[ncdnhc-discuss] Latest NC draft
James Love
james.love at cptech.org
Wed Apr 24 14:16:19 CEST 2002
Alejandro,
The reason that MPAA and others are active in ICANN, is because they are
interested in using ICANN to protect copyrights. There have been some
recent meetings in the UK over this, talking about the DNS architechure and
ICANN. IMO, they have legitmate concerns, but I would prefer them to
press their claims in national governments rather than in ICANN.
With regard to consumer protection, I *want* ICANN to address *minimum*
consumer protection for gTLD domain name registration, since this is
directly within its mission now, and IMO, an appropriate ICANN function.
I do not think that ICANN need do this for ccTLDs. These minimum consumer
protections can be modest, and developed by consulting with users, not only
providers. I think national governments can and should go beyond the
minimum protections.
I do *not* want ICANN to address other consumer protection issues, such as
Internet spam, which is a huge global issue. In the case of spam, we want
to see a global multilateridal agreement between national governments on
minimum controls over spam. We don't want ICANN to be the fora for this
or other consumer protection issues that are not directly related to the
registration of domain names.
With regard to funding, on one hand, I would be in favor of a small ad
valoreum fee placed on the gTLDS to fund ICANN's work. The problem is no
one wants to give ICANN unlimited taxing authority over Internet domain
names, particularly with no real accountability over how the money is
spent. See how ICANN won't even let its own board members see the books,
or how ICANN apparently spends the money on PR firms and consultants that
we don't know the names of, and who can even vote in the DNSO. But more
important, ICANN can't explain where it gets its authority from, and that
is related to what kind of fiscal powers people would give it. One
possible approach would be for ICANN to propose a budget to the GAC, and
let the GAC approve the budget. Once the budget was approved, ICANN could
recover the budget from ad valorem fees (not "per domain" fees, which are
more distortionary in terms of pricing models), from the gTLD registrars.
This way the gTLD registrars and consumers would complain if fees were
excessive, and everyone could tell it to the GAC. This works for me.
What I don't like is the ICANN approach of taxing voting (NCC fees in DNSO)
by consumer interests (people who are just doing a public service),
charging huge fees to ask for reviews of ICANN decisions (the Touton
proposal for arbitration), or charging $35 to $50 k to "bid" for a TLD
assignment.
Jamie
> Hi James, Michael, and all,
>
> 1. I worry as much as any other that the tidal wave to protect
> intellectual property may shut off much valuable information and
> opinion. As you may imagine, it looks all the worse from outside a
> country that will establish rules affecting a large part of the world.
> The practical question for me is, how does ICANN have to be constituted
> and operated to fend off this trouble in its limited domain. What I
> find far-fetched is that a copyright protector (of content) go to "shut
> off" a domain name, though admittedly not inconceivable. Again, if this
> is a realistic scenario, how does ICANN have to be constituted to make
> this impossible? On what grounds does it help to deny this request,
> which may be made to a gTLD registry and not directly to ICANN, as most
> of you well understand?
>
> 2. There seems to be general agreement that ICANN not operate as a
> consumer protection agency. to what precise extent must it consider
> consumer issues? How should it get input for them? Again, how must it
> be constituted to perform that limited, but still significant, job?
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . .
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
> UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
> http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
> *
> ** 10 Aniversario de Internet Society - www.inet2002.org en Washington,
> DC ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . .
>
>
>
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, James Love wrote:
>
>> > James,
>>
>> > too far fetched. Let's focus more closely on realistic scenarios.
>> >
>> > Anyway in your description, what structures would ICANN need to make
>> > sure it receives and refuses such a call? Who should provide the
>> > counterpoint to such a call?
>> >
>> > Alejandro Pisanty
>>
>>
>> Alejandro, I don't think this is far feteched at all, and indeed,
>> many
>> think the copyright or other IP issues (e-commerce patents, sui
>> generis database rights, etc), are far more important than the
>> trademark disputes. I think ICANN did a pretty good job on the UDRP.
