DRM legislation is needed to reset the balance between consumers and content owners, some witnesses told U.K. lawmakers last week. Others, however, said existing laws are adequate, and copyright protection solutions should be left to market forces. The All Party Internet Group (APIG) is looking at whether and how DRM can protect artists, royalty distribution companies and consumers. It received a record 92 written submissions and held a 3-hour hearing last Thurs. APIG’s DRM report is due in the spring.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may soon implement "Phase 4", CBP's next step in enforcing mandatory advance electronic information requirements for truck carriers, as required by the Trade Act of 2002.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has updated its set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) wood packaging material (WPM) regulations that took effect September 16, 2005.
Though it’s “way too premature to talk about any legal issues,” an international newspaper lobby has in its sights news aggregators such as Google News for excerpting online articles without paying, a spokesman told us. The Paris- based World Assn. of Newspapers (WAN) convened a task force of international and European publishers, editors and other executives to devise standards for its members to press aggregators for compensation. Google News and others typically carry a headline and one or 2 lines of text from an online article, and sometimes a photo from that article or separate news service. Such practices are “using newspapers’ own stories to compete with them,” the WAN spokesman said.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has posted to its Web site information on its containerized cargo sealing policy, which took effect on August 8, 2005.
Congress will examine China’s extensive Internet content-filtering regime at Feb. events. A Wed. Congressional Human Rights Caucus briefing and a Feb. 15 hearing by the House International Relations subcommittee will feature human rights groups’ concerns about freedom of expression and censorship, American high-tech behemoths’ investments in the lucrative Chinese market and concessions allegedly to gain capitalists toeholds in the Communist state.
The FCC issued a decision on some of the technical issues raised in June in a rulemaking tied to the advanced wireless services (AWS) auction. the auction, expected to take place this summer, could raises in billions of dollars for the Treasury. The FCC sought guidance on issues such as reserve bid prices that guarantee govt. agencies will be fully compensated as they exit the spectrum put up for sale, and on options for preserving tribal land bidding credits. The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act creating the trust fund for compensating agencies required the FCC to make changes proposed in the rulemaking. A few industry players, notably Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile, had provided some advice for how the FCC should proceed in an otherwise quiet docket. Sources said there saw no major surprises in the order.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has posted a notice announcing that it will be holding its second Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) Enrollment Seminar for the Mexican and Canadian Highway Carrier and Manufacturing sectors of C-TPAT in San Diego, California on February 14 - 16, 2006.
State lawmakers are starting 2006 with a slew of bills on telecom deregulation and taxes, privacy, carphone safety, 911, telemarketing, video franchising and wireless issues.
Washington’s highest state court ruled that underground fiber laid along a railroad right-of-way in Yakima by Level 3 Communications wasn’t allowed under the railroad’s easement and constituted trespassing. Case 75982-1 dated back to 1999, when Level 3 buried fiber along a Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line. The owner of the property the rail line ran though, Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, said the fiber cable was outside the scope of the railroad’s easement and Level 3 should have negotiated with the landowner for permission. The owners sued in 2000 when Level 3 balked. Level 3 argued the current owners didn’t have standing to sue because they didn’t get an interest in the right of way when the land was transferred from previous owners, and the fiber was covered by a clause that allowed uses incidental to transportation purposes. Lower state courts upheld Level 3, but the Wash. Supreme Court reversed, ruling the current owner did get a legal interest in the railroad right of way when it acquired the land, so it had standing. It also said fiber went beyond incidental use as defined in the easement agreement, and Level 3 should have negotiated a separate easement or filed an eminent domain case before laying its fiber.