We continue with more commentary from interested parties regarding the Supreme Court's Monday triple play involving Brand X, Grokster and confidential source shielding. Today: Joe Barton (R-TX) and CFA/CU on Brand X; ACU's Stacie Rumenap and Ben Scott of Free Press on Grokster' and RCFP's Lucy A. Dalglish on shield.

---

On Brand X

U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee: "I commend the court for upholding the FCC's deregulatory approach to broadband services. The FCC correctly determined that broadband services should not be regulated as common carriage. After an erroneous ruling by the Ninth Circuit, the court affirmed the validity of the FCC's determination. While I am pleased that the court has removed the clouds of uncertainty regarding the proper regulatory framework for broadband services, this decision and the uncertainty that has existed in the market since the Ninth Circuit's erroneous decision demonstrate why Congress needs to modernize the Communications Act. Congress needs to remove the ambiguity regarding what broadband services are and how they should be regulated. I look forward to working with subcommittee Chairman Upton and the rest of my colleagues to bring clarity and consistency to the statutory framework governing the regulation of broadband and Internet Protocol services."

Consumers Federation of America/Consumers Union: "The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Brand X case on administrative procedure grounds (i.e. Chevron deference to the agency) should be a wake up call to Congress on both procedural and policy grounds. Congress clearly outlined a specific procedure that the Federal Communications Commission should follow in making important deregulatory decisions and it needs to be more explicit. More importantly, without careful thought, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made the decision to exempt cable modem service from the obligation of providing nondiscriminatory access to the telecommunications network. In its action, the agency abandoned a fundamental principle that has applied to all means of communications throughout U.S. history: Communications and transportation networks must be available to all on a nondiscriminatory basis if they are to serve the public interest."

---

On Grokster

American Conservative Union Deputy Director Stacie Rumenap: "Today's ruling reinforces what the ACU has said all along: punish violators, not innovators. But by sending the case back to a lower court, tech companies will be left in legal limbo pending a further decision that could take years. Today's ruling leaves many significant challenges for consumers, innovators and the U.S. economy. The courts should be prepared to see a rash of new lawsuits brought against companies that make popular products ranging from iPods to MP3 players. Crucial research and development will be abandoned if the creators of new technologies are allowed to be sued for the actions of some who misuse their products."

Ben Scott, Free Press Policy Director: "In the Grokster case, the monumental question of whether peer-to-peer network technologies themselves, rather the ways they are used, could be deemed an illegal inducement to commit copyright violation was punted into the future. The Court issued a narrow ruling against Grokster on the grounds that the company blatantly advertised the opportunity to use a peer-to-peer technology to break the law and profited from that specific venture. The law has always made a careful distinction between regulating technologies and regulating the users of those technologies. This is no time to turn our backs on history. The critical point in this case is the Justices affirmation that technologies cannot be held liable for how consumers use them. Innovation must be permitted to thrive."

---

On shield

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Executive Director Lucy A. Dalglish: "As time goes on, it has become increasingly clear that the law may not have been broken when Ms. Plame's identity was revealed. It will be a travesty of justice if two journalists go to jail for keeping their promises by refusing to identify sources in a criminal case where there was no violation of the law."