FARNET's Washington Update

[Jeff Ogden]

>X-Sender: heather@198.60.132.2
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:49:57 -0500
>To: legup@farnet.org
>From: Heather Boyles <heather@farnet.org>
>Subject: FARNET's Washington Update
>
>FARNET's Washington Update --- December 22, 1996
>
>IN THIS ISSUE:
>
>o  Timeline for Internet indecency case at the Supreme Court
>
>o  WIPO conference dealing with copyright and GII issues ends this week
>
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^
>
>TIMELINE FOR INTERNET INDECENCY CASE AT THE SUPREME COURT
>
>As you likely already have heard, the Communications Decency Act will go to
>the Supreme Court.  The Court decided on December 6 that it would hear both
>the ACLU and the American Library Association cases that were brought
>against the CDA.  The Court will not hear the American Reporter case that
>was brought against the CDA by Joe Shea.  While the ACLU and ALA cases were
>combined in their appearance before a three-judge panel in Philadelphia,
>Shea declined to join with the other two cases and was heard by a similar
>court panel in New York.  Both the Philadelphia and New York trials
>resulted in victories for the plaintiffs, but it is generally thought that
>the decision in the New York case was somewhat weaker in striking down the
>CDA than the Philadelphia case.  For example, the court in the Shea case
>did not find the word "indecent" constitutionally vague.
>
>The Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the CDA case (officially
>Reno v. ACLU) sometime in April.  That could put the release of a decision
>sometime in May or June.
>
>The prognosticators are already hard at work trying to determine what this
>court will have to say about the constitutionality of the CDA - especially
>after such a stinging defeat for the government in the Philadelphia case.
>The Dept. of Justice in its jurisdictional filings to the court this past
>fall urged the Court to look to the so-called DAETEC (Denver Area
>Educational Telecommunications Consortium) case in which the Supreme Court
>found the term "indecent" not void for vagueness.  On the other hand, the
>plaintiffs will likely argue - as they did before the Philadelphia court -
>that the Internet is not like cable television (the subject of the DAETEC
>case).  The nature of the Internet - whether it should enjoy the first
>amendment rights of print or the more restrictive rights of the broadcast
>medium - was a primary theme of the Philadelphia court's opinion.  It was
>Stuart Dalzell (one of the three judges in the Philadelphia case) who gave
>the opinion that "the Internet deserves the broadest possible protection
>from government-imposed, content-based regulation," at the conclusion of
>his lengthy examination of the differences between various types of media
>and their treatment under the First Amendment.
>
>The other element here is whether a revised version of the CDA might make
>its way through Congress early in the next session.  While one or two
>members made comments following the Philadelphia decision that they might
>try to re-write the language in a narrower, more acceptable way, that now
>seems very unlikely and given the explosiveness of the issue, unwise before
>the Supreme Court hands down some kind of decision on the matter.
>
>
>
>WIPO CONFERENCE DEALING WITH COPYRIGHT AND GII ISSUES ENDS THIS WEEK
>
>This weekend's reports from Geneva tell of much last-minute maneuvering in
>the battle between copyright owners and access providers at the World
>Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) two week meeting that ended
>Friday, Dec. 20.  Delegates from the United States and 160 other countries
>were there to discuss three draft treaties dealing with the protection of
>films, software, recorded music and databases.
>
>As expected, delegates did not reach any agreement on the controversial
>database protection treaty.  The other two treaties, however, had their own
>controversial elements and most dealt with the way in which copyrighted
>works delivered over computer networks would be treated.  Most of the
>maneuvering was, again as expected, similar to the events on Capitol Hill
>last year when the administration introduced its NII Copyright bills in
>both the House and Senate and opponents came out of the woodwork to fight
>the legislation.  Early reports of the final few days of WIPO indicate that
>the administration backed away from its earlier proposals for strict
>liability for on-line providers who pass on copyrighted materials and on
>the issue of 'transitory' copies that are made when one browses the web,
>for example.
>
>The two final treaties, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the Performances and
>Phonograms Treaty must now be ratified by the countries that participated
>in the conference.  In the U.S. the Senate must ratify the treaties.  Some
>opponents have, nevertheless, characterized the U.S. delegation's actions
>at WIPO as attempting an 'end-run' around Congress.  The main complaint is
>that the issues that the administration was pressing in Geneva, had not yet
>had full hearings and debate in Congress.
>
>The treaties and other documents can be found at:
>http://www.wipo.org/eng/diplconf/distrib/index.htm
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Written from FARNET's Washington office, "FARNET's Washington Update" is a
>service to FARNET members and other interested subscribers.  We gratefully
>acknowledge EDUCOM's NTTF and the Coalition for Networked Information for
>additional support.  If you would like more information about the Update or
>would like to offer comments or suggestions, please contact Heather Boyles
>at heather@farnet.org
>


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -