December 2011

The House passed legislation that supporters say would update a 1988 law designed to protect the privacy of consumers' video viewing records to reflect the changing ways people watch movies and television shows. The legislation, passed on a 303-116 vote, would amend the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act, enacted after a newspaper published the video rental records of failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

The proposed changes offered in legislation from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the Judiciary Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet Subcommittee, would allow companies such as Netflix to obtain one-time consent to share consumers' video rental information with others. "This bill ensures the law related to the handling of videotape rental information is updated to reflect the realities of the 21st century," Chairman Goodlatte said. Netflix in particular has been pushing Congress to make changes that would allow its users to connect their Netflix accounts to Facebook so they can share with their Facebook friends what they are watching on the video service. When it announced it was launching the Facebook service in September, Netflix said it was only rolling it out in Canada and Latin America because the video privacy law barred it from introducing the service in the United States. But critics argue that the bill has not been properly vetted and that it would weaken the video privacy law by allowing companies to seek blanket approval from individuals to share their video rental history.

Judiciary Committee Chairmen Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said they intend to use the same method to push online piracy bills through Congress that they used to successfully pass the first major overhaul of the U.S. patent system in six decades.

The two lawmakers, named POLITICO and POLITICO Pro's Technology Policymakers of the Year, said the proliferation of online piracy causes serious risks to public safety and costs American jobs. "Stealing is stealing. I don’t care if it’s on the Internet or you're breaking into a warehouse somewhere — it’s theft," Chairman Leahy said at POLITICO and POLITICO Pro's Policy+Politics event. But the PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and Stop Online Piracy Act in the House are no strangers to controversy. Major Web companies — including Google, Twitter and Facebook — have argued the bills would hamper future innovation online and encourage censorship on the Internet. Chairman Smith said he's working to address these concerns with SOPA before the bill is marked up next week. But his goal to is make "70 percent" of people happy with the final product. "We think we can address these concerns, but not all of these concerns," Chairman Smith said.

When a member of Congress wants to know what the oil industry thinks, a single call to the American Petroleum Institute usually does the trick. Same goes for PhRMA, the umbrella group for pharmaceutical companies. But good luck getting an easy answer from the tech industry: Groups claiming to represent one slice of the sector or another are sprouting so fast that even tech insiders have trouble keeping up.

At least half a dozen trade groups cater specifically to technology companies in Washington. Another half-dozen represent the major telecom firms. And a smattering of coalitions stands for clusters of companies on narrower issues such as patent and immigration reform. “It can be hard keeping them all straight,” a Senate aide said. Now the NetCoalition group is trying to expand its efforts to speak for Internet companies — such as Facebook, Google, Amazon and eBay — on issues unique to the Web: privacy, copyright and online taxes. Yet another coalition is being spearheaded by AT&T and Verizon to help promote smart grid technology. Some Silicon Valley execs privately complain that there is now such a patchwork of associations that they have to hire a consultant just to manage all their memberships and juggle conference calls. They often feel pressured to join coalitions just to keep tabs on what their competitors are doing. The proliferation of lobbying arms reflects the tech industry’s maturing operations in Washington. And unlike, say, Hollywood movie studios, tech companies take a wide range of positions that often are at odds, so no single group can claim to speak for all. The downside of that diversity, though, is real: Diluting the message of a growing sector that has struggled to find its voice inside the Beltway.

More 100,000 Web sites using the .xxx domain hit the Web, heightening debate over the new top-level Internet designation.

The International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers approved .xxx in March, and the domain went up for general sale Dec 6. According to a release from ICM, the registry responsible for overseeing all .xxx sites, the action offers a “responsible alternative” for sites that offer adult content, since it clearly identifies the kind of site that users can expect to see when they click on a link. Debate over the new domain has been fierce, with both the adult industry and anti-porn activists criticizing the move. Anti-porn groups such as Morality in Media have argued that .xxx will make it easier to find Web sites with pornographic material and would “increase, not decrease” access to pornographic Web sites. On the other hand, while some adult entertainment companies have embraced the new designation, others say that the move is anticompetitive.