>> It isn't perfect, but it isn't bad either, and I think an organization
>> that controls domain names can reasonably be asked to address
>> trademark concerns. So I'm ok on that. However, I don't think ICANN
>> should get into the other IPR issues. In Washington this week there
>> is enormous attention to the digital copyright issues. There will be
>> two days of hearings organized by the USPTO at end of the week, and
>> Congress is active too. If you really want a taste how how this is
>> being played out, read Jack Valenti's April 23 testimony, below, and
>> then tell me how far fetched this is. Jamie
>>
>> Subject: FC: Valenti to Congress: "350,000 movies pirated online every
>> day!" View Full Header
>> View Printable Version
>> From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
>> Date: Tue, April 23, 2002 9:05 pm
>> To: politech at politechbot.com
>> Priority: Normal
>>
>>
>> MPAA sent along two Microsoft Word files, which I posted. If you
>> (sensibly) prefer HTML, that version is up on their site.
>>
>> Press release:
>> http://www.politechbot.com/docs/valenti.movies.release.042302.doc
>> http://www.mpaa.org/jack/2002/2002_04_23a.htm
>>
>> Jack Valenti's testimony itself (included below in text form):
>> http://www.politechbot.com/docs/valenti.movies.testimony.042302.doc
>> http://www.mpaa.org/jack/2002/2002_04_23b.htm
>>
>> -Declan
>>
>> ---
>>
>> A CLEAR PRESENT AND FUTURE DANGER: The potential undoing of
>> Americas greatest export trade prize
>> An Accounting of Movie Thievery in the Analog and Digital Format,
>> in the U.S. and Around the World, Offered to the House
>> Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State,
>> the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, by Jack Valenti, Chairman &
>> Chief Executive Officer, THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION, in
>> Ashburn, Virginia
>>
>> This text of my testimony is titled "A Present and Future Danger,
>> the potential undoing of Americas greatest export trade prize." And
>> for good reason. Which is why it is entirely suitable and necessary
>> that the Appropriations Committee illuminate and seriously examine
>> the impact of any erosion of the worth of the Copyright Industries
>> (consisting of movies, TV programs, home videos, books, music,
>> video games and computer software) on the economy of this country.
>>
>> The Economic Worth of the Copyright Industries
>>
>> The facts are these: The Copyright Industries are responsible for
>> some five percent of the GDP of the nation. They gather in more
>> international revenues than automobiles and auto parts, more than
>> aircraft, more than agriculture. They are creating NEW jobs at
>> three times the rate of the rest of the economy. The movie industry
>> alone has a Surplus
>> balance of trade with every single country in the world. No other
>> American enterprise can make that statement. And all this at a time
>> when the U.S. is bleeding from some $400 Billion in Deficit balance
>> of trade.
>>
>> The Peril Now and in the Future
>>
>> Brooding over the global reach of the American movie and its
>> persistent success in attracting consumers of every creed, culture
>> and country is thievery, the theft of our movies in both the analog
>> and digital formats.
>>
>> Let me explain. Videocassettes, the kind we all use and enjoy, are
>> in the analog format. Worldwide, the U.S. movie industry suffers
>> revenue losses of more than $3 billion annually through the theft
>> of
>> videocassettes. That is a most conservative estimate. We are
>> everyday vigilant in combating this analog thievery because, like
>> virtue, we are everyday besieged. We are trying to restrain this
>> pilfering so that its growth does not continue to rise to
>> intolerable levels.
>>
>> But it is digital piracy that gives movie producers multiple Maalox
>> moments. It is digital thievery, which can disfigure and shred the
>> future of American films. What we must understand is that digital
>> is to analog as lightning is to the lightning bug. In analog, the
>> pirate must be provisioned with equipment, dozens, even hundreds of
>> slave-video recorders, because after repeated copying in analog on
>> one machine, the finished product becomes increasingly
>> un-watchable. Not so in digital format. The 1,000th digital copy is
>> as pure and pristine as the original. The copy never wears out. It
>> is that durability which provides the DVD (Digital Versatile Disc)
>> with its grandest asset and at the same time provokes such anxiety
>> within the movie industry because copying retains its high
>> resolution.
>>
>> Then there is the mysterious magic of being able, with a simple
>> click of a mouse, to send a full-length movie hurtling with the
>> speed of light (186,000 miles per second) to any part of this
>> wracked and weary old planet. It is that uncomprehending fact of
>> digital life that disturbs the sleep of the entire U.S. film
>> industry.
>>
>> Movies have, until recently, been sheltered from the incessant
>> pilfering visited on the music industry. Music on the Net has no
>> graphics and can be brought down with normal computer modems since
>> most songs are no more than three or four minutes. Not so with
>> movies chock full of full-motion graphics. With a normal 56K
>> computer modem, it could take between 12 to 24 hours to bring down
>> a two-hour movie. Or to put it another way, one movie takes up the
>> same space on a hard drive as do 150 or more songs. The buffer that
>> has slowed a
>> wide-spreading assault on movies in digital form is the languor
>> with which American computer-homes have valued broadband access.
>> With broadband access, a two-hour movie can be taken down,
>> depending on the speed of the DSL line or cable modem, in 20 to 40
>> minutes. (But the next generation Internet will be able to download
>> a two-hour movie in some 45 seconds!) Only some 9.5 million
>> American computer homes have current high-speed, large pipe
>> connections to the Internet. But that interim distance will
>> gradually evaporate as broadband grows, both in its speed-power and
>> in the deployment of broadband to homes. Once that happens all
>> barriers to high-speed takedowns of movies will collapse. The
>> avalanche will have begun. It is the certainty of that scenario
>> which concerns every movie maker and distributor in the land.
>>
>> We are also besieged by a relatively new threat called Optical Disc
>> Piracy. This new thievery design first reared its fraudulent head
>> in China with VCD (Video Compact Disc), a cousin to DVD though its
>> quality is inferior to DVD but cheaper to reproduce on machines
>> that are far less costly than those that play DVD only. China, in
>> response to our entreaties, has cracked down on pirates, forcing
>> them
>> off-shore. The huge problem in China at this writing is the street
>> vendor malady. We are working with the Chinese government to shrink
>> this problem. Meanwhile, mostly in Asia organized thieves are
>> busily involved in stealing our movies, reproducing them in
>> high-quality digital format and distributing them everywhere. In
>> 2001, the MPAs Anti-Piracy forces conducted 74 raids against
>> facilities in China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
>> Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand, happily engaged in manufacturing
>> illegal copies of both VCD and DVD. Happily, that is, until our
>> Anti-Piracy people, along with local law enforcement officers,
>> moved in for the raid. In some cases arrests were made and in some
>> case equipment confiscated. But not in all, because of porous
>> attention by authorities in some countries to really crack down
>> hard on these pirates. It is an ongoing problem for us.
>>
>> More ominously, just recently, with the sturdy aid of the FBI, a
>> factory was raided in New Jersey which was illegally reproducing
>> DVDs. This was the first time we have located a U.S. site dealing
>> in illegitimate DVDs. But it wont be the last.
>>
>> I report quite joyously that we are receiving first class
>> assistance form the FBI, the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of
>> Justice, U.S. Customs Service as well as local U.S. Attorneys
>> offices. I will come back to this shortly as I know this is of keen
>> interest to the Subcommittee.
>>
>> Comes Now the Internet, Future New Delivery System, but Now a
>> Piracy
>> Haven
>>
>> As I said just a few minutes ago, it is the Internet, that
>> all-embracing technological marvel, which is putting to hazard our
>> attempts to protect precious creative property. Viant, a
>> Boston-based consulting firm, has estimated that some 350,000+
>> movies are being downloaded from the Internet every day all of them
>> illegal.
>>
>> We are deploying our defenses on three fronts.
>>
>> The First Front
>>
>> Protecting copyright in the courts. We have to insist that
>> copyright laws cannot be casually regarded, for if those laws are
>> shrunk or loosened, the entire fabric of costly creative works is
>> in deep trouble. We have moved swiftly and decisively against all
>> those Web sites and other services that harbor and inspire the
>> theft of movies. We brought one of the first cases under the
>> Digital Millennium Copyright Act to halt the distribution of DVD
>> hacking software on the Web. We took on sites like Scour, iCrave,
>> RecordTV, all of which were either promoting the takedown of
>> illegal movies or, as iCrave did, sucking up Canadian and U.S.
>> television signals illegitimately and rebroadcasting them to the
>> world via the iCrave Web site, along with their own advertisements.
>> iCrave was promptly shut down by the courts, but its clones will
>> not go away. Scour, and RecordTV are no longer functioning. But we
>> are now in a new round of litigation with the likes of Morpheus,
>> KaZaA and Grokster, all commonly described as next-generation
>> Napster services.
>>
>> Put simply, whenever a new site appears whose prime allurement is
>> the illicit availability of movies, illegitimately file-shared or
>> readied for download, it is our intention to move with celerity to
>> bring them to the courtroom. This includes, where appropriate,
>> close coordination with and support for law enforcement agencies,
>> like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Customs Service, the
>> Postal Service, the Secret Service, and others, in their efforts to
>> provide criminal enforcement of the nations copyright laws.
>>
>> As a part of our copyright enforcement efforts, we are using
>> Ranger, a sophisticated search engine, to track down movies
>> illegitimately on the Web. Once Ranger sniffs out an illegal site,
>> we send cease and desist letters to the Internet Service Provider
>> whose customer is engaging in the infringing activity or, where
>> possible, to the site itself. In 2001, we dispatched 54,000 such
>> letters to 1,680 ISPs around the world.
>>
>> Keeping up with this sort of illegal activity is no easy task,
>> particularly given the ascending growth of on-campus illegitimate
>> downloads of brand-new movies. Students operating off their
>> universitys broadband, high-speed, state-of-the-art computer
>> networks have a merry old time uploading and bringing down movies,
>> all without paying for them and all with fine fidelity to sight,
>> sound and color. Were not talking about old, classic films. These
>> are new films, many of which are still in theaters: Ice Age, The
>> Rookie, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Beautiful Mind, Panic
>> Room, Monsters, Inc., We Were Soldiers, Snow Dogs, and the list
>> goes drearily on.
>>
>> Just a few months ago we learned that one of Americas most
>> prestigious and preeminent universities, vexed by the burden of
>> heavy persistent student use of its computer system, actually set
>> up a special server for Gnutella, a well known mightily used site
>> for file-sharing (a discreet description of taking films which dont
>> belong to you). This astonishing action was taken by this
>> University to relieve the swollen student use of its computer
>> system. I swiftly dispatched an
>> unambiguous letter to the President of that University chiding him
>> for "a disreputable plausibility" which collided with the moral
>> compact that informs a stable, free, democratic society. The
>> University, to its credit, immediately cancelled the server. But I
>> must say that such good news is short-lived these days. I recently
>> read that a closed peer-to-peer network of some 9,000 computers had
>> been established on the high-speed local area network of another of
>> our nations
>> distinguished public universities. Similar systems are reportedly
>> springing up on the university networks at public institutions
>> around the country.
>>
>> And I do not mean to suggest that this problem is limited to
>> universities. The recent search warrants executed by the Department
>> of Justice and the Customs Service against the Drink-or-Die hacker
>> group included not only individuals at universities, but also at
>> well-known corporations. My music colleagues can tell you about a
>> recent case involving a consulting firm that had set up a dedicated
>> MP3 server for its employees to "share" music files. This problem
>> does not appear to be getting any smaller.
>>
>> What makes this problem even more vexing and complex is its
>> international dimension. Just a few months ago, in Taiwan a new Web
>> site called Movies88.com came online, offering on-demand video
>> streaming of brand new movies, all without permission of their
>> owners, for a mere $1 per movie. All the while they steadfastly
>> claimed that they were protected by the Taiwanese copyright laws.
>> Fortunately, they were not, and with the cooperation of the
>> Taiwanese government this site has now been shut down. But this
>> case underscores the difficulty in enforcing copyright on global
>> networks, like the Internet. The process is aptly compared to the
>> game of "Whack-a-Mole" a site like Movies88.com will come down in
>> one place, only to pop up somewhere else. Who is to say when a site
>> like this reappears, it wont reappear in a country whose laws do
>> not, in fact, protect copyright. This is why the work of the USTR,
>> the State Department, and others in securing adequate minimum
>> protections for copyright across the globe is so critical. This is
>> no small problem, and no one-dimensional solution will address it.
>>
>> The Second Front
>>
>> Promoting legitimate alternatives to digital thievery. Keep in mind
>> that movie producers and distributors are filled with optimism over
>> the prospect of the Internet as another new delivery system to
>> dispatch their movies to consumers, at a fair and reasonable price
>> (the defining of fair and reasonable to done by the consumer). And
>> of course those very consumers are the ultimate beneficiaries of
>> these new distribution channels, as they will enjoy more choices
>> for accessing the movies they want in high-quality digital format.
>>
>> For studios to resist or to turn away from that new Internet
>> delivery system would be fiscal lunacy. Why? Because the
>> movie-making cost has risen to nerve-shattering heights. In 2001,
>> the total cost to the major studios of making and marketing their
>> films was, on the average, some $79 million per film! Only two in
>> ten movies ever retrieve its total investment from domestic U.S.
>> theatrical exhibition. Each film must journey through various
>> marketplace sequences airlines, home video, satellite delivery,
>> premium and basic cable, over the air TV stations and
>> internationally in order to break even or make a profit.
>>
>> As we speak, every one of the MPAA member companies is engaged in
>> one or more of several ventures to make online digital
>> video-on-demand a reality. They are moving forward with these
>> ventures even in the absence of a proven market and even with
>> broadband penetration at relatively low levels (and languishing in
>> its growth by some
>> accounts). Why? Two reasons. First, they are hopeful that these
>> ventures will be met with the same excitement and consumer embrace
>> that we have seen with the DVD, which has quickly become the
>> fastest growing consumer electronics platform in history. Second,
>> and even more importantly, they are moving forward in this
>> direction because, as I have said before, I believe (and I pray we
>> are right) that 99% of the American public are not hackers. Given
>> the choice between a legal alternative for watching movies and
>> stealing, I believe the vast majority will choose the legitimate
>> alternative, but only if we do not allow lawlessness to become
>> "mainstream".
>>
>> The Third Front
>>
>> To use technology to apply the protective garments of content
>> encryption, watermarking and other necessities for guarding the
>> life of movies as they make their way through the digital
>> distribution chain, and to ensure that piracy remains out of the
>> mainstream and on the fringes.
>>
>> In testimony before the Judiciary and Commerce Committees I have
>> outlined a number of specific goals relative to the development and
>> adoption of technology standards by the Information Technology
>> (IT), consumer electronics (CE) and copyright communities. These
>> include the adoption of a "broadcast flag" to prevent unencrypted
>> over-the-air digital television broadcasts from being redistributed
>> on the Internet; adoption and implementation of technology to plug
>> the "analog hole" whereby protected content is stripped of its
>> protection through the digital to analog, or analog to digital,
>> conversion process, and the adoption and implementation of
>> technology to limit the rising tide of unauthorized peer-to-peer
>> file distribution of copyrighted works, of which I have spoken. The
>> attainment of these goals is key to the viability of a legitimate
>> marketplace for the online digital distribution of motion pictures,
>> and we look forward to continuing to work with the IT and CE
>> industries, as well as your colleagues on the Judiciary and
>> Commerce Committees, to achieve a successful outcome on this front.
>>
>> The Important Role of the CJS Subcommittee in the Future of the
>> Internet as a New Delivery System
>>
>> The question is thus raised, what is it that this Subcommittee can
>> do to protect Americas greatest trade export and to further the
>> development of a legitimate marketplace for online digital
>> entertainment for the benefit of the consumer?
>>
>> The answer is this: Your work is key to both the first and second
>> fronts in the defense of copyright which I just described. Your
>> role in the first front the enforcement front should be clear to
>> all. Copyright law is only as good as its enforcement, and Federal
>> resources for criminal law enforcement, both inside the United
>> States and working with their counterparts overseas, are an
>> important part of the overall copyright enforcement landscape.
>> Ensuring effective copyright enforcement, in turn, has a very
>> important effect on our success on the second front in the defense
>> of copyright providing viable alternatives to piracy. The reason is
>> simple: No legitimate business can succeed in an environment of
>> unbridled lawlessness. Just as Greshams Law teaches that cheap
>> money drives out good money, pirated content drives out legitimate
>> content, particularly where digital technology renders the two
>> substantial equivalents. Which is why the biggest threat to viable
>> alternatives to piracy is unchecked and rampant piracy itself.
>> Federal law enforcement plays an important role in ensuring that
>> such piracy does not invade the mainstream of our society and
>> render moribund nascent and consumer-friendly alternatives to
>> lawlessness.
>>
>> We have worked closely with the Congress to ensure that our laws
>> empower Federal law enforcement to protect copyright in the digital
>> environment and to help preserve the vitality Americas creative
>> industries. And we have worked closely with law enforcement in that
>> process. As I mentioned, we are receiving first class assistance
>> from the FBI, the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of Justice,
>> the U.S. Customs Service, as well as local U.S. Attorneys offices.
>>
>> We have been pleased that the Administration has placed increasing
>> priority on cybercrime enforcement, in particular, as copyright
>> piracy is one of the most pervasive forms of cybercrime. In our
>> view, greater attention by law enforcement to Internet cases is
>> needed to ensure adequate copyright protections. The Department of
>> Justice and Customs Service are to be applauded for their recent
>> efforts in carrying out Operation Buccaneer a massive sting
>> operation against the prominent Drink-or-Die hacker group, which
>> spanned 6 countries and resulted in the execution of more than 70
>> search warrants, including at the offices of major corporations and
>> some of this nations most
>> prestigious universities. All in all, more than 100 computers were
>> seized with some 50 terabytes (trillions of bytes) of data. One
>> system seized had more than 5,000 movies on it. In fact, I
>> understand a single defendant who pleaded guilty in February
>> admitted to charges that involved uploading more than 15,000 movie,
>> software, video game and music titles, causing damages
>> conservatively estimated at more than 2.5 million dollars. I
>> understand that a fourth guilty plea was entered just weeks ago,
>> with more to come.
>>
>> Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the type of thing we should encourage
>> our law enforcement agencies to do more of. It sends the clear
>> deterrent message that theft is theft, whether conducted online or
>> off. Your Committee plays a very important role in promoting this
>> type of message through funding for cybercrime enforcement and
>> through oversight of the various Federal law enforcement agencies.
>> I hope Operation Buccaneer is just a start, and that we will see a
>> continued increase in Federal online enforcement of intellectual
>> property rights. I hope your Committee will encourage just such a
>> result.
>>
>> We enthusiastically embrace the announcement last year by the
>> Department of Justice of the establishment of 10 specialized
>> Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIPs) units within
>> individual U.S. Attorneys offices to focus on cybercrime
>> prosecutions, including copyright and trademark violations. We
>> believe the single biggest impact the Appropriations Committee can
>> make on intellectual property and cybercrime enforcement is to
>> ensure that adequate resources are available to these units to
>> prosecute cases, as well as to the on-the-ground enforcement
>> agencies to investigate and bring more cases to the U.S. Attorneys
>> offices.
>>
>> Last year Congress approved a specific earmark of funds for
>> cybercrime and intellectual property enforcement. This money has
>> made possible the establishment of the CHIPs units and cases like
>> the Drink-or-Die case. We would like to work with you again this
>> year to provide a continuing earmark of funds for cybercrime
>> enforcement, and to encourage full funding of existing CHIPs units
>> and possible expansion to additional U.S. Attorneys offices.
>>
>> Fighting piracy outside the United States is also an extremely high
>> priority. Although MPAA expends tremendous resources in operating
>> anti-piracy programs in over 80 countries worldwide, we also rely
>> on US Federal agencies to help us combat piracy outside the United
>> States. The US Trade Representatives Office, the State Department,
>> the US Copyright Office, the Commerce Department, the Patent and
>> Trademark Office, Customs, Justice, the FBI -- all play critical
>> roles. In helping to engage the cooperation of foreign governments,
>> these agencies utilize all the skills and tools at their disposal
>> from enforcing trade agreements, to diplomatic advocacy, to
>> training and direct cooperation with foreign enforcement officials.
>> These agencies are all that stand between us and anarchy in the
>> international marketplace. Ensuring that these agencies also have
>> the resources to continue to dedicate to the fight against
>> intellectual property theft outside the United States is also a
>> high priority.
>>
>> Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for focusing this Subcommittees
>> attention on such important maters, and I look forward to working
>> with you in the coming months.
>>
>> I close this document with Mr. Churchills exhortation: "Truth is
>> incontrovertible; panic may ignore it, malice may distort it,
>> ignorance may deride it, but there it is."
>>
>> A singular truth exists in the movie industry: "If you cant protect
>> what you own, you dont own anything."
>>
>> ###
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
>> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
>> To subscribe to Politech:
>> http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is
>> archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
>> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition:
>> http://www.franklinsociety.org
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
James Love
http://www.cptech.org mailto:james.love at cptech.org
mobile +1.202.361.3040
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list