Subscribe to our blog
Policy Blog
Princeton Conference on Creativity & IP Law
Follow @gigibsohnI am in Princeton today at to speak at the [Creativity & IP Law Conference, ]( http://www.princeton.edu/~pumipc/) which is jointly sponsored by the Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies and Microsoft. The conference kicked off last night with a very fun multimedia talk by Larry Lessig about the difference between "Read-Only" and "Read-Write" cultures, and how copyright law fits the first very nicely and the second not so well. Some of his examples of the R-W culture, which for lay people is stuff like mash-ups and user generated video and music, were hysterical. Two of my favorites are ["Brokeback to the Future"]( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfODSPIYwpQ), and [George Bush and Tony Blair lip-synching Endless Love.]( http://www.webmistris.com/endlesslovelyrics.html) Hadn't seen that last one before. Lots of great folks here, including Yocahi Benkler, Jessica Litman, Chris Sprigman and Ed Felten.
The Myth of Internet "Regulation"
Follow @gigibsohnIf I hear that net neutrality is about "regulation of the Internet" one more time, I think I am going to scream. [Yesterday, National Cable and Telecommunications Association head Kyle McSlarrow testified in front of the Senate Commerce Committee that net neutrality is "a fundamentally stark choice of some regulation of the Internet or no regulation of the Internet."](http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3607371) No Kyle - net neutrality is not about regulating the Internet. The networks, applications and services that make up the Internet are unregulated, which is as it should be. Net neutrality is about regulating the on-ramps to the Internet, and, up until about a year ago, the government regulated the on-ramps to our communications system for about 100 years.
A Different Opinion on the Ebay Patent Decision
Follow @gigibsohnYesterday, I said that "[t]his week's [Supreme Court decision in Ebay v. Mercexchange,](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-130&friend=nytimes) which held that a court must look to four equitable factors in determining whether an injunction should issue in a patent case, is unlikely to change" the ability of a patent infringer to avoid an injunction. That the Ebay case was nothing more than a "punt" by the Supreme Court was also the opinion of at least two of the [three patent law professors who joined me on a Federalist Society panel yesterday.]( http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/356) But a friend of PK who is a patent expert begged to differ: "Actually, I think the Supreme Court here accomplished what Congress has been unable to do: It restored to district courts the discretion to deny injunctions for equitable reasons, and reminded the Federal Circuit that it should review district court decisions for an abuse of discretion (thereby obliterating the Federal Circuit's "extraordinary circumstances" rule). It did not categorically disapprove of any of the factors relied on by the eBay district court in denying the injunction (and four justices expressly approved some of them), which suggests that on remand, there will be no injunction." N.B.: The "extraordinary circumstances" rule stated that requests for injunctions should be denied only in an "'unusual' case, under 'exceptional circumstances' and ' 'in rare instances . . . to protect the public interest.' '
Quick Analysis of the Sensenbrenner-Conyers NN Bill
Follow @gigibsohnThanks to our terrific colleague John Windhausen of Telepoly Consulting for this analysis of the [Sensenbrener-Conyers net neutrality bill (H.R. 5417) that was introduced today:](http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/358) • It is a violation of the Clayton antitrust Act for broadband providers to: a. fail to provide access to its broadband network on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to anyone to offer content, applications or services at least equal to the broadband provider's own services (or its affiliate's services); b. refuse to interconnect with other broadband providers; c. to block impair, discriminate or interfere with anyone's services or applications or content; d. to prohibit attachment of equipment that does not harm the network; e. to fail to disclose information about the broadband service. • If a broadband provider prioritizes traffic of a particular type, it must prioritize all traffic of that same type, with no additional fee. • Nothing prevents broadband providers from nondiscriminatorily: a. managing the network to promote security; b. give priority to emergency communications; c. prevent a violation of law or comply with a court order. "Affiliate" is defined to include anyone the broadband owner owns, controls or has a contract with. "Broadband Provider" is anyone "engaged in commerce" who offers a broadband service to the public, with or without a fee. "Broadband Service" is defined as any 2-way service and connects to the Internet at at least 200 kbps.
Moby and Markey on Net Neutrality
Today a Press event was held in support of Net Neutrality. The music artist Moby and Rep. Ed Markey were on hand. Below are some photos...
House Judiciary Bill Preserves Net Neutrality
Follow @artbrodskyIt was quite the news day for Net Neutrality. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and senior Democrat Conyers introduced a real Net Neutrality bill. Here's our news release: Public Knowledge Statement on Sensenbrenner/Conyers legislation Background: House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) and senior Democrat John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) today introduced legislation (HR 5417) to preserve Net Neutrality. This statement is attributed to Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge: "We are very grateful to Chairman Sensenbrenner and to Ranking Member Conyers for introducing this legislation. We look forward to its consideration and support by the full House Judiciary Committee. "The bill squarely addresses the issue of the enormous market power of the telephone and cable companies as the providers of 98 percent of the broadband service in the country. The bill restores the principle of non-discrimination that allowed the Internet to flourish in the dial-up era, making certain that the same freedom and innovation will flourish in the broadband era without burdensome regulation." A copy of the bill is available [here](http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/hr5417-109.pdf) Earlier in the day at the Senate Commerce Committee, Net Neutrality was brought up as the key issue in the bill (S 2686) introduced by Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Senators and witnesses both characterized the issue as the one that could make, or break, the bill.
preservesthe openness of the Internet and the public's access to knowledge, promotes creativity through balanced copyright, and upholds and protects the rights of consumers to use innovative technology lawfully.
| STAY CONNECTED, JOIN OUR MAILING LIST |
