The House Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act, HR-3261, for Nov. 16 in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building. A time has not been set for the hearing. The bill, which was introduced Wednesday by Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, has garnered praise and criticism from industry members, trade associations, and advocacy groups (CED Oct 27 p8). The Center for Democracy and Technology said the legislation “represents a serious threat to online innovation and to legitimate online communications tools.” A more-focused “follow-the-money” approach, “narrowly targeting clear bad actors and drying up their financial lifeblood, could reduce online infringement without risking so much damage to Internet openness, innovation, and security,” said David Sohn, CDT’s senior policy counsel. Public Knowledge said the Stop Online Piracy Act is “significantly worse” than the Senate PROTECT IP Act, S-968, which was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in May. “This isn’t just because it uses more expansive definitions or broader language; it makes fundamental changes to who faces liability for copyright infringement,” wrote Sherwin Siy, Public Knowledge’s deputy legal director Wednesday. The bill offers “very little to legitimate online distributors of music, movies and books; and even less to consumers who are looking to gain access to such materials in a legal manner,” said Gregory Barnes, director of government affairs for the Digital Media Association. He said the bill “is reminiscent of a B-rated movie -- clichéd script and all.” But a broad coalition of U.S. content creators from the film, music, and stage industries applauded the “proactive measures” of the Stop Online Piracy Act. The legislation “will provide U.S. law enforcement agencies with the tools to protect American intellectual property, including the films, television shows and sound recordings created by our members, from foreign rogue websites that knowingly and deliberately engage in the illegal distribution of our content for profit,” said a joint statement issued by the American Federation of Musicians, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Directors Guild of America, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the Screen Actors Guild. Comcast/NBCUniversal called the legislation “an important step forward.” The legislation will not hinder broadband customers from accessing legal content online and will “protect the Internet as an engine of innovation and economic growth, rather than as an environment that allows digital theft and counterfeiting to thrive,” said Kyle McSlarrow, president of Comcast/NBCUniversal’s D.C. office.

The House Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act, HR-3261, for Nov. 16 in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building. A time has not been set for the hearing. The bill, which was introduced Wednesday by Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, has garnered praise and criticism from industry members, trade associations, and advocacy groups (WID Oct 27 p1). The Center for Democracy and Technology said the legislation “represents a serious threat to online innovation and to legitimate online communications tools.” A more-focused “follow-the-money” approach, “narrowly targeting clear bad actors and drying up their financial lifeblood, could reduce online infringement without risking so much damage to Internet openness, innovation, and security,” said David Sohn, CDT’s senior policy counsel. Public Knowledge said the Stop Online Piracy Act is “significantly worse” than the Senate PROTECT IP Act, S-968, which was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in May (WID May 27 p1). “This isn’t just because it uses more expansive definitions or broader language; it makes fundamental changes to who faces liability for copyright infringement,” wrote Sherwin Siy, Public Knowledge’s deputy legal director Wednesday. The bill offers “very little to legitimate online distributors of music, movies and books; and even less to consumers who are looking to gain access to such materials in a legal manner,” said Gregory Barnes, director of government affairs for the Digital Media Association. He said the bill “is reminiscent of a B-rated movie -- clichéd script and all.” But a broad coalition of U.S. content creators from the film, music, and stage industries applauded the “proactive measures” of the Stop Online Piracy Act. The legislation “will provide U.S. law enforcement agencies with the tools to protect American intellectual property, including the films, television shows and sound recordings created by our members, from foreign rogue websites that knowingly and deliberately engage in the illegal distribution of our content for profit,” said a joint statement issued by the American Federation of Musicians, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Directors Guild of America, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the Screen Actors Guild. Comcast/NBCUniversal called the legislation “an important step forward.” The legislation will not hinder broadband customers from accessing legal content online and will “protect the Internet as an engine of innovation and economic growth, rather than as an environment that allows digital theft and counterfeiting to thrive,” said Kyle McSlarrow, president of Comcast/NBCUniversal’s D.C. office.

