Think history will record, is that you were not fully functioning until may of 2013. That is about 8. 5 years lost of a very critical mission. Let me just say that a goal in the law, certainly my personal goal was to have in the law certainty that liberty and security were reinforcing values in the policies and practices that we established under the law. Is if ever that function were needed, it is right now. Me that youunate to were one of the best kept secrets in washington. I know you are making a massive effort to get out there and i commend you for it. Urgenthink the need is and you, uniquely among the different groups in looking at arepolicies and practices, able to make sure from the inside that we are doing the right things. Let me make two other points. Germanyas in berlin, a week ago today, at , dinner for top policy types think tank leaders, and business people. All of whom were shocked and horrified by the revolution europeanns revealed in newspapers. When i told them that
Cannot be called the job of the parliament. This is done by opposition forces. They were pressed by the gun man and the seal of the to parliament parliament. That calledrnment the cabinet of it to read. Three over the ukrainian people . Have been a government of national unity. That is what we were discussing back then. Difficult to find the proper words to describe how the power is being fought today into its in the power. The names, which became name known across the world, these promotepeople who violence. Beyond the ukraine, they are well known around the world. They insight fear. I believe the Ukrainian Parliament is not legitimate. I still maintain the sacrament which was not the filled, given the condition that it will be for sale could have called down and would have launched the Legal Process of resolving the political crisis in the ukraine. That was the way out. The radicals have forced us into these dead ends. The second part of the question about the judges. This is unprece
Reality. They provide thousands of paying strangers with public ordinances Public Performances over the tv. Thank you. The case is submitted. Following the oral argument, attorneys representing both abc ereo spur brief spoke briefly to reporters. Clement, paul clement. I just want to say we are very glad to get before the court filedon the case that we trying to seek review of the second circuits decision because we thought the second circuits decision was profoundly wrong and was a real threat to the nature of the broadcast industry. We are very happy to be in court today. We are very pleased with the way the Court Considered the arguments. They understood the technology. They understood the stakes. Obviously, they were focused on the interpretation of the statute and we convey to them are relatively straightforward position which is that a service can not provide live tv over the internet to thousands of paying strangers without engaging in a Public Performance. It is really as simpl
Traditional methods where those arent possible. You dont need as much regulation on the consumer side in the long term to the midterm as the system grows up. In the short term, consumers should be aware this is a high risk environment, and its not quite ready for mass adoption today. That time is it coming, but its not here yet. Thank you. Mr. Allen opinion. I dont think i have much to add, other than to say, one of the groups i met with are industry leaders. They view as the other panelists do, Virtual Currency akin to cash. There is no fdsc. There is not that level of protection. So i think it has to be viewed as high risk, and i think the points that the other pannists made about the fact that Consumer Protections are part of a work in progress, but certainly something we need to be aware of. The in anticipation, this hearing is asking our staff tell me a little bit, who was the creator, who are the creators . And im told that the protocol was developed by either by a programmer or
They are not just a passive bystander. Maybe in the reproduction context just pushes a button there is only one person that reproduces but what is the conduct is answered by the transmit clause. Congress specifically looked at this and said there are going to be lots of situations where the accepteder sends a transition to the user and the sender of that transition if it allows a con terp rainous performance unlike the record company, they are a transmitter. Tell me the consequences of our decision today. Do you put them out of business or do they go and negotiate a license with every caller right holder . They are not a Cable Company, they are not a Satellite Company so they cant go into those systems of payment. What happens now . It gets back to chief justices question which is if they provide something that is a benefit there is no reason people wont license them. But if all they have is a gimmick they probably will go out of business. They are going to have to find caller right ow