6/2. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) hosted a panel discussion titled "The Role of Music Licensing in the Digital Age" on Capitol Hill.  The speakers were Michael Petricone (Consumer Electronics Association), Mitch Glazier (Recording Industry Association of America), Christian Castle, and Lee Knife (Digital Media Association). Patrick Ross (PFF) moderated. The audience included Congressional staffers and many of the senior attorneys from the Copyright Office (CO).

Much of the discussion focused on satellite broadcasting, the lawsuit brought last month by the members of the RIAA against XM Satellite Radio, and pending bills known as the Perform Act.

See also, related stories in this issue titled "Summary of the Sen. Feinstein's Perform Act" and "Summary of the RIAA Lawsuit Against XM Satellite Radio".

The RIAA's Glazier argued that satellite radio is not merely a broadcast service that performs music, like traditional terrestrial radio. He argued that it also enables users to substitute the service for purchases of music. He argued that it is a digital music distribution technology. In short, while satellite radio now pays a statutory performance license under Section 114 of the Copyright Act, it must also pay to license the distribution of copyrighted music, as do Apple's iTunes and other distribution services.

He also argued generally that the Copyright Act should be harmonized to provide that all digital music distribution technologies are treated in a technology neutral manner.

The panel included no one from XM. However, the CEA's Petricone argued the case of satellite services companies. He argued that satellite is like radio, and not like iTunes. He argued that satellite services enable subscribers to time shift. He said that subscribers can use the service to save recordings, but emphasized that these subscribers lose these recordings when they stop subscribing.

He also argued that creators are being compensated by satellite companies pursuant to the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

In short, he said that satellite companies perform music, and do not distribute music. And, since they pay performance fees and AHRA fees, they are within the law.

Most of the discussion was carried on by Glazier and Perticone. In addition, Knife, who spoke on behalf of the DiMA, said that "we largely support" the Perform Act. He said that it will level the playing field for different technologies, and will also deal with services that are a substitute for sales.

Castle made many points. He said that it is the songwriters who are being hurt the most by file sharing and other leakage. He also said that the major music labels are only a part of the music industry.

He compared the current lawsuit against XM to the lawsuit against MyMP3.com. (On January 21, 2000, five recording companies filed a complaint [10 pages in PDF] in the District Court. The Court granted the plaintiffs' partial summary judgment on April 28, 2000. It issued its opinion [PDF] on May 4, 2000. This opinion is also reported at 92 F. Supp. 2d 349.)

Castle also said that XM's Lee Abrams should be made Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Glazier and Petricone engaged in a frank, spirited, and confrontational, but good natured, debate throughout the program.

Petricone argued that the music industry wants to single out a new service for punishment. Glazier argued satellite companies who pay performance but not distribution fees are like a restaurant owner who will pay rent, but not for food.

Petricone argued that the music companies are already "getting compensated very well" by satellite companies via performance and AHRA fees. Glazier argued that the AHRA was not written to deal with satellite radio. It merely dealt with equipment manufacturers and serial copying technologies. Petricone argued that it is broader than that, addresses satellite radio, and is working as intended by the Congress.

Glazier argued that the AHRA only provides for miniscule royalties. Petricone argued that the royalties will grow over time. The CO's Mary Beth Peters, a member of the audience who was much amused by the whole exchange, interjected, "It's capped."

Petricone said the RIAA wants to impose "technology mandates on these products". Glazier denied this.

Petricone said "Your business is an oligopoly and you are trying to extract maximum rents." Glazier asked Petricone if satellite radio is a duopoly.

Petricone said that since John Philip Souza first complained about player pianos, the music industry has been running to the Congress to complain about the dire threat to the music industry posed by every new technology. Petricone argued that the music industry has been wrong.

He also argued that surveys show that satellite radio subscribers buy more CDs and go to more concerts. They learn about new music through satellite radio. He said to Glazier that "Our numbers show that those subscribers are your best customers. And, you know, to the extent that you are saying that these are sales displacement ... I would love to see some proof before we run around imposing technology mandates ..."

Glazier said that "You have to let people who have exclusive rights run their own businesses, make their own mistakes."

Glazier added, "I have a terrific idea. We know that technology buyers usually go out and buy even more technology. So, we ought to have a mandated government licensing system, that says that the government will set the price for every consumer electronics device that comes out. And, we will only allow people to pay what is fair and equitable according to what the government thinks for that particular device. And don't worry, because consumers love them so much that they are going to go out and buy even more. Because it is really great for your business, and you just don't know it. I mean, it is so ridiculous to sit there and say to creators of products in business that they just don't know what is good for them, and to protect their rights, they are just idiots."

