A broad group of 29 executives at high-tech companies and public interest groups sent all members of Congress a letter asking for their support in opening broadcast “white spaces” for use in offering wireless broadband. Signers included companies like Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Intel, and public interest groups from the New America Foundation to the Consumer Federation of America. Supporters said they wanted to make clear to Congress before their upcoming recess the extent of support for opening white spaces.

A broad group of 29 executives at high-tech companies and public interest groups sent all members of Congress a letter asking for their support in opening broadcast “white spaces” for use in offering wireless broadband. Signers included companies like Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Intel, and public interest groups from the New America Foundation to the Consumer Federation of America. Supporters said they wanted to make clear to Congress before their upcoming recess the extent of support for opening white spaces.

A broad group of 29 executives at high-tech companies and public interest groups sent all members of Congress a letter asking for their support in opening broadcast “white spaces” for use in offering wireless broadband. Signers included companies like Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Intel, and public interest groups from the New America Foundation to the Consumer Federation of America. Supporters said they wanted to make clear to Congress before their upcoming recess the extent of support for opening white spaces.

House E-Waste Working Group members want to introduce a bill this year but are reluctant to impose a solution, according to Hill sources. Ending years of discord between TV and computer makers, the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) recently unveiled a compromise that would let TV makers levy a point-of-sale fee to address “legacy” waste, and computer makers to embrace producer responsibility. “The goal is to get all of the stakeholders on board with a proposal before we introduce legislation,” said an aide to Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., a member of the e-waste group.

House E-Waste Working Group members want to introduce a bill this year but are reluctant to impose a solution, according to Hill sources. Ending years of discord between TV and computer makers, the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) recently unveiled a compromise that would let TV makers levy a point-of-sale fee to address “legacy” waste, and computer makers to embrace producer responsibility. “The goal is to get all of the stakeholders on board with a proposal before we introduce legislation,” said an aide to Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., a member of the e-waste group.

Viacom has made a convincing copyright infringement case against YouTube in court filings, Stanford Group analyst Paul Gallant wrote. Media coverage has focused on the degree to which the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may guard Google’s YouTube from indirect infringement claims, ignoring the fact that Viacom raised compelling direct infringement claims, he said: “DMCA’s ’safe harbor’ provision only protects Google against an indirect/contributory infringement claim. It does not protect against a direct infringement claim.” Google likely will invoke “fair use” to defend itself against these charges, which will not be easy, he said: “On the one hand, most uses of Viacom material were less than the entire work, as YouTube limits videos to 10 minutes in length.” In contrast, Google clearly operates YouTube as a commercial service; Viacom will try to show how Google has hampered its ability to profit on its videos online, Gallant said. A Viacom win would open the door to other content owner suits, he said: “While such suits could be filed now, they may hold off pending the District Court ruling, which is likely in early 2008.”

Viacom has made a convincing copyright infringement case against YouTube in court filings, Stanford Group analyst Paul Gallant wrote. Media coverage has focused on the degree to which the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may guard Google’s YouTube from indirect infringement claims, ignoring the fact that Viacom raised compelling direct infringement claims, he said: “DMCA’s ’safe harbor’ provision only protects Google against an indirect/contributory infringement claim. It does not protect against a direct infringement claim.” Google likely will invoke “fair use” to defend itself against these charges, which will not be easy, he said: “On the one hand, most uses of Viacom material were less than the entire work, as YouTube limits videos to 10 minutes in length.” In contrast, Google clearly operates YouTube as a commercial service; Viacom will try to show how Google has hampered its ability to profit on its videos online, Gallant said. A Viacom win would open the door to other content owner suits, he said: “While such suits could be filed now, they may hold off pending the District Court ruling, which is likely in early 2008.”

