The original ruling by the CRB caused widespread outrage from Internet broadcasters and listeners alike. The ruling said that every Internet radio station—even nonprofit stations and those that serve the public—must pay heavily-increased royalty fees to royalty collection entity SoundExchange. The rate hike involved a $500 annual fee for each channel owned by a station and a royalty for every song played per connected user at the time of the song’s broadcast. The CRB ruled that Internet radio stations would have to pay retroactive fees on the new rates to cover 2006 and 2007, as well.

National Public Radio spearheaded an appeal against the CRB’s ruling, arguing that the newly-proposed fees for Internet broadcasters were so high that they would cripple nearly all of the currently-available radio stations on the ‘Net. The organization also reasoned that the fee would be impossible for broadcasters to calculate and begged the CRB to reconsider the formulas for calculating its new fee structure.

The CRB rejected the appeal several weeks later and upheld every part of the original ruling, save for how royalties would be calculated. Instead of charging a royalty for each time a song is heard by a listener, the broadcasters would be able to pay fees based on average listening hours through 2008. However, the new formula would still yield fees crippling most ‘Net radio stations and force them offline once retroactive fee collection started on May 15.

Anyone who includes misleading “words” or “images” intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says.

Because the U.S. Senate already approved the measure in a voice vote last week, it now goes to President Bush for his signature. Bush, who previously endorsed the bill, has scheduled a signing ceremony for Thursday afternoon on the White House grounds.

“America’s children will be better protected from every parent’s worst nightmare–sexual predators–thanks to passage” of the legislation, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement on Tuesday.

The U.S. government controls the naming system for “.com” and all web addresses through the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based not-for-profit company that decides what names can and cannot be registered.

Some foreign governments and critics have been concerned that the U.S. government has too much control over what has become a global commerce, communications and social engine. The transition is currently slated to take place by Sept. 30, but the U.S. Department of Commerce has the option to extend its control.

The European Commission was highly critical of what it called “political interference” by U.S. officials last May in rejecting a proposed .xxx Internet domain for pornography Web sites–a system supporters said would help confine and filter such sites.

The groups, including Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, issued a joint statement supporting the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 sponsored by Representative Christopher Smith (news, bio, voting record).

The bill could impose fine or criminal penalties on companies that cooperate with governments in a crackdown on online freedom of expression.

The legislation, pending in a House committee, was introduced after news that China had pressured Yahoo to turn over names of political dissidents who send sensitive information over e-mail. Yahoo denied helping Beijing.

After years of benign neglect, the Federal government is finally involved in the Internet — big time. And the decisions being made over the next few months will impact not just the future of the Web, but that of mass media and consumer electronics as well. Yet it’s safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace.

To attack the latter problem, industry lobbyists are pressing Congress to adopt at least five different proposals that would give them more control over their works as they flow through new digital pipelines into living rooms and portable devices. But these measures, like the technologies they would affect, have a hard time distinguishing between illicit actions and legitimate ones.

The bills would pressure device makers and service providers to limit or eliminate features from some products, such as the ability to record individual songs off satellite radio. In essence, tech companies would have to alter what they are selling to safeguard the entertainment industry’s wares.

Protecting intellectual property is a legitimate goal for Congress — after all, the Constitution called on Congress to give authors and inventors exclusive rights “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” The task has grown more urgent with the emergence of an Internet-fueled global information economy. But what the entertainment industry is seeking in this year’s proposals isn’t merely protection from piracy; it’s after increased leverage to protect its business models.

The legislation would clarify existing law to spell out that it is illegal to gamble online.

To enforce that ban, the bill would prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. It also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

Some opponents of the legislation say policing the Internet is impossible, that it would be better to regulate the $12 billion industry and collect taxes from it. The online gambling industry is based almost entirely outside the United States, though about half its customers live in the U.S.

Berman said the call was in response to a Los Angeles Times article on Sunday that detailed how a suspected bootlegger was allegedly assisted by Aeroflot employees.

The story chronicled animation distributor Joan Borsten’s one-woman crusade to halt the sale of cheap, illegal versions of her company’s DVDs in Russian stores throughout Los Angeles.

“I am very concerned about what appears to be a serious breach in customs enforcement at Los Angeles International Airport,” Berman wrote in a letter this week to U.S. Customs Commissioner W. Ralph Basham. “I urge you to investigate this situation immediately.”

Howard Waltzman, chief counsel of Telecommunications and the Internet for the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, for instance, