Category: Mass Communication Law

Communication Law News

Quite a bit of communication/technology law news today…just a few brief thoughts:

Oral Arguments in ATT v. Microsoft

The Supreme Court heard arguments today on whether Microsoft’s sending Vista master disks overseas with some of AT&T’s code constitutes patent infringement. While I’m not quite up to speed on this case, it certainly bears mentioning as the Court may rule on whether or not software may be patented. Currently, computer programs (or more specifically, their source code) are protected by copyright, while in some cases the functions that a program performs have been granted a patent. At one point, Justice Breyer asked, “Since it’s never been held that it’s patentable in this Court, if I were writing something, should I say ‘on the assumption that it’s patentable?’ Since the issue isn’t raised?” The Assistant Solicitor General arguing on Microsoft’s behalf dodged the question, the possibility of a Court statement on the patentability of software could answer some pressing questions.

Edit: Here’s an article from Ars Technica with a good overview of the case background.

RIAA College Crackdown (Full AP story, Local)

The RIAA is targeting higher education with higher numbers of copyright complaints–1000 at some institutions, and 513 so far this school year at UW-Madison. Our school takes a “three pronged” approach to encouraging copyright compliance (in full disclosure, I work for the UW-Madison Division of Information Technology, which is responsible for these guidelines):

The first line of defense is awareness, starting with the “appropriate use” guidelines Internet users on campus are supposed to read and acknowledge when they get their network ID. That’s followed up with e-mails, posters and presentations to keep the issue on students’ radar. DoIT also restricts the capability for music file-sharing by throttling down the bandwidth for UW housing.

This naturally begs the question: do students pay any attention to the e-mails, posters, and presentations? Certainly, part of the University’s duty is to educate students to be law-abiding (if critical) citizens. However, I wonder to what lengths we need to go to… “education” about copyright might become contentious or even political, but promoting critical thinking about a law that a large number of students break is potentially time and resource intensive.

AT&T v. EFF

Read on for more developments in the “state secrets” case against AT&T.

Kids on the Net: Perceptions, Indecency, etc.

For some reason, the topic of kids’ exposure to indecent material on the net has been a hot topic lately.

Stefanie Olsen at CNet, doesn’t have much of an answer to why an old study has suddenly received a good deal of coverage…but this was the first time I heard just how old this research was.

Also on CNet is a good piece on kids perceptions of watching TV and video in the world of YouTube.

Finally, creating a .xxx zone on the internet might be seen as similar to (legally permissible) “red light” districts in the real world. An .xxx TLD would make it a great deal easier to block content that a parent might not want their child to see. This article has a good overview of the pros and cons in this debate: X-rated content may get dedicated home in cyberspace – Network World

Update

Another story from CNet

Database of broadband providers

The FOIA Blog points out that a number of Freedom of Information Act requests (by academics and industry watchdogs) to the FCC to gain access to a directory of U.S. broadband providers have been deined under the exemption for trade secrets/confidential business information.

There have been a few times in previous posts where I have claimed that a large number of Americans have limited choice when it comes to broadband service–these data would put that debate to rest.

As an academic, I’m also sure that this sort of data would be helpful to researchers studying the media effects of the Internet…at least by creating an easy metric by which one could tell how “wired” a particular community is.

For anyone interested, the case to watch here is:
Center for Public Integrity v. Federal Communications Commission (District of Columbia)

YouTube revolution, and on another note, Craigslist classified standards

Wired 14.12: You Tube vs. Boob Tube

Wired has a great article on how YouTube is shaping the future of video…both in moving video entertainment to a more user-created model (which the author calls “monkeyvision” but others have called “semiotic democracy” or “rip/mix culture”), and in terms of how the current media model might try to embrace this new phenomenon. I like this piece because it talks about many of the concepts I’ve been thinking of in a humorous way. The one aspect touched on only briefly is the role of copyright in this new form of creation. Tensions between the rights of both owners of original content and owners of (sometimes “mixed”) content uploaded to YouTube might not survive through deals and the safe harbor clause alone.

Judge rules for Craigslist in discriminatory housing ads case &
Craigslist ruling: Why the EFF is right to be pissed

On a largely unrelated note (except in the loss of control over law on the Internet), a Federal appellate court ruled that Craigslist need not police itself for violations of the Fair Housing Act. Discrimination in classified housing ads holds the esteemed position of being one of the few circumstances when the law leans towards telling a newspaper what it cannot print (Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations). More on this in the future.