A bill updating how consumers give consent to video service providers to share movies they've viewed on social networks and content sites must ensure that customers fully understand the terms they're consenting to, said the Center for Democracy and Technology. The bill to amend the Video Privacy Protection Act, HR-2471, was approved by voice vote in the House Judiciary Committee last week. The bill preserves the VPPA’s protections for consumers, said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who introduced the bill in July. “However, it protects the consumer’s control over his information by requiring consumer consent” before sharing names of favorite TV shows or movies, he said. The bill passed with an amendment from Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., that would ensure that consumers are informed of the sharing option in a document that is separate from the terms and conditions of service. It’s this provision that could make the bill effective, said Justin Brookman, CDT consumer privacy director. “I wouldn’t want it to be amended where deep in the terms of service a company says, ‘by the way, what you do on Netflix would be shared here as well,'” he said in an interview. “It’s nice to have a provision in the law saying that customers need to give consent and this has to happen outside of a contract that consumers won’t read.” Goodlatte’s amendment is “an opportunity for people to move into the digital world and an opportunity to share what they want to share,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., co-sponsor of the bill. It represents “an important step forward for video service providers that are covered under the VPPA,” said the Digital Marketing Association. DMA commended committee members for their willingness to update the current law “while not changing the scope or breadth of service providers covered under the VPPA’s existing provisions.”

A bill updating how consumers give consent to video service providers to share movies they've viewed on social networks and content sites must ensure that customers fully understand the terms they're consenting to, said the Center for Democracy and Technology. The bill to amend the Video Privacy Protection Act, HR-2471, was approved by voice vote in the House Judiciary Committee last week. The bill preserves the VPPA’s protections for consumers, said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who introduced the bill in July. “However, it protects the consumer’s control over his information by requiring consumer consent” before sharing names of favorite TV shows or movies, he said. The bill passed with an amendment from Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., that would ensure that consumers are informed of the sharing option in a document that is separate from the terms and conditions of service. It’s this provision that could make the bill effective, said Justin Brookman, CDT consumer privacy director. “I wouldn’t want it to be amended where deep in the terms of service a company says, ‘by the way, what you do on Netflix would be shared here as well,'” he said in an interview. “It’s nice to have a provision in the law saying that customers need to give consent and this has to happen outside of a contract that consumers won’t read.” Goodlatte’s amendment is “an opportunity for people to move into the digital world and an opportunity to share what they want to share,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., co-sponsor of the bill. It represents “an important step forward for video service providers that are covered under the VPPA,” said the Digital Marketing Association. DMA commended committee members for their willingness to update the current law “while not changing the scope or breadth of service providers covered under the VPPA’s existing provisions.”

Data collection and use as it relates to online behavioral advertising and multi-party selling arrangements, or online subscription “upselling,” necessitate more transparency from the advertising industry and businesses engaged in related practices, said the Center for Democracy & Technology in comments to the FTC. The commission is reviewing about 40 comments suggesting how best to update its framework on how federal advertising law applies to Internet ads and sales. New media, like mobile apps and digital signage, “present challenges for transparency that we urge the commission to address through its updated ‘Dot Com Disclosures’ guidelines,” CDT said. Studies and reports demonstrate that the data collection activities occurring through ads and Web bugs “violate the typical consumer’s expectation of privacy.” The think tank also urged the FTC to require “in-ad” notices: The requirement should extend to mobile ads and to sites “where behaviorally-targeted advertisements are not shown, but third-party data collection is nonetheless occurring.” Due to the increased chance of confusion from multiple offers, subscription upsellers “should abide by a set of best practices to present consumers with legitimate, readily understood offers and meaningful consumer protections,” CDT said. Major advertising associations support the current framework and urged the FTC to allow self-regulation to flourish. Without a specific showing that consumers are no longer being served by the framework, “the principles that companies have relied upon for the previous decade should continue to guide them going forward,” the Direct Marketing Association and the Association of National Advertisers said in joint comments. Self-regulation “remains the most responsive, effective, efficient and appropriate way to promote responsible marketing and advertising.” They also urged the commission to allow mobile marketing to develop best practices: In the mobile space, “proscriptive rules would become quickly outdated, potentially inhibiting innovation or allowing technology to outpace consumer protection.” The Interactive Advertising Bureau agreed that the existing framework should remain intact. The FTC should keep in mind that online advertising generates significant consumer and economic benefits, IAB said. It cautioned against creating disparity between requirements imposed on online and offline advertising. Unique and highly proscriptive rules for certain media “will restrict the entire advertising ecosystem, especially as advertisers increasingly incorporate many different advertising media into single campaigns,” IAB said.

