MPAA, NAB and NCTA asked FCC to stay rules for video descriptions for blind. They said in filing that Commission should stay rules, scheduled to take effect April 1, until U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., ruled on their petition seeking to overturn them. Oral argument in that case is set for Sept. 6, and decision is expected in late 2002 or early 2003. Rules would require major broadcast and cable networks to add video descriptions to 50 hours of prime-time or children’s programming per quarter, starting April 1. In video description, narrator describes action and environmental aspects of program during pauses in dialog, and those descriptions are broadcast over Secondary Audio Programming channel. Hollywood groups said FCC should grant stay because their court case was “likely to succeed on the merits” and because “the Commission clearly lacks statutory authority to adopt video description rules.” Groups said Communications Act empowered FCC to adopt only closed- captioning rules, and video description rules impinged on First Amendment. Groups said if rules went into effect they would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for equipment and programming costs to abide by rules that they said were likely to be overturned by court, and that complying would mean interference with Spanish language audio. American Council of the Blind (ACB) “categorically condemned” entertainment industry trade associations for their filing and asked them to “stop this senseless attack on the need and right of blind people to know what is going on during TV and movie presentations.” ACB said it believed “vast majority” of individual members of those Hollywood trade assns. agreed with ACB. Earlier this week, FCC reminded TV, movie and cable industries of upcoming deadline.
MPAA, NAB and NCTA asked FCC to stay rules for video descriptions for blind. They said in FCC filing that Commission should stay rules, scheduled to take effect April 1, until U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., ruled on their petition seeking to overturn them. Oral argument in that case is set for Sept. 6, and decision is expected in late 2002 or early 2003. Rules would require major broadcast and cable networks to add video descriptions to 50 hours of prime-time or children’s programming per quarter, starting April 1. In video description, narrator describes action and environmental aspects of program during pauses in dialog, and those descriptions are broadcast over Secondary Audio Programming channel. Hollywood groups said FCC should grant stay because their court case was “likely to succeed on the merits” and because “the Commission clearly lacks statutory authority to adopt video description rules.” Groups said Communications Act empowered FCC to adopt only closed- captioning rules, and video description rules impinged on First Amendment. Groups said if rules went into effect they would have to spend thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for equipment and programming costs to abide by rules that they said were likely to be overturned by court, and that complying would mean interference with Spanish language audio. American Council of the Blind (ACB) “categorically condemned” entertainment industry trade associations’ for their filing and asked them to “stop this senseless attack on the need and right of blind people to know what is going on during TV and movie presentations.” ACB said it believed “vast majority” of individual members of those Hollywood trade assns. agree with ACB. Earlier this week, FCC reminded TV, movie and cable industries of upcoming deadline.
Court decision Tues. overturning FCC’s cable-TV station cross-ownership ban (CD Feb 20 p1) could have significant effect on how biennial review process is conducted, FCC Chmn. Powell said Wed. In somewhat unusual action, U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., acted not on any new FCC order but on agency’s decision to retain existing rule, in decision made during biennial review. Telecom Act requires FCC to review existing regulations every 2 years to determine whether they remain necessary.
Gemstar-TV Guide shares rose Thurs. after Goldman, Sachs analyst said that stock may have been oversold on concerns that company might lose battle at International Trade Commission over patents covering its interactive program guides. Gemstar stock rose nearly 8% ($1.38 per share) to $19.30 in late morning trading Thurs. and closed day at $19.22. Stock had fallen in Jan. after another analyst quoted ITC staff attorney as saying in pre-trial brief that Gemstar “should not prevail” in case against EchoStar, Scientific-Atlanta, others. Gemstar has settled differences with DirecTV, which counts among its hardware suppliers Thomson Multimedia, which has seat on Gemstar board. “We believe the market has overstated the importance of this recommendation,” GS report said. “The shares are oversold on the ITC overhang.” ITC has eliminated closing arguments in Gemstar case and is expected to issue decision by March 21. Gemstar filed complaint with ITC seeking to block import of set-top boxes from EchoStar, Pioneer, SA and SCI Systems that it alleged infringed on its IPG patents. SCI is one of EchoStar’s suppliers for Digital Sky Highway (DISH) satellite system.
Consumer watchdog authority in Australia is going to court to challenge Sony’s assertion that modifications of PlayStation regional coding violated country’s copyright law. Group, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), said it also had begun separate investigation into possibly illegal collusion by movie studios in establishing DVD regional coding.
Antitrust litigation is avenue for CLECs seeking more cooperation from ILECs they view as monopolistic, but successful litigation can be elusive, attendees said at pulver.com conference in Washington on antitrust Wed. Washington antitrust attorneys and executives of embattled CLECs discussed in detail how Goldwasser decision -- which states that regulators overseeing Telecom Act generally preempt antitrust litigation -- has limited ability of CLECs to counter alleged monopolistic behavior by ILECs. Discussion intentionally didn’t include any ILEC representatives, since attendees hoped they could pool their resources to find ways to go after ILECs in court on antitrust grounds.
In frank outline of his antitrust views, new Justice Dept. Antitrust Chief Charles James said he didn’t see his job as working to assure large numbers of competitors in particular industries, nor to automatically stop a company from developing market dominance. Speaking at Practising Law Institute conference in Washington, James indicated his views didn’t signal laissez-faire approach, but he believed in analyzing mergers, Sec. 271 applications and other reviews on case-by-case basis taking into account changing industries. James’s comments appeared to warm hearts of business representatives in audience. “I think I'll quote him in filings with the FCC,” one attorney joked.
Unprecedented international cooperation against copyright piracy resulted in what Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft called biggest bust of pirated software to date, announcing Tues. that federal law enforcement officials had executed more than 100 search warrants worldwide in 3 separate actions.
Hackers and free speech advocates took it on chin when courts in 2 decisions Wed. upheld constitutionality of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), whose anticircumvention provision for copy protection had been challenged on ground it infringed on free speech. Meanwhile, Electronic Frontier Foundation petitioned Cal. Superior Court to throw out case against man who published DeCSS descrambling program for DVDs because already widely distributed code couldn’t be considered trade secret.
Satellite Bcstg. & Communications Assn. (SBCA) filed motion Nov. 13 with 4th U.S. Appeals Court, Richmond, Va., for delay in start of FCC must-carry requirements because of pending litigation involving constitutionality of law. SBCA said issue probably wouldn’t be decided before Jan. 1 deadline for implementation of requirements. Appeal said if must-carry requirements took effect before case was resolved, it would violate First Amendment rights of satellite carriers. “The recognition that time is short and that much is at stake was the basis for the satellite carriers’ opposition to a U.S. motion to hold in abeyance the petitions for review,” Assn. said. Constitutional issues at stake could go to Supreme Court, SBCA said. It said it didn’t seek relief from District Court because it would be “impracticable” and “time is of the essence.”