Some months ago, I noted that Betzip.com (since rechristened “PurePlay.com”) employs an intriguing legal hack to avoid anti-gambling regulations. It charges its customers a flat monthly fee, which qualifies them to win large prizes for winning online poker games. Non-paying customers can play the same games for free, too—though without qualifying for the largest prizes.

Why adopt that business model? Presumably, because it allows PurePlay to argue that it does not offer a gambling service. Specifically, PurePlay could claim that, because the amount players win has no relation to how much they stake, it dodges the “consideration” element of the legal definition of gambling. Query whether that claim would survive the devoted attentions of a prosecutor and court. I set that question aside, though, and here focus on PurePlay’s claim that they have patented their business model.

Curious about the scope of PurePlay’s patent, I searched its website for details. It offered none. I wrote to PurePlay asking for the patent’s number. PurePlay refused to say. So I put my able research assistant, Mr. Sherwood Tung, on the case. He found PurePlay’s patent, and more.

Continue reading →

I’ll take Solveig’s recent post about a fishing cat as permission to throw out something having almost no connection to tech policy once in a while.

I just watched on my TiVo – there’s my tech angle! – the Newshour debate between Norman Podhoretz and Fareed Zakaria regarding Iran’s efforts to join the nuclear club. I was enthralled by the stark differences of opinion, and the evidence each brought to his side. This is serious business, more serious than I had thought – if the opinions of the one I think is wrong have any traction.

Update: My Cato Institute colleague Justin Logan was inspired to comment on the debate in The American Prospect.

ICANN%20logo.jpgI’m at the ICANN public meeting in Los Angeles this week. This is my first time at ICANN, so I’m going to be giving you my impressions of the whole thing over the next few days. And there are some interesting cultural, privacy and operational issues that will be considered.

ICANN will vote on how new gTLD (generic top level domain)
names will be added in the future, what to do about the privacy of domain name
registrants regarding the WHOIS process, and how to deal with Internationalized Domain Names, the process of translating names
into such languages as Arabic and Chinese. The later issue is the impetus for
the title of this meeting, “My Name, My Language, My Internet.”

ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, and is responsible for the global coordination of the Internet’s
system of domain names (like .org, .museum and country codes like .UK). There are almost 1500 attendees at this meeting in the LAX Hilton. That’s
right, beautiful LAX airport! After past meetings in San
Juan, Lisbon, Sao Paulo, and Marrakech, I get to go to the one
just minutes from LA’s airport. Great.

Vint Cerf opened up the meeting. This is his last meeting as
Chairman of the Board of ICANN. He’s been on the Board for eight years.

Transparency and accountability are still important buzzwords here. Assistant Secretary for Communications at NITA, John Kneur and ICANN’s CEO, Paul Twomey, both spoke to the need for making sure that ICANN is sufficiently open to the public and all stakeholders.

The major topic for today concerns the introduction of new gTLDs to
supplement (or compete against) existing ones like .com, .biz, .mobi, and
.travel. ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Council (GNSO) has a
proposal for this process. From ICANN’s website:

Continue reading →

As promised, here is the first in a series of posts looking at the usefulness of the FCC website. Others, including Michael Marcus and Cynthia Brumfield, have already catalogued just how much in disrepair the site is. (In fact, our own James Gattuso blogged today about the FCC site, which prompted me to finally kick off the series.) I’ve had lots of time to think about this while researching my new government transparency and the Internet paper, so here’s my contribution to the general piling-on.

First, let’s look at search. Given the ever-increasing amount of data online, search is the web’s killer app. If you can’t find it, it doesn’t matter how much useful data is available online. The FCC offers a search bar at the top left of its site. So what does this box search? According to the FCC site:

Search Scope: The FCC Search Engine searches throughout the FCC’s web site, including the Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS), but does not collect information from the FCC’s other databases and electronic filing systems such as the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Information is collected from web pages and many types of documents including Word, WordPerfect, Acrobat, Excel, and ASCII Text, and is constantly updated.

Right off the bat this tells us that the FCC houses several disparate databases (eight, according to Brumfield), and that they’re not all searched by their main search box. Most notably, their regulatory docket system (ECFS) is not searched. (More on this in a future post.)

If you search for Kevin Martin, this is what you get:

Continue reading →

Freedom of Speech

by on October 29, 2007 · 4 comments

John McCain cuts an ad:

Fox News sends him a nastygram

Here’s a way Hillary Clinton can earn some geek brownie points at effectively no cost:

As the networks who have promised to (effectively) deliver free presidential debates have shown (CNN, NBC, ABC), even when free, it is still worth it enough to at least some. And in a world with YouTubes and p2p technologies, some networks are plainly enough. If Fox demands control, presidential debates don’t need Fox. It is time that the presidential candidates from both parties stand with Senator McCain and defend his right to use this clip to advance his presidential campaign. Not because it is “fair use” (whether or not it is), but because presidential debates are precisely the sort of things that ought to be free of the insanely complex regulation of speech we call copyright law. Indeed, as the target of the attack, and as one who has been totally AWOL on this issue from the start, it would be most appropriate if this demand were to begin with Senator Clinton. Let her defend her colleague’s right to criticize her, by demanding that her party at least condition any presidential debate upon the freedom of candidates and citizens to speak.

On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine a more favorable test case for fair use of video, so I’m sort of hoping neither party backs down and we get a solid ruling that making short clips of prominent public policy discussions is a fair use.