6/2. On April 25, 2006, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) introduced S 2644, the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006".

The bill's title produces the acronym of PEARFRHIM, which is vaguely similar to PERFORM. Hence, Sen. Feinstein has also named this bill the "Perform Act of 2006".

On May 11, 2006, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) and Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA) introduced HR 5361, a similar, but not identical, bill in the House, also named the Perform Act. There is also language in the large telecom reform bill sponsored by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) that addresses this topic.

Sen. Feinstein's bill would amend 17 U.S.C. § 112, regarding ephemeral recordings, and 17 U.S.C. § 114, regarding exclusive rights in sound recordings. It addresses content protection, and the collection of statutory licenses under Section 114.

Sen. Feinstein (at right) stated on April 25 that this legislation is needed because there are now new technologies for "music radio programs provided over the Internet, cable, and satellites", yet the existing intellectual property laws do not provide for the same payments in all media. She said that there is now a problem of "outdated music licensing laws". See, Congressional Record, April 25, 2006, at Pages S3509-S3510.

She said that "as these new business models and technologies are developed we must ensure that the artists and musicians who create and perform the music continue to be fairly compensated for their works. Unfortunately, some of the new innovations have been used to supplant music sales and avoid fair compensation to the songwriters and performers."

Sen. Feinstein continued that "a radio service simply allowed music to be performed and listened to by an audience. However, many new services using the new digital transmissions and new technological devices have allowed consumers to also record, manipulate, and collect individual music play-lists off their radio-like services".

She added that "The government granted a compulsory license for radio-like services by Internet, cable, and satellite providers in order to encourage competition and new products. However, as new innovations alter their services from a performance to a distribution the law must respond."

In addition, the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held a hearing April 26, 2006, titled "Parity, Platforms, and Protection: The Future of the Music Industry in the Digital Radio Revolution". See, prepared statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and prepared statement of Sen. Feinstein. For hyperlinks to the prepared testimony of witnesses, see the SJC's web page for this hearing.

Sen. Leahy wrote in his statement that "The statutory license in Section 114 is complicated. Nobody would deny that. Maybe it is too complicated, and maybe it is outdated. Maybe we in Congress should take a new approach to this whole situation. Congress has legislated in a piecemeal fashion, trying to work reasonable and effective changes to the licensing scheme when new technologies have changed the music marketplace. Maybe it is time for all of us, both those of us up here on the dais and those of you at the witness table, to step back and try to consider music licensing from its first principles. Maybe we should primarily focus not on the technologies that are delivering music today, but on the rights at stake."

Rep. Berman (at left) issued a release at the time of the introduction of his bill. It states that "Cable, satellite, and Internet radio services are granted a compulsory license to broadcast (perform) music as long as they pay the statutorily defined fee (or another negotiated rate) and abide by the terms and conditions of the government license. However, the terms of the license are different. This bill is designed to create parity among the technologies so they may compete on the same playing field to provide consumers their choice of music, anytime, in any place, in any format." (Parentheses in original.)

Rep. Berman's release adds that "Certain features of the new devices bypass the marketplace by allowing consumers to turn broadcasts into downloads, creating an unlicensed music library without adequately paying the artist." He stated that "To preserve the legitimate music marketplace, we must reserve downloading capability for those services that appropriately pay for it."

Exclusive Rights, Limitations, and Fees. 17 U.S.C. § 106, titled "Exclusive rights in copyrighted works", provides that "the owner of copyright ... has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Then, Sections 112 and 114 provide limitations upon the exclusive rights of Section 106 that are relevant to the Perform Act, and debates over music licensing.

17 U.S.C. § 112 is titled "Limitations on exclusive rights: Ephemeral recordings".

17 U.S.C. § 114, titled "Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings", provides many limitations to the exclusive rights provided by Section 106. It exempts certain public performances of sound recordings by radio broadcasters. It also provides for a collection of statutory licenses for subscription radio satellite services, interactive services, and cable services.

Sen. Feinstein's bill deletes Subsection 114(f)(1), which pertains to "determining reasonable terms and rates of royalty payments for subscription transmissions by preexisting subscription services and transmissions by preexisting satellite digital audio radio services".