Data collection and use as it relates to online behavioral advertising and multi-party selling arrangements, or online subscription “upselling,” necessitate more transparency from the advertising industry and businesses engaged in related practices, said the Center for Democracy & Technology in comments to the FTC. The commission is reviewing about 40 comments suggesting how best to update its framework on how federal advertising law applies to Internet ads and sales (WID May 27 p8). New media, like mobile apps and digital signage, “present challenges for transparency that we urge the commission to address through its updated ‘Dot Com Disclosures’ guidelines,” CDT said. Studies and reports demonstrate that the data collection activities occurring through ads and Web bugs “violate the typical consumer’s expectation of privacy.” The think tank also urged the FTC to require “in-ad” notices: The requirement should extend to mobile ads and to sites “where behaviorally-targeted advertisements are not shown, but third-party data collection is nonetheless occurring.” Due to the increased chance of confusion from multiple offers, subscription upsellers “should abide by a set of best practices to present consumers with legitimate, readily understood offers and meaningful consumer protections,” CDT said. Major advertising associations support the current framework and urged the FTC to allow self-regulation to flourish. Without a specific showing that consumers are no longer being served by the framework, “the principles that companies have relied upon for the previous decade should continue to guide them going forward,” the Direct Marketing Association and the Association of National Advertisers said in joint comments. Self-regulation “remains the most responsive, effective, efficient and appropriate way to promote responsible marketing and advertising.” They also urged the commission to allow mobile marketing to develop best practices: In the mobile space, “proscriptive rules would become quickly outdated, potentially inhibiting innovation or allowing technology to outpace consumer protection.” The Interactive Advertising Bureau agreed that the existing framework should remain intact. The FTC should keep in mind that online advertising generates significant consumer and economic benefits, IAB said. It cautioned against creating disparity between requirements imposed on online and offline advertising. Unique and highly proscriptive rules for certain media “will restrict the entire advertising ecosystem, especially as advertisers increasingly incorporate many different advertising media into single campaigns,” IAB said.

Despite the increase in major cyberattacks, Congress’ approach to cybersecurity lacks intensity and clarity, according to private sector security professionals. A deeply partisan Congress and a lack of direction from the government could hamper the effort to secure the nation’s critical assets, policy stakeholders said.

Data security legislation seems likely to move sooner through the House Commerce Committee than other privacy legislation, House lawmakers and aides said. But state preemption and other dicey issues could trip up a federal measure to protect consumers in data breaches, other lobbyists said. The Safe Data Act (HR-2577) by Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., is slated to receive a markup this September in the House Commerce Committee, House officials said. Other privacy bills have stalled and it’s unclear when they will receive committee votes.

Data security legislation seems likely to move sooner through the House Commerce Committee than other privacy legislation, House lawmakers and aides said. But state preemption and other dicey issues could trip up a federal measure to protect consumers in data breaches, other lobbyists said. The Safe Data Act (HR-2577) by Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., is slated to receive a markup this September in the House Commerce Committee, House officials said. Other privacy bills have stalled and it’s unclear when they will receive committee votes.

While Congress has held many hearings to consider legislation for data security and breach notification, some legal and security policy experts said it’s still hard to determine which bills have a chance of passing this year. Seven bills on the issue were introduced this year, some following breach incidents from companies like Sony and Epsilon.