feingold".

The Statute. The House and Senate enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) in early 2002. It was HR 2356 in the 107th Congress. It is also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, because the lead sponsors of the Senate version of the bill were Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI).

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) were two sponsors and leading proponents of the House bill.

President Bush signed the bill on March 27, 2002. It became Public Law No. 107-155.

The FECA, as amended by the BCRA, regulates, among other things, certain "public communications"s.

Several definitions in the FECA, which are codified at 2 U.S.C. § 431, are at issue. First, 2 U.S.C. § 431(22) provides that "The term ``public communication´´ means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising."

Second, 2 U.S.C. § 431(20) provides that "(A) In general.--The term ``Federal election activity´´ means ... (ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office also appears on the ballot);" (Parentheses in original.)

FEC Regulations. The FEC, as directed by the Congress, wrote implementing regulations.

The FEC rules defined a "public communication" as "a communication by means of any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising. The term public communication shall not include communications over the Internet." This is codified at 11 C.F.R. § 100.26.

Notably, it exempts from the definition of "public communication"s all internet communications. This would mean that blogs, web sites, and e-mail are not "public communication"s.

The FEC rules defined "generic campaign activity" as "a public communication that promotes or opposes a political party and does not promote or oppose a clearly identified Federal candidate or a non-Federal candidate." This is codified at 11 C.F.R. § 100.25. This definition incorporates the term "public communication", which the FEC defines to exclude internet communications.

District Court. October 8, 2002, Rep. Shays and Rep. Meehan filed a complaint in U.S. U.S. District Court (DC) challenging numerous of the rules promulgated by the FEC to implement the BCRA. They filed their amended complaint on January 21, 2003.

On September 18, 2004, the District Court, Judge Kotelly presiding, issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order [159 pages in PDF] overturning numerous parts of the FEC's rules.

The opinion is 157 pages long. In addition to rejecting several justiciability challenges to the action, it overturns fourteen portions of the FEC's rules, and affirms three. There is no table of contents.

The District Court overturned "11 C.F.R. § 109.21(c) (coordination content regulations), including 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(c)(iv) (provision excluding the Internet from coordination communication regulations)". (Parentheses in original.) However, while Rep. Shays and Rep. Meehan specifically challenged the rules regarding coordination of communications, these rules applied the definitional rules, including the definition of "public communication". The District Court's discussion of this begins at page 48 of the opinion.

Judge Kotelly wrote (at page 49) that "The coordinated communication regulation ... applies only to ``public communications´´ unless the communication constitutes an ``electioneering communication.´´ ... Congress defined ``public communication´´ in BCRA to mean ``a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.´´ ... The FEC promulgated a regulation defining ``public communication´´ as ``a communication by means of any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising. The term public communication shall not include communications over the Internet.´´ ... Therefore, Internet communications, no matter how closely they are coordinated with political parties or a candidate's campaign, cannot be considered ``coordinated´´ under the FEC’s regulations." (Citations and cross references omitted.)

She continued that "Congress did not expressly include the term ``Internet´´ in its statutory definition of ``public communication,´´ but it did include the phrase ``any other form of general public political advertising.´´ ... While all Internet communications do not fall within this descriptive phrase, some clearly do. Consequently, it is difficult to argue that the statutory terms evidence Congressional intent for the Internet, or any other forms of communications that constitute ``general public political advertising,´´ to be excluded wholesale from its definition of ``public communication.´´"

She concluded that "under Chevron step one, Congress intended all other forms of ``general public political advertising´´ to be covered by the term ``public communication.´´ What constitutes ``general public political advertising´´ in the world of the Internet is a matter for the FEC to determine."

Moreover, she concluded, in the alternative, that "exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines FECA's purposes and therefore violates the second prong of Chevron."

She added that "To permit an entire class of political communications to be completely unregulated irrespective of the level of coordination between the communication's publisher and a political party or federal candidate, would permit an evasion of campaign finance laws".

The District Court also overturned 11 C.F.R. § 100.25, regarding the definition of "generic campaign activity". This discussion begins at page 120 of the opinion.

Judge Kotelly wrote that the "Congress also deemed ``Federal election activity´´ to include ``generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on the ballot ....´´ ... Congress defined the phrase ``generic campaign activity´´ to mean ``a campaign activity that promotes a political party and does not promote a candidate or non-Federal candidate.´´ ... The Commission's regulation has defined the phrase as follows: ``a public communication that promotes or opposes a political party and does not promote or oppose a clearly identified Federal candidate or a non-Federal candidate.´´"

She noted that, because of the FEC's definition of "public communication", its definition of "generic campaign activity" excludes internet communications.