A top MPAA priority is more U.S. cooperation with foreign govts. on Internet piracy, “the real dagger at the heart” of the movie industry, Chmn. Dan Glickman told the Senate Finance Committee at a Tues. trade hearing. But after his declaration, Glickman barely touched on the topic in or after his prepared testimony. Glickman sought the international cooperation in responding to Chmn. Baucus’s (D- Mont.) request for witnesses to offer 3 recommendations for govt. trade action. The U.S. free trade agreement with S. Korea is a model for working with other nations, Glickman’s prepared remarks said. It raises the bar from previous FTAs for IPR protection, requiring S. Korea to pass an anticamcording law and using one of 2 “side letters” to discuss online enforcement, Glickman said. Camcorded films often are uploaded or burned for street distribution before licensed DVDs hit the market. Glickman is “disappointed” that Russia hasn’t done its duty under a side letter accompanying its trade agreement with the U.S., Glickman said, echoing recent International Intellectual Property Alliance complaints that Russia missed deadlines in the pact and failed to act against infringing websites (WID June 5 p5). Protecting IPR is “foundational” for Russian accession to the WTO, Glickman said, crediting that country with allowing market access to MPAA members’ films, unlike China. He found sympathy from Sen. Bunning (R-Ky.), who said the U.S. will have more power over Russia if it fights WTO accession: “We still have the bag that they want.” The U.S. should enforce existing laws and accords before eyeing trade system reforms, Glickman said: “Negotiation, agreements and even favorable WTO decisions work only if they are enforced.” Congress should “support a free and open trade agenda,” holding other countries to a high IPR standard, Glickman said, stressing the importance of overseas resources and training programs. “USTR is doing a good job, but needs better resources, in particular in enforcement,” he said: It’s “even more important than statutory changes.” And “nothing gets our trade agenda moving better than Congressional oversight,” he said. Baucus agreed the U.S. has spent “far more time negotiating new deals than enforcing those already in place.” Ranking Member Grassley (R-Ia.) said “we've been careful, perhaps too careful in enforcing our rights.”

The Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) is taking a 2nd look at a porn site’s application for a trademark on its domain -- an early step in what could be a parade of porn applications going to appeal, the site’s attorney told us. FuckingMachines.com was denied a trademark by an examining attorney who said its proposed “fuckingmachines” mark violated what’s known as (2)(a), for the Lanham Act section banning “immoral or scandalous” marks. In an appeal last week to the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, site owner CyberNet Entertainment said the PTO improperly barred a list of words -- namely the 7 dirty words of FCC fame -- “of such magical quality that no legal standards need apply.” But use of “fuck” in a mark “must be examined in the context of the current attitudes of the day,” not times “reeling from Victorian influence,” still strong when (2)(a) was written, the filing said. The proposed mark may not be “polite” in some contexts, but U.S. Appeals Court, Federal Circuit, precedent holds that the mark must be considered in the context of the relevant market -- “erotic entertainment consumers.” In denying the application, the examining attorney said PTO “policy” would be undermined if (2)(a) never could be applied to marks for “pornographic goods and services,” CyberNet’s filing said. It called that a “truly disturbing” decision. “Fucking” is nearly as frequent a Google search term as “living,” and more common than “making love,” even when limited to U.S.-based IP addresses -- showing that U.S. society is “more uncomfortable with love than with fucking,” the filing said. CyberNet challenged the examining attorney’s citation of FCC policy on broadcast indecency, which it said doesn’t apply online, and said even saying “fuck” on broadcast TV has been ruled appropriate in particular contexts when viewers aren’t subject to “ambush.” The “fuckingmachines” dispute is the latest example of rising use of (2)(a) to torpedo ribald trademarks, a trend dating to 2004, CyberNet attorney Marc Randazza said, calling it part of the “hysterical” govt. reaction to the Janet Jackson nipple broadcast at the Super Bowl. Before that, (2)(a) was best known for its citation in revoking the Washington Redskins’ trademark as improper in relation to Native Americans, he said. Now some rejections “defy all logic,” banning marks using “bang” as potentially sexual or “BS” as crude: “The examining attorneys as a group appear to have gotten a lot more censorial.” But Randazza conceded that the examining attorney handling the CyberNet application made reasonable contentions, and the mark would have raised eyebrows even before the Jackson episode. Rejections of porn trademarks as “generic” aren’t common, he added. Marks deemed “descriptive” can be approved with “evidence of acquired distinctiveness,” such as the universal recognition of the American Airlines brand, Randazza said.

Yahoo stockholders Tues. voted down proposals to oppose Internet censorship and to set up a corporate board committee on human rights, despite pleas by Amnesty International and other advocates. Other companies including Google have rejected similar policy proposals.