The passing of Sen. Daniel Inouye on Monday has set off a wave of moves that will likely result in Sen. Dianne Feinstein taking over as chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Inouye, D-Hawaii, had been both Appropriations chairman and president pro tempore of the Senate, positions that will now be occupied by current Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Leahy's ascension on Appropriations opens the door for Feinstein to claim the gavel on Judiciary, which has taken the lead on a number of crucial tech-policy issues including online privacy and intellectual property. Leahy is known as a strong ally of Hollywood and other content creators (he's had cameos in Batman movies), while Feinstein represents the home state of both the movie industry and Silicon Valley, creating hope among tech stakeholders that she might show more balance than her predecessor when it comes to copyright law. Feinstein is also expected to champion gun control measures, if she takes over at Judiciary as expected.
FTC Decision on Google Expected Any Day: The Federal Trade Commission is expected to end its two-year investigation into allegations of anti-competitive behavior by Google in the coming days, according to multiple reports. As we reported yesterday, Google is expected to make a number of voluntary commitments that will allow the search giant to avoid the most serious charges, that it biases its search results in favor of its own products. Google's critics are not happy with the news, and have already started pressing the Justice Department to take up an antitrust investigation if the FTC ends its probe, though that appears to be an unlikely outcome. Google is also reportedly close to reaching a resolution on a separate FTC investigation regarding patents for mobile devices; the search giant is expected to agree to license technologies that are considered part of the industry standard. Lofgren Looks to Slow Down Domain Seizures: Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., sat down recently with yours truly to discuss her opposition to the ongoing domain name seizures by the Justice Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which Lofgren believes may be in violation of the Constitution. Lofgren is one of the few members of Congress resistant to the allure of the so-called "copyright maximalists": content creators constantly pushing to expand both the definition of copyrights and the government's online enforcement. Lofgren also weighed in on the tech expertise of her colleagues and discussed her days at Stanford, where she tried her hand as an amateur programmer.Lofgren's push to update copyright laws is unlikely to gain traction in the short term, but the mere fact of her opposition to the unilateral direction on copyright policy has given hope to Web companies and tech activists. Currently copyright policy is still largely dictated by the entertainment industry and other old media concerns, which still hold considerable sway over the Judiciary panels in each chamber. Building support for changing copyright laws to adapt to the digital age will take years, but Lofgren believes some incremental steps can be taken to ensure website owners are given adequate recourse before their sites are taken down or their domains seized by the government.
Roll Call Op-Eds: Congress Should Legislate Online Gambling in the Lame Duck Twitter Should Block Hamas Account Rockefeller Calls for Oversight of Violent Video Games: Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., issued a statement on Monday calling for greater oversight of violence on television, the Internet, or video games, as part of his response to the killing spree in Newtown, Conn. Rockefeller argued that by the time children reach adulthood, they have already been exposed to countless images of violence via those various platforms. However, his call for action will be tough to implement: the Supreme Court struck down last year a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors. The Court ruled that only sexual content can be considered obscene under the First Amendment, and that U.S. law has no history of banning content due to violence. Any laws passed by Congress would likely endure a similar constitutional test.