She also wrote that the "Congress did not exclude Internet communications from its definition of ``public communication´´ -- the FEC did.". Therefore, she concluded that "if a form of activity can be ``campaign activity´´ -- and it is clear to the Court that Internet communications can constitute ``campaign activity´´ -- the Court sees no basis for the wholesale exclusion of that form of activity from the definition of ``generic campaign activity´´ under the terms of the statute."

Hence, she found that "the wholesale exclusion of the Internet from the definition of ``generic campaign activity´´ to be an impermissible construction of the Act."

This opinion is also reported at 337 F. Supp. 2d 28. This case is Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan v. Federal Election Commission, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 02-1984 CKK, Judge Colleen Kotelly presiding.

Reaction to the District Court's Opinion. Sen. Feingold stated in a release on September 20, 2004 "The federal district court's decision in Shays v. FEC underscores what Senator McCain and I have been saying -- that the FEC is refusing to properly interpret and enforce the federal election laws. Senator McCain and I filed an amicus brief in this lawsuit, which was brought by Representatives Shays and Meehan. The court's ruling in our favor sends a powerful message to the FEC that it does not have the power to rewrite statutes passed by Congress."

"The court agreed with us that many of the regulations that the FEC put in place after McCain/Feingold passed in 2002 were contrary to the intent of the law. It is now up to the FEC to redo these rules and follow congressional intent."

The FEC voted to appeal some, but not all, of the District Court's decision. It did not appeal the internet related part. See, FEC release of October 29, 2004.

A group named Online Coalition has written a letter to the FEC regarding regulation of internet communications. The letter states that "we ask that you grant blogs and online publications the same consideration and protection as broadcast media, newspapers, or periodicals by clearly including them under the Federal Election Commission’s ``media exemption´´ rule."

Second, it states that "In order to ensure that there are sufficient measures taken, we also request that the FEC promulgate a rule exempting unpaid political activity on the Internet from regulation, thereby guaranteeing every American’s right to speak freely and participate in our democratic process.

And third, it states that "we ask that you clarify the rules and definitions related to ``coordinated activity´´ to protect bloggers and journalists from running afoul of Commission rules regarding the republication of campaign materials."

The Online Coalition also invites others to digitally sign the letter. As of the night of March 21, there were 3085 signatures.

Disclosure. Tech Law Journal is published on the web. The TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is published by e-mail, and then on the web. TLJ publishes information about Senators, Representatives, and Presidents, all of whom have run in elections for federal office, and most of whom intend to run in elections for federal office in the future. The FECA regulates the disclosures of, and places limitations upon, expenditures "for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office". The FECA defines expenditure to include "anything of value", but to exclude "any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication". This enumeration of exempted media includes neither of the media used by TLJ -- the web and e-mail. Similarly, the FECA regulates certain "public communication"s, but does not state what internet communications, if any, are "public communication"s. The FEC's pertinent regulations add complexity, but not clarity. Hence, how the FEC proceeds in this matter, and in other internet related matters, may affect TLJ. Readers may wish to take this into consideration in assessing the reliability or objectivity of any TLJ story on these matters.

3/21. The Supreme Court denied certiorari, without opinion, in Chamberlain Group v. Skylink, a case involving the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and interoperability of after market products. See, Order List [21 pages in PDF] at page 9. This lets stand the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir).

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion [46 pages in MS Word] on August 31, 2004. In this case, the product is portable radio frequency transmitting devices that activate garage door openers (GDO). Chamberlain asserted that Skylink, by selling GDOs that interoperate with its equipment, is trafficking in devices that circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. The District Court rejected Chamberlain's claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The opinion of the Federal Circuit stands.

See, story titled "Federal Circuit Rejects Anti-Circumvention Claim in Garage Door Opener Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 971, September 7, 2004.

This case is Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 04-997, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals case is App. Ct. No. 04-1118. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

3/11. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [6 pages in PDF] in Skylink Technologies v. Assurance Company of America, a case regarding an insurer's duty to defend and indemnify its insured in a dispute involving the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and interoperability of after market products. The Appeals Court held that an insurer has no duty to defend its insured under an advertising injury clause that covers claims of "Infringement of copyright" when its insured is sued for violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

The plaintiff in the underlying action is Chamberlain Group, Inc. It makes equipment for automatically opening garage doors. It makes electronically powered devices that raise and lower garage doors, the attached receivers that activate the device that raises or lowers the door, and the portable transmitters that signal the garage unit to open or close the door. It has sought to prevent Skylink Technologies, Inc. from selling garage door opener (GDO) transmitters that interoperate with its systems, by asserting that Skylink has violated the DMCA by selling devices that circumvent a technology measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work -- namely, software in the garage unit that opens and closes doors.

Chamberlain filed complaints in both the U.S. District Court, and in Canadian court, against Skylink, alleging that Skylink's advertisements are false or misleading because Skylink's transmitters are not actually compatible with Chamberlain’s rolling code technology, as claimed on the packaging of the Skylink products. Chamberlain also alleged violation of the DMCA.

Skylink purchased insurance policies from Assurance that included coverage for "advertising injury", which the policies defined as follows:

   "A) Oral or written publication of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, products or services;
   B) Oral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy;
   C) Misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business; or
   D) Infringement of copyright, title or slogan."

The District Court granted summary judgment to Assurance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that an allegation of false comparison or products is not an allegation of libel or slander.

The Appeals Court also held that the DMCA claim does not fall within the "Infringement of copyright" clause in the policy. It only briefly explained its conclusion on this point. And, it was not clear.

The Appeals Court did not state the violation of the anti-circumvention provision is not copyright infringement. Rather, it wrote that "the real harm Chamberlain alleges results from the fact that the Skylink transmitter and keypad circumvent the rolling code technology, not from the way the products are packaged. Again, Chamberlain does not object to Skylink's marketing of its products except to the extent that they claim to use the rolling code technology. It is that failure to use the technology, not the advertisement, that caused the alleged injury."

This case is Skylink Technologies, Inc. v. Assurance Company of America, App. Ct. No. 04-2005, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, D.C. No. 03 C 1735, Magistrate Judge Michael Mason presiding.

The House will not meet. It will return from its Spring recess at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, April 5. See, House calendar.

The Senate will not meet. It will return from its Spring recess at 2:00 PM on Monday, April 4. See, Senate calendar.

CANCELLED. 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) and the Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Association (SBCA) will host an event titled "Satellite Media Law Forum". Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein will speak at 9:00 AM. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the Organization of American States' (OAS) Inter-American Telecommunication Commission's (CITEL) Permanent Consultative Committee II meeting in Guatemala to be held in April 2005. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 30, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 250, at Pages 78515-78516. For more information, including the location, contact Cecily Holiday at holidaycc@state.gov or Anne Jillson at jillsonad@state.gov. Location: undisclosed.

4:00 - 5:45 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled "The Future of the World Trade Organization". The speakers will be Jagdish Bhagwati (Columbia University), John Jackson (Georgetown University Law School), Gary Horlick (Wilmer Cutler & Pickering), Jay Smith (George Washington University), Hugo Paemen (Hogan & Hartson), Robert Lawrence (Harvard University). See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Federal Information Systems Security Educators' Association (FISSEA) titled "FISSEA Conference: Target Training in 2005: Computer Security Awareness, Training, and Education". See, NIST notice and registration page. Location: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD.

Day one of a four day convention and expo hosted by the Access Intelligence (formerly named PBI Media) titled "Satellite 2005". See, notice. Location: Washington Convention Center.

6:00 - 8:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a happy hour. For more information, contact Megan Anne Stull at 202 303-1189 or mstull at willkie dot com, or Jason Friedrich at 202 354-1340 or jason dot friedrich at dbr dot com. Location: Finemondo Restaurant, 1319 F St., NW.

12:00 NOON. The Center for Digital Democracy will hold news conference on FCC v. Brand X. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on March 29, 2005. For more information, contact Jeff Chester at 202 986-2220. Location: Murrow Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "The FCC's Fiber Unbundling Rules - Is the TRO Working?". For more information, contact Jason Friedrich at 202 354-1340 or jason dot friedrich at dbr dot com. Location: Drinker Biddle & Reath, 1500 K St., NW.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Federal Information Systems Security Educators' Association (FISSEA) titled "FISSEA Conference: Target Training in 2005: Computer Security Awareness, Training, and Education". See, NIST notice and registration page. Location: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD.

Day two of a four day convention and expo hosted by the Access Intelligence (formerly named PBI Media) titled "Satellite 2005". See, notice. Location: Washington Convention Center.

10:00 AM. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will hold a meeting. It will consider FEC regulation of internet speech. The FEC's notice of this meeting in the Federal Register states only that the items to be discussed include "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Internet: Definitions of ``Public Communication´´ and ``Generic Campaign Activity,´´ and Disclaimers. Routine Administrative Matters. See, Federal Register, March 18, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 52, at Page 13197. Press contact: Robert Biersack at 202 694-1220. Location: FEC, 9th Floor, 999 E St. NW.

10:00 AM - 1:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion and luncheon titled "The Future of Telecom Deregulation: Two Alternate Visions". The panel will be comprised of Robert Hahn (AEI Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies), Gregory Rosston (Stanford University, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research), Jonathan Nuechterlein (Wilmer Cutler, and former FCC Deputy General Counsel), Philip Weiser (University of Colorado), Thomas Hazlett (Manhattan Institute), John Mayo (Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business), Scott Wallsten (AEI Brookings), Robert Litan (AEI Brookings). Nuechterlein, Weiser and Hazlett will present papers. David Dorman, Ch/CEO of AT&T, will be the luncheon speaker. See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 22, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 34, at Page 8568. Location: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Conference Center Rooms A & B, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

4:00 PM. Sara Stadler (Emory University School of Law) will present a draft paper titled "How Copyright is Like a Mobius Strip". See, notice of event. (Stadler is also known as Nelson.) This event is part of the Spring 2005 Intellectual Property Workshop Series sponsored by the Dean Dinwoodey Center for Intellectual Property Studies at the George Washington University Law School (GWULS). For more information, contact Robert Brauneis at 202 994-6138 or rbraun at law dot gwu dot edu. The event is free and open to the public. Location: GWULS, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 716 20th St., NW.

Day three of a four day convention and expo hosted by the Access Intelligence (formerly named PBI Media) titled "Satellite 2005". See, notice. Location: Washington Convention Center.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit initial comments to the Copyright Office (CO) in response to its notice of inquiry (NOI) regarding orphan works -- copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or impossible to locate. The CO stated in a notice in the Federal Register that it seeks public comments on "whether there are compelling concerns raised by orphan works that merit a legislative, regulatory or other solution, and what type of solution could effectively address these concerns without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right holders." See, Federal Register, January 26, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 16, at Pages 3739 - 3743.

Day four of a four day convention and expo hosted by the Access Intelligence (formerly named PBI Media) titled "Satellite 2005". See, notice. Location: Washington Convention Center.

Easter.

RESCHEDULED FROM MARCH 16. 12:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a luncheon. The speaker will be Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Michael Copps. See, registration form [PDF]. The deadline for reservations and cancellations is March 24 at 5:00 PM. Prices range from $35 to $65. Location: J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Lower Level.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in MGM v. Grokster. See, March calendar [PDF].

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the Brand X case. See, March calendar [PDF].

10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 1, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 39, at Page 9951. Location: FCC, Room TW-305, 445 12th St., SW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the progress made by the states in implementing E911 solutions for multi-line telephone systems (MLTSs). See, notice in the Federal Register, January 13, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 9, at Pages 2405 - 2406.

3/18. Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and five others, wrote a letter [37 pages in PDF] to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Deborah Majoras regarding regulation of companies that aggregate and sell information on individuals.

Majoras testified before the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection's hearing titled "Protecting Consumer's Data: Policy Issues Raised by Choice Point". See, story titled "House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Data Aggregators" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,096, March 16, 2005.

Rotenberg wrote that "Your apparent alignment with the businesses that are now the target of Congressional investigation is deeply distressing."

Rotenberg asserted that FTC "may itself be responsible for growing problem of identity theft and the failure to establish adequate regulations of data brokers such as Choicepoint. In the late 1990s, Choicepoint and others formed a weak self-regulatory system, known as the Individual Reference Services Group (IRSG) Principles, that the FTC approved. That system allowed companies such as Choicepoint to sell Social Security Numbers and other information to whomever they deemed ``qualified.´´ In retrospect, we now know that the category of ``qualified´´ was so broad as to include criminals."

He asserted that "Your testimony also reflected that the FTC views the Choicepoint matter primarily as a security problem, rather than as a privacy problem. Even if Choicepoint's sale of personal information were done securely, that would not solve the problem. Choicepoint and other data brokers act as consumer reporting agencies but sell personal information to law enforcement and a variety of other businesses outside the protections of the" Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The letter itself is four pages. The signatories also attached copies of recent testimony by some of the signatories. See also, story titled "Senate Banking Committee Holds Hearing on Data Security" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,093, March 11, 2005.

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 information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.