“The settlement would alter the landscape of copyright law, for millions and millions of rights holders of out-of-print books,” Peters said. “It would flip copyright on its head by allowing Google to engage in extensive new uses without the consent of the copyright owner–in my view, making a mockery of Article One of the Constitution, that anticipates that authors shall be granted exclusive rights.”

The settlement, as Peters sees it, will allow Google (GOOG) to profit from the work of others without prior consent. “It could affect the exclusive rights of millions of copyright owners, in the United States and abroad, with respect to their abilities to control new products and new markets, for years and years to come,” she said. “In essence, the proposed settlement would give Google a license to infringe first and ask questions later, under the imprimatur of the court.”

One of the more blistering attacks on the deal to date, especially given its source: The nation’s top copyright official. But Google nevertheless dismissed it as unfounded: “We think the settlement is legal, and we think it is structured well within the guidelines of what you can do in a class action settlement,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, said during the hearing. “It certainly is not usurping Congress’s authority to do whatever it wants.”

A typically arrogant response from Google, though the company does appear to be conceding a bit of ground in the face of widening opposition to the deal. Responding to Peters’s criticism and claims that the deal will essentially grant Google a de facto monopoly over out-of-print books, Drummond said the company plans to make those works available to any book retailer.

“For the out-of-print books being made available through the Google Books settlement, we will let any book retailer sell access to those books,” Drummond told the committee. “Google will host the digital books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any internet-connected device they choose.”

Sadly for Google, that conciliatory gesture did not go over well with critics of the deal. “The Internet has never been about intermediation,” Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice president of public policy, said of the company’s offer. “We are happy to work with rights holders without anyone else’s help.”

The Internet Archive’s Peter Brantley was even more disdainful. “I fail to see what’s really new here,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s like Macy’s telling Sears, ‘You can sell Macy’s clothing.’ There’s no fundamental change of the conditions under which Macy’s acquires those clothes. Google remains in control.”

That’s the word from agency Chairman Julius Genachowski, who says he’s concerned not just with the competitive ramifications of carrier-exclusivity deals, but with their tendency to limit customer access to top smartphones. “There are markets in the country where if you wanted an iPhone, if you wanted a Pre, you just couldn’t get it–from anyone,” Genachowski told Bloomberg. “So one question is, is that consistent with broad consumer interests?”

Vermont residents and those living in the rural areas of other states who can’t use the iPhone because AT&T (T) offers only roaming coverage there would likely say the answer to that question is no. But AT&T, Verizon (VZ) and other Tier 1 wireless carriers disagree. They claim exclusive handset deals are beneficial.

“The popularity of the iPhone and its innovative features and applications…has provoked an unprecedented competitive reaction,” James Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. “Exclusive handsets have provided U.S. consumers the most advanced devices in the world at distinctly affordable rates. By allowing a carrier and a manufacturer to share the enormous risks and costs of bringing an inventive but unproven new device to market, exclusive arrangements both quicken the pace of technological advancement and incentivize the carrier to offer even greater handset subsidies to its customers.”

Verizon argued that point as well in a recent letter to Congress’s Telecommunications Subcommittee. “Exclusivity arrangements promote competition and innovation in device development and design,” the company said. “We work closely with our vendors to develop new and exciting devices that will attract customers. When we procure exclusive handsets from our vendors we typically buy hundreds of thousands or even millions of each device. Otherwise manufacturers may be reluctant to make the investments of time, money and production capacity to support a particular device.”

In some cases, perhaps. Though I doubt Apple (AAPL) and Research in Motion (RIMM), maker of the BlackBerry, feel that way these days. If there’s reluctance anywhere, it’s reluctance on the part of carriers like AT&T, which can’t bear the thought of losing its exclusive on the iPhone, without which it will face defections and slowing growth.

It’s a well-intentioned bit of legislation and it doesn’t lack for emotional import, given the famous MySpace suicide case from which it takes its name, but c’mon. As worded here, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act essentially makes it a crime to hurt someone’s feelings. Worse, its definition of the speech used to do that is very loose and ripe for abuse. It would seem to cover, for example, an irate reader comment on this post or pointed criticism of a public official. Or flame wars? And that’s just silly, isn’t it? And beyond that, it’s a violation of the First Amendment.

“This cannot possibly be constitutionally permissible, it cannot possibly be a good idea, it cannot possibly be what the drafters intended, and yet that is what they wrote,” UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told the St. Louis Post Dispatch. “If it is passed through Congress, I see it being struck down in courts,” he added.

Here’s hoping it doesn’t even make it that far…

BoomTown got the ball rolling by making a visit to Twitter HQ bearing pies. During a video tour of the premises, Biz Stone discussed rock stars and booze, and spilled the secret of the strange green deer. Later, co-founders Stone and Evan Williams were customarily nonspecific in a conversation about their revenue plans, and BoomTown was a little bit horrified to have become one of Ashton Kutcher’s million-plus followers–maybe even the one that put him over the top in his race with CNN to hit the seven-figure mark. Still on the celebrity tip (but off the Twitter one), BoomTown took a moment to appreciate the self-deprecatory stylings of Lindsay Lohan’s eHarmony spoof and to embed the video on AllThingsD.com. Finally, was there anyone this week who missed Susan Boyle’s virtually instant stardom on “Britain’s Got Talent” via Google’s (GOOG) YouTube? BT took a look at the journey the story has taken from television to Internet, back to television and back to Internet again.

Back to Twitter, MediaMemo took a look at its amazing growth as a service and as a phenomenon–the “hockey stick,” as one early investor describes the company’s trajectory so far. MM also looked at a study from the USC neuroscience group that says despite all the hype–or maybe even because of it–the human brain just isn’t built to digest information at Twitter’s pace. In the world of cable this week, just as folks were wondering whether Congress will stop the cable companies from charging by the byte, Time Warner Cable (TWX), one of the key players in the drama, backed away from its plans to do so. MediaMemo followed that story as well.

In this week’s Personal Technology column, Walt Mossberg took a look at the latest version of Apple’s (AAPL) MobileMe, and while he found it to be a big improvement over the product launch from last summer, it’s not without limitations. In Mossberg’s Mailbox, Walt answered questions from readers about displaying emergency contact numbers on a locked cellphone and the security of running Windows software on the Mac. And in Mossberg Solution, Katie Boehret took a look at Gwabbit, a program built to mine emails for contact info.

More next week.

Introduced by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, the “Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today’s Youth Act,” or Internet Safety Act, states that “a provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user.”

Sounds a bit broad, doesn’t? And indeed, privacy advocates say that it applies not just to the Wi-Fi access points of Internet service providers, but to those of libraries, schools, businesses and individuals as well.

To mine. And to yours.

An unsettling thought. Said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology: “[This is] invasive, risky, unnecessary, and likely to be ineffective.”

Perhaps. But it’s for the children. “While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children,” Sen. Cornyn said Thursday. “Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level.”

Our industry is not immune to what goes on in the global economy. And yet as I travel, given the current circumstances, people still see a certain buoyancy in the market.”

– Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, Sept. 26, 2008

Wall Street’s 777-point selloff Monday–one of its worst days since 1929–hit many tech stocks harder even than the overall market on Monday. Said Ross Sandler, senior Internet analyst at RBC Capital Markets, “Tech took it on the chin disproportionately.”

Indeed, it did. And a couple of other places as well, from the looks of things.

A quick overview of the carnage:

• Amazon (AMZN) fell 10 percent to $63.35
• Apple (AAPL) fell 17.9 percent to $105.26
• Cisco (CSCO fell 8.5 percent to $21.79
• Comcast (CMCSA) fell 13 percent to $18.01
• Dell (DELL) fell 9.4 percent to $15.41, a new 10-year low
• eBay (EBAY) fell 12 percent to $19.95
• Google (GOOG) fell 12 percent to $381.00, a new 2-year low
• Intel (INTC) fell 10.1 percent to $17.27, a new 2-year low
• Microsoft (MSFT) fell 8.7 percent to $25.01
• Oracle (ORCL) fell 9 percent to $18.77
• Qualcomm (QCOM) fell 13 percent to $39.88
• Research In Motion (RIMM) fell 12.8 percent to $61.73
• Sirius XM (SIRI) fell 18 percent to $0.62
• Sun (JAVA) fell 11.7 percent to $6.75, a new 13-year low
• Yahoo (YHOO) fell 10.8 percent, to $16.88, a new 5-year low

Seems the tech industry “buoyancy” to which Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer referred last week was more of a noneffervescence. Certainly, that’s the impression one gets from reading the statement Microsoft just issued calling on Congress to revisit its vote against the financial bailout plan. “Microsoft strongly urges members of the U.S. House of Representatives to reconsider and to support legislation that will re-instill confidence and stability in the financial markets,” General Counsel Brad Smith said in a statement. “This legislation is vitally important to the health and preservation of jobs in all sectors of the economy of Washington State and the nation, and we urge Congress to act swiftly.”

What was that you were saying about “buoyancy” again, Steve?

Still, to be fair, the tech sector does appear to be gaining some ground in early trading today. The tech-heavy Nasdaq rose 2 percent to 2,027, reclaiming some of Monday’s ugly 9 percent loss. Apple shares are up 2.7 percent at $106.70 as I write this. Google shares are up 4.5 percent at $398.06. Microsoft is up 2.5 percent at $25.63. Even Yahoo is on an upward track, up 2.43 percent at $17.29.

This week members of the House Judiciary Committee passed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (called “PRO IP” groan…) Act of 2007, legislation that would create an “anti-piracy czar” at the White House level, a separate IP-enforcement division at the Justice Department and ratchet up already high civil penalties for copyright infringement.

The measure is backed by many of the most powerful politicians on the House Judiciary Committee, including John Conyers (D., Mich.), Lamar Smith (R., Texas) and “Hollywood” Howard Berman (D., Calif.), the content cartel and, of course, Zucker, who likes to tell everyone that it dramatically advances the cause of protecting innovation, technological invention and creativity.

Said Zucker, “This is such an important step in combating this incredibly serious piracy and counterfeiting problem that’s getting worse, not better.”

In Zucker’s eyes, maybe. But not in the eyes of consumer folks like Google Senior Copyright Counsel William Patry who calls Pro IP “the most outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the U.S.” and consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge which feels it is in sore need of adjustment.:

This bill takes already extraordinary copyright damages and increases them, expanding the threat of litigation intended to stifle competition and innovation. … Increasing penalties is one of the least necessary, and quite possibly counterproductive, actions the committee could take, particularly when current law is adequate to deal with most infringement issues and because the higher penalties serve only to force faster and larger settlements potentially from innovators. … Instead of following the course of this bill, the committee should look to the future, to a more realistic and rational copyright regime that can adapt pre-VCR copyright laws to a post-YouTube world.”

In its annual report to Congress, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission accused China of enlisting engineers and scientists to acquire critical U.S. technology “by whatever means possible–including theft.” Said an official familiar with the report, “What the government cannot get through licit means, they are conducting an aggressive program of industrial espionage to acquire.”

To what end? Why, “cyber attacks” on American infrastructure, of course. Said Commission panelist USSTRATCOM Commander General James E. Cartwright, “I think that we should start to consider that [the sense of disruption and chaos] associated with a cyber attack could, in fact, be in the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction.”

An unsettling hypothesis to say the least, although to be fair, not every panelist bought it. Said James Lewis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “The effect [of a cyber attack is] usually to solidify resistance, to encourage people to continue the fight, and if you haven’t actually badly damaged their abilities to continue to fight, all you’ve done is annoy them, and what many of us call cyber attacks [are] not weapons of mass destruction but weapons of mass annoyance.”

It is more important for us to participate, not only for economic reasons, but to be able to [help shape where the industry is going]. You have to balance the risk of not participating. And people don’t realize that being in the market every day there, and being on the ground, we are seeing changes, on the whole, for the positive.”
–-Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang on China, March 2006

Sure, Yahoo signed China’s “Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry,” a voluntary agreement to monitor and restrict information deemed “harmful” by Beijing, but did it have to take it quite so seriously? Was it really necessary to divulge the identity of a Chinese journalist who was subsequently arrested and sent to prison for a decade? Can’t Yahoo do business in China without helping its government jail political dissidents (three at last count)?

We may never get a staight answer to those questions, but at least they’re being asked. The House Foreign Affairs Committee has ordered an investigation into Yahoo’s role in the prosecution of Shi Tao, a journalist and Yahoo Mail user, who was arrested in 2004 by Chinese officials after Yahoo cooperated with their request for information. The committee’s interest in the matter was sparked by new documents that suggest Yahoo gave information to Chinese authorities knowing that it could lead to the reporter’s arrest. An interesting revelation, as Yahoo has long maintained it had no information about the nature of the investigation.

“This new documentation suggests that Yahoo’s Beijing office was at least aware of the general nature of the crime being investigated in the Shi Tao case even if it was unaware of the specific circumstances or the name of the individual involved,” said Joshua Rosenzweig of the Dui Hua Foundation, a human-rights organization. “One does not have to be an expert in Chinese law to know that ‘state secrets’ charges have often been used to punish political dissent in China. We must remember that before Shi Tao there were three other Chinese dissidents about whom Chinese police obtained user information from Yahoo in Beijing. If we assume that law-enforcement agencies investigating these cases followed the same procedures to obtain that information, three other notices would have been provided specifying investigations into subversion or incitement–crimes of a more unambiguous political nature.”

A scathing indictment and one that may mean Yahoo is finally called to answer for its conduct in China. “It is bad enough that a wealthy American company would willingly supply Chinese police the means to hunt a man down for shedding light on repression in China,” said Tom Lantos, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “Covering up such a despicable practice when Congress seeks an explanation is a serious offense. For a firm engaged in the information industry, Yahoo sure has a lot of secrecy to answer for. We expect to learn the truth, and to hold the company to account.”

“While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child’s online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be foolproof in keeping kids away from adult material,” Inouye said. “In that context, we must evaluate our current efforts to combat child pornography and consider what further measures may be needed to stop the spread of such illegal material over high-speed broadband connections.”

“Given the increasingly important role of the Internet in education and commerce, it differs from other media like TV and cable because parents cannot prevent their children from using the Internet altogether,” Stevens said. “The headlines continue to tell us of children who are victimized online. While the issues are difficult, I believe Congress has an important role to play to ensure that the protections available in other parts of our society find their way to the Internet.”

At a hearing yesterday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Chairman Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) declared P2P networks a “national security threat,” claiming they’d caused federal employees to accidentally share sensitive or classified documents. “We used the most popular P2P program, LimeWire, and ran a series of basic searches,” Waxman said, referring to a bit of research done by his staff. “What we found was astonishing: personal bank records and tax forms, attorney-client communications, the corporate strategies of Fortune 500 companies, confidential corporate accounting documents, internal documents from political campaigns, government emergency-response plans and even military-operation orders. … It is truly chilling to think of what private information an organized operation or a foreign government could acquire with additional resources.”

Certainly is. But not nearly as chilling as the idea of government employees installing P2P software on government-issued computers holding classified government documents. No wonder the government got a C- on its 2006 Federal Computer Security Report Card.
The FBI is losing laptops like baby teeth, the Transportation Security Administration is misplacing hard drives with the Social Security numbers and bank account information of its employees, and now federal employees are jeopardizing the security of government emergency-response plans and military-operation orders by messing around with P2P clients.

Don’t try telling that to committee members like Rep. Jim Cooper (D., Tenn.), though. During yesterday’s hearing, he drew and quartered the lone representative from a peer-to-peer software company in attendance: LimeWire Chairman Mark Gorton. After suggesting that Gorton’s own home computer was likely leaking sensitive documents, Cooper lambasted him as “one of the most naive chairmen and CEOs” he’d ever encountered. “I’d feel more than a shade of guilt at this point, having made the laptop a dangerous weapon against the security of the United States,” Cooper said. “Mr. Gorton, you seem to lack imagination about how your product can be deliberately misused by evildoers against this country.”

Evildoers, huh. Is that a euphemism for federal employees doing government work on computers connected to peer-to-peer networks?

Congress’ Joint Economic Committee is expected to issue a report on the potential taxation of virtual goods by the end of July. No word yet on what it might say, although a JEC director has suggested that “as long as virtual activity stays within the virtual economy, it shouldn’t be taxable.” So is that to say that there are tax consequences for activity that extends beyond it? Sounds like it. “Any time someone wins a tangible prize or award, the value is reportable as taxable income,” an Internal Revenue Service rep told CNN earlier this year. “An accumulation of ‘points’ would not result in tax consequences, but redeeming or selling them for money, goods, or services would.”