In the heat of the Comcast Kerfuffle last week, Steve R. made some comments that I thought were important. In response to my “Market Meme” post, for example, he said:

Regulatory intervention is the outgrowth of companies doing underhanded and unethical behavior on a consistent and long term basis. So if we don’t want regulation why are there no calls for these companies to act ethically to begin with?????

Since there are no posts suggesting that these companies act ethically, the implicit assumption is that it is OK for companies to “steal” from customers until caught. Once caught, to quickly apologize (as a demonstration of how the free market works to regulate itself) and to then initiate a new hidden scheme to defraud the consumer until caught again, and again, and again, and again.

Consumer vigilance it a vital ingredient to a free market, but so is ethical and open corporate behavior. If you don’t want regulation, behave responsibly.

and

[I]f the posters on TLF want a free market, without regulation, they must demand that corporations act ethically.

These are fair comments that deserve some consideration. Where’s the call for ethical business practices in the TLFosphere?!

Here’s my thinking:

Continue reading →

Has anyone actually found anything on the FCC’s website? If so, they should consider themselves lucky. Fcc.gov has long been a source of frustration for me as I constantly find myself going in cybercircles looking for the simplest of documents or information. Apparently, I’m not alone in my frustration — Mike Marcus — a former FCC staffer — recently ranted about the site in his blog. Calling the it the “nation’s communications policy attic” he dissects the problems with the website, ranging from the lack of a usable search engine to the endless clutter. Anyone who has tried to extract information from the site — god forbid without already knowing by heart the magic docket number of the specific proceeding they are interested in — will find themselves nodding in agreement.

How ironic that the nation’s communications policy agency — whom many want to take responsibility for regulating the Internet — cannot itself communicate on the web.

Kudos to Marcus for bringing this up. When he was with the FCC, Marcus (with whom I had the opportunity to work) was among the rarest of breeds — a professional bureaucrat who fought against bureaucracy. He apparently hasn’t changed now that he’s in the private sector.

(Hat tip to Jerry Brito for pointing me to Marcus’ piece.)

A few links to discussions of the current patent reform legislation:

From Matt Buchanan’s Promote the Progress; cheaper iPods, fewer cures?

Robert Armitage on how the courts have beaten Congress to the punch.

And a quote from Robert Cresanti, now with Ocean Tomo:

“[Ocean Tomo] will still proceed with the exchange (even if pending Congressional reforms pass), but many patents may be devalued.”, he warned. “Our hope is the Senate will come around to the same conclusion we have – that there is no pressing need for reform in light of what the courts and USPTO have done.”, he added.

Forget blogs and podcasts. The Free State Foundation and the Institute for Policy Innovation are hosting a good old-fashioned teraspace policy conference this Tuesday, October 30 in Washington D.C. Titled the “Federal Unbundling Commission?” (you can do the acronym on your own), the theme of the half-day event is the FCC’s penchant for unbundling communications services — from broadband to telephony to television. With Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Marsha Blackburn and FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate on the agenda, it promises to be an interesting and informative morning. (I’m also on the agenda, but try not to let that deter you.)

Hope to see you there. Click here to RSVP.

Wow. A brief 36 days is all it took New York Governor Eliot Spitzer (D) to abandon his stance on driver licensing and New Yorkers’ public safety. As I wrote at the time, Spitzer got it right when he announced that he would de-link driver licensing and immigration status because of the safety benefits to the state’s drivers.

But shrill attacks from anti-immigrant groups came fast and furious. A small group of 9/11 victims’ family members, grief curdled into hatred of immigrants, regularly bandy fear and their loved ones’ memories for political purposes. And they did so with relish when Spitzer announced his plan. It’s crassness that one would expect a New York pol to stare down.

But Spitzer, unable to withstand the heat, seems to have gone scrambling for an out. The New York Times reports that Spitzer will team up with DHS officials today to announce New York’s planned compliance with the REAL ID Act. It requires proof of legal presence to get a compliant license.

This a flat out reversal of the position Spitzer took just over a month ago. The justification he gave – correctly – for de-linking licensing and immigration status was New Yorkers’ safety. With driver licensing treated as an immigration enforcement tool, illegals don’t get licensed, don’t learn the rules of the road or basic driving skills, and don’t carry insurance. When they cause accidents, they flee the scene, leaving injured and dead New Yorkers and causing higher auto insurance rates. As I noted a few weeks ago during his brief flirtation with principle and fortitude, “Spitzer is not willing to shed the blood of New Yorkers to ‘take a stand’ on immigration, which is not a problem state governments are supposed to solve anyway.”

He may try, but Spitzer can’t honestly claim that he’s being consistent. New York’s compliance with REAL ID, were it actually to materialize, would put REAL ID compliant cards in the hands of citizens and make New York driver data available to the federal government. Thus, possession of a non-REAL-ID-compliant license would be tantamount to a confession of illegal status. Thanks to Spitzer’s flip-flop, illegal aliens will now recognize that getting a license merely provides federal authorities the address at which to later round them up for deportation.

Needless to say, they’re not going to get licenses, and the safety benefits Spitzer correctly sought for New Yorkers just 36 days ago will not materialize. The result is what’s known in regulatory circles as risk transfer. There will be more injuries on New York’s roadways so that the U.S. can have a national ID system. Alas, the security benefits of that system, as I showed in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, are negative.

I was impressed and surprised by how right Spitzer had gotten it when he delinked driver licensing and immigration status in New York. I’m once again impressed, but in a much different way, by how quickly he went scampering away from this good policy. The reactionary critics of his policy obviously really got to him.

Update: The ACLU has issued a release slamming Spitzer’s decision.

Update II: The ACLU has blogged it up too.