Category: Mass Communication Law

China, ‘splain!

Sounds as though the state department is going to ask China explain the seemingly government-led attacks on Google’s servers.

If it is in fact true that China is behind the attacks, it really puts the US government in a difficult position. It has not defended companies like Google from legal attacks (such as demands to remove materials such as hate speech from searches), yet a “black hat hacker” attack on Google’s servers seems somehow different. I’m thinking hard of a case where an American company has come under attack, only to have the executive branch come to the rescue.

Let me know if I’m missing something.

via AFP: US to formally ask China for explanation on cyber-attacks.

Seemingly innocuous request by RIAA

The RIAA has asked the FCC that network neutrality rules not prevent anti-piracy efforts.

“In these comments,” the RIAA wrote, “we encourage the FCC to stay its course and explicitly support, encourage, and endorse ISP efforts to fight piracy.”

At first blush, this appears to be an innocuous request, yet historically ISPs have had little responsibility for monitoring traffic for piracy. It’s only been recently that they have handed over subscriber information without a subpoena request. This will create a great cost for ISPs, with the potential effect of raising prices for consumers.

via RIAA: Net neutrality shouldn’t inhibit antipiracy | Media Maverick – CNET News.

Cost-benefit analysis: net neutrality makes economic sense

Interesting economic analysis coming out in support of Net Neutrality for reasons readers of this blog should be familiar with–it codifies the status quo.

But, as IPI notes, that’s because the Internet in the United States is currently running under de facto net neutrality rules already. The ISPs have voluntarily, albeit reluctantly, refrained from cutting priority access deals with content providers. The FCC’s net neutrality proposals would codify many of these voluntary practices into law.

via Cost-benefit analysis: net neutrality makes economic sense.

A sticky wicket

The Supreme Court may have something to say about cameras in federal courtrooms.

The Supreme Court indicated Monday that it might soon have something significant to say about whether and when video coverage of federal trials is appropriate.

This is a tough problem for the court.  On one hand, cameras might promote transparency.  Yet, once the footage is public and immediate, it will become newsworthy. It’s extremely likely that clips of arguments will find their way into newscasts and onto blogs, and it’s just as likely that things will be misconstrued when taken out of context. Transparency is important, but I can understand if the Court thinks immediate coverage could harm the institution’s legitimacy.

…then again, I’m sure they don’t read my blog.

via Justices Block Plan for Webcasts of Proposition 8 Trial – NYTimes.com.