The bill also makes numerous other changes. Sen. Feinstein summed up their effect. First, "all companies covered by the government license created in Section 114 would be required to pay a fair market value for use of music libraries rather than having different rate standards apply based on what medium is being used to transmit the music". Second, "if a company wants to change its service from a performance to a distribution then they no longer are covered by the government license and must go to the record companies directly to negotiate a licensing agreement through the market."

The bill does not affect the performance of sound recordings by terrestrial radio broadcasters. Sen. Feinstein added that "The only application to broadcasters would be if they were to act as webcasters and simulcast their programs over the Internet, in which case they would be treated the same as all other Internet radio providers."

Content Protection. Sen. Feinstein's bill would add to 17 U.S.C. § 114(d)(2)(A) a new subsection (iv) that provides that certain transmissions that do not take steps to protect content are not subject to statutory licensing. That is, without the statutory license, a service provider would have to negotiate a contract with the music companies for the licensing of their works.

Sen. Feinstein said that her bill would also "establish content protection -- all companies would be required to use reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable means to prevent music theft. In addition, a company may not provide a recording device to a customer that would allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and maintained without paying a reproduction royalty. This does not mean such devices cannot be made or distributed. It simply means that the business must negotiate the payment for the music through the market rather than under the statutory license."

And, she said that "any recording the consumer chooses to do manually will still be allowed".

The current language of the statute provides that "The performance of a sound recording publicly by means of a subscription digital audio transmission not exempt under paragraph (1), an eligible nonsubscription transmission, or a transmission not exempt under paragraph (1) that is made by a preexisting satellite digital audio radio service shall be subject to statutory licensing, in accordance with subsection (f) if ..."

The statute then enumerates three circumstances. Sen. Feinstein's bill would add a fourth, related to content protection: "the transmitting entity takes no affirmative steps to authorize, enable, cause or induce the making of a copy or phonorecord by or for the transmission recipient and uses technology that is reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable to prevent the making of copies or phonorecords embodying the transmission in whole or in part, except for reasonable recording as defined in this subsection".

Sen. Feinstein's bill would also add to 17 U.S.C. § 114(d)(2) the following language that elaborates on the meaning of this new subsection 114(d)(2)(A)(iv). "For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iv), the mere offering of a transmission and accompanying metadata does not in itself authorize, enable, cause, or induce the making of a phonorecord. Nothing shall preclude or prevent a performing rights society or a mechanical rights organization, or any entity owned in whole or in part by, or acting on behalf of, such organizations or entities, from monitoring public performances or other uses of copyrighted works contained in such transmissions. Any such organization or entity shall be granted a license on either a gratuitous basis or for a de minimus fee to cover only the reasonable costs to the licensor of providing the license, and on reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms, to access and retransmit as necessary any content contained in such transmissions protected by content protection or similar technologies, if such licenses are for purposes of carrying out the activities of such organizations or entities in monitoring the public performance or other uses of copyrighted works, and such organizations or entities employ reasonable methods to protect any such content accessed from further distribution."

6/2. On May 16, 2006, members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDNY) against XM Satellite Radio alleging various copyright related claims.

The nine count complaint alleges direct infringement of distribution rights, unauthorized digital phonorecord delivery, direct infringement of reproduction rights, and ephemeral recordings infringement. It also alleges inducement of infringement, and contributory and vicarious infringement. Finally, it alleges state law claims of common law copyright infringement and unfair competition for pre-1972 claims.

The complaint requests declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys fees.

The complaint alleges that XM's services are not like traditional terrestrial broadcast rather. The complaint alleges that XM provides a "digital download subscription service that obliterates the careful limits Congress imposed in Section 114".

The complaint states that "This new service distributes perfect digital copies of Plaintiffs' sound recordings to XM subscribers and allows subscribers to store those copies for unlimited replay for as long as they maintain their XM subscription. XM refers to its new tethered download service as ``XM + MP3,´´ a reference to its combination of XM radio broadcasts with the ability to receive and store permanent digital downloads. The XM + MP3 service thus goes far beyond the traditional radio broadcast licensed in § 114, and effectively provides a digital download service as well. Indeed, far from the ``radio-like´´ service for which XM enjoys a statutory license, XM promises its subscribers that this new service ``delivers new music to you everyday and lets you choose tracks to create your own custom playlists´´ ..."

Count I alleges direct infringement of plaintiffs' distribution right in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(3) and 501.

17 U.S.C. § 106(3) provides that "the owner of copyright ... has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ... to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending".

The complaint states that "distribution of permanent copies of sound recordings to XM + MP3 subscribers, constitutes infringement of Plaintiffs' registered copyrights and the exclusive rights under copyright in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(3). Defendant's limited statutory right to perform publicly Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings does not include the right to distribute those recordings."

Similarly, Count II alleges unauthorized digital phonorecord delivery in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 115 and 501.

Count III alleges direct infringement of plaintiffs' reproduction right in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 501.

17 U.S.C. § 106(1) provides that "the owner of copyright ... has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords".

The complaint states that XM "is making and causing to be made, unauthorized buffered copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings ... Defendant operates the XM + MP3 service so that a subscriber's receipt of XM satellite transmissions simultaneously and automatically, without user interface, creates infringing copies of the sound recordings received in the transmission. Such copies serve no purpose other than to facilitate the users' saving and librarying of massive unlawful collections of Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings."

Count IV alleges ephemeral recordings infringement of plaintiffs' exclusive reproduction right in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1), 112(e), and 501. The complaint states that "the parties' license agreement permits Defendant the limited right to make reproductions consistent with Section 112(e) of the Copyright Act. That section grants to Defendant and others a very limited statutory license to make what is known as an "ephemeral recording" of Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings.

The complaint adds that "To come within the ambit of this very narrow statutory license, such ephemeral recordings may be retained and used only by the radio broadcaster that made them, solely for the purpose of facilitating the broadcaster's transmissions. 17 U.S.C. § 112(e)(l). Notably, an express condition of the statutory license is that "no further phonorecords are reproduced from" each ephemeral copy made by the broadcaster. Id. § 112(e)(l)(A)."

The complaint alleges that XM "is violating, and continues to violate on a daily basis, the narrow scope of its Section 112(e) license. Because Defendant uses its ephemeral recordings not simply to enable the transmission of a radio broadcast, but instead to reproduce further phonorecords and to effect a distribution, Defendant is violating the conditions set forth in Sections 112(e)(l)(A) and (B)."

Counts V, VI, and VII allege that the subscribers of the XM + MP3 service are direct infringers. However, none are named as defendants in this complaint. Rather, these counts allege that XM is liable for its actions with respect to their infringement.

Count V alleges inducement of copyright infringement. The complaint alleges that XM is liable for the infringement of its XM + MP3 subscribers because it is inducing them to create unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted sound recordings.

The complaint states that XM is "aware that Plaintiffs' sound recordings are copyrighted and authorized for purchase through various outlets, including numerous lawfully authorized online digital download services. Indeed, XM + MP3 subscribers who also are customers of the Napster download service can purchase individual songs from Napster directly through their XM + MP3-compatible radios. Defendant is equally aware -- and intends -- that its XM + MP3 subscribers are using the radios' librarying function to create permanent infringing copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings obtained directly from XM. In fact, Defendant actively markets and advertises this capability as one of the radios' most attractive features, thereby actively encouraging its XM + MP3 subscribers to commit copyright infringement."

Count VI alleges contributory copyright infringement. The complaint states that "Defendant is liable as a contributory copyright infringer for the infringing acts of its XM + MP3 subscribers. XM enables, facilitates, and materially contributes to each act of infringement by XM + MP3 subscribers."

Count VII alleges vicarious copyright infringement. The complaint states that "Defendant has both the right and the ability to supervise its subscribers' infringing conduct, and to prevent its XM + MP3 subscribers from infringing Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings."

It adds that XM "at any time it desired, could terminate infringing XM + MP3 subscribers. Moreover, the fact that Defendant has the ability to erase all of a subscriber's recorded songs upon termination of her subscription indicates that Defendant is capable of erasing infringing songs from a subscriber's device at any point, should it choose to do so." And, it alleges that XM "has refused to take any action to prevent the widespread infringement by its XM + MP3 subscribers because Defendant receives a significant financial benefit directly attributable to the infringement by its XM + MP3 subscribers."

Count VIII alleges common law copyright infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings under the law of the state of New York.

Count IX alleges unfair competition as to pre-1972 sound recordings under the law of the state of New York.

This case is Atlantic Recording Corporation, et al. v. XM Satellite Radio, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs are represented by Donald Verrilli, Michael DeSanctis, and other attorneys in the law firm of Jenner & Block. Verrilli also represented the music industry in MGM v. Grokster, the copyright case involving peer to peer systems.

The House will not meet. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will return from its Memorial Day recess. See, 2006 Senate calendar.

9:00 - 11:00 AM. The Office of the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Collection will hold a meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 12, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 92, at Page 27745. Location: Heritage Conference Center, TASC Northrop Grumman, 4803 Stonecroft Boulevard, Chantilly, VA.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Wireless Agents v. Sony Ericsson. This case is App. Ct. No. 2006-1054. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:30 PM. Champ Mitchell, Ch/CEO of Network Solutions (NSI), will speak at an event titled "press lunch". The topic will be the proposed agreement between the ICANN and NSI. For more information, contact Mary Greczyn at 202/371-2997 or mg at ftidc dot com.

2:00 PM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Integra LifeSciences v. Merck. This case is App. Ct. No. 2002-1052. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

Day one of a four day event titled "Colloquium for Information Systems Security Education". See, notice. Location: UMUC Inn and Conference Center, 3501 University Boulevard East, Adelphi, MD.

The filing window opens for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Auction 66. This is the auction of Advance Wireless Services (AWS) licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz (AWS-1) bands. See also, notice in the Federal Register, June 2, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 106, at Pages 32089-32091.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the petition of the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) for a declaratory ruling that the GPSC is not preempted by federal law from regulating rates under 47 U.S.C. § 271 for local switching, high capacity loops and transport, and line sharing. See, FCC notice [PDF]. This is WC Docket No. 06-90.

Deadline to submit initial comments to theFederal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the transfer of licenses associated with the AT&T, BellSouth, and Cingular transaction. This is nominally a license transfer proceeding, but is also in the nature of an antitrust merger review. This proceeding will be governed by "permit but disclose" ex parte communications procedures under Section 1.1206 of the FCC's rules. See, FCC notice [10 pages in PDF] and FCC web page for its AT&T/SBC/Cingular merger review. This proceeding is WC Docket No. 06-74.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding Draft Special Publication 800-38D [23 pages in PDF], titled "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) for Confidentiality and Authentication".

The House will return from its Memorial Day District Work Period. It will meet at 2:00 PM for legislative business. It will consider, under suspension of the rules, HR 5126, the "Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006", and S 193, the "Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005". Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Motionless Keyboard v. Microsoft. This case is App. Ct. No. 2005-1574. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

CANCELLED. 12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a lunch. The featured speaker will be Brian Roberts, Ch/CEO of Comcast Corporation. The other speakers will be Aryeh Bourkoff (UBS Investment Research), Blair Levin (Legg Mason), and Craig Moffett (Sanford Bernstein & Co.) See, notice. Location: South American Room, Capitol Hilton, 1001 16th Street, NW.

1:00 - 3:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee will meet to prepare for ITU Radiocommunication Sector's Special Committee on Regulatory/Procedural Matters that will take place on December 4-8, 2006, in Geneva, Switzerland. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 4, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 86, at Pages 26397-26398. Location: Boeing Company, 1200 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.

2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones meetings without notice. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "How to Conduct Business in the Current Chinese Legal Environment: Myths and Facts". The seminar will address, among other topics, "technology transfer issues, including the Chinese government policy on intellectual property, licensing of intellectual property, structuring of technology transfers and some of the legal and practical measures to help protect licensed intellectual property". The speakers will include Paul Manca (Hogan & Hartson), Grace Fremlin (Foley & Lardner), and Steve Robinson (Hogan & Hartson). The price to attend ranges from $70-$125. For more information, call 202 626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

Day two of a four day event titled "Colloquium for Information Systems Security Education". See, notice. At 10:00 AM, Andy Purdy, acting Director for the National Cyber Security Division, will speak. Location: UMUC Inn and Conference Center, 3501 University Boulevard East, Adelphi, MD.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding creation of broadband channels in the 700 MHz public safety band. The FCC adopted this NPRM on March 17, 2006. See, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Re Public Safety Communications in the 700 MHz Band" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,332, March 20, 2006. The FCC released the text [30 pages in PDF] of this NPRM on March 21, 2006. This NPRM is FCC 06-34 in WT Docket No. 96-86. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 7, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 67, at Pages 17786-17790.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The Republican Whip Notice states that the House will take up HR 5252, the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006" (COPE Act), on June 7, 8 or 9.

8:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Board of Overseers will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 3, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 85, at Page 26052. Location: NIST, Administration Building, Lecture Room A, Gaithersburg, MD.

9:30 AM - 5:30 PM. The Antitrust Modernization Commission will meet to deliberate regarding its report and/or recommendations to the Congress. See, notice in the Federal Register, 24, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 100, Page 29915. Location: Federal Trade Commission, Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Intel v. Commonwealth Scientific, App. Ct. No. 2006-1032, and Microsoft v. Commonwealth Scientific, App. Ct. No. 2006-1040. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Microsoft v. Amado. This case is App. Ct. No. 2005-1531. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

11:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host an event titled "Beyond Censorship: Technologies and Policies to Give Parents Control Over Children’s Media Content". The scheduled speakers include Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, and FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate. See, notice. Location: Kaiser Family Foundation, 1330 G Street, NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section will host a panel discussion titled "Structuring Your License Agreements So You Get Paid And What To Do If You Think You Are Not Receiving The Royalties You Bargained For". The speakers will include Michael Dansky and Barry Sussman (both of the Huron Consulting Group). The price to attend ranges from $15-$25. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

CANCELLED. 12:30 - 2:00 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host a lunch. The speaker will be Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft. See, notice and registration page. Prices vary. For more information, contact Natalie Masri at 202 463-5500 or ncfevents at uschamber dot com.notice. The Chamber also states that "Credentialed members of the media are invited to attend." Register by e-mailing press at uschamber dot com. For more information, call 202 463-5682. Ballmer will not take questions from reporters during the program. Location: Chamber, 1615 H St., NW.

2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Violent and Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents and Protecting Children". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The House Small Business Committee will hold a hearing titled "Contracting the Internet: Does ICANN create a barrier to small business?". See, notice. For more information, contact Dan Horowitz at 202 225-5821 . Location: Room 2360, Rayburn Building.

RESCHEDULED FROM MAY 25. 2:00 PM. The House Science Committee HSC) will meet to mark up several bills, including HR 5356, the "Early Career Research Act of 2006", HR 5357, the "Research for Competitiveness Act of 2006", and HR 5358, the "Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act of 2006". The hearing will be webcast by the HSC. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

TIME? The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Practice Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar. Location?

Day three of a four day event titled "Colloquium for Information Systems Security Education". See, notice. Location: UMUC Inn and Conference Center, 3501 University Boulevard East, Adelphi, MD.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The Republican Whip Notice states that the House will take up HR 5252, the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006" (COPE Act), on June 7, 8 or 9.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB). See, notice in the Federal Register, May 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 104, at Pages 30876-30877. Location: Doubletree Hotel and Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.

10:00 AM. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on several pending nominations, including those of Donald Kohn (to be Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board) and Kathleen Casey to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission). See, notice. Location: Room 538, Dirsksen Building.

POSTPONED. 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will meet to mark up S 2686 [135 pages in PDF], the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The meeting will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

TIME? Day one of a two day hearing held by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission titled "China's Enforcement of IPR; Movement of Pirated Goods into U.S. and their Dangers". Location: __.

MOVED TO JUNE 15. 9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

Day four of a four day event titled "Colloquium for Information Systems Security Education". See, notice. Location: UMUC Inn and Conference Center, 3501 University Boulevard East, Adelphi, MD.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. The Republican Whip Notice states that the House will take up HR 5252, the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006" (COPE Act), on June 7, 8 or 9.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB). See, notice in the Federal Register, May 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 104, at Pages 30876-30877. Location: Doubletree Hotel and Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing titled "Cyber Security Challenges at the Department of Energy". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

TIME? Day two of a two day hearing held by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission titled "China's Enforcement of IPR; Movement of Pirated Goods into U.S. and their Dangers". Location: __.

10:00 AM. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will hold a roundtable meeting on the use of interactive data and Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL). See, SEC release and story titled "SEC to Hold Series of Roundtable Meetings on XBRL" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,328, March 13, 2006. Location: SEC, 100 F St., NE.

TIME? The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Professional Responsibility Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar "Client Creation, Conflicts and Confidentiality in the Administrative Process". Location?

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its draft [122 pages in PDF] of its Federal Information Processing Standard titled "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)". This is FIPS Pub 186-3. See also, notice in the Federal Register, March 13, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 48, at Pages 12678-12679.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) with respect to the exemption from the Buy American Act for the acquisition of commercial information technology. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 12, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 70, at Pages 18694-18695.

Deadline to submit applications to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) for Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Program grants. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 11, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 69, at Pages 18271-18276.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Copyright Office regarding its proposal to amend its rules governing the submission of royalty fees to the Copyright Office to require such payments to be made by electronic funds transfer. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 27, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 81, at Pages 24829-24831.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding Draft Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 186-3 [122 pages in PDF], titled "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)".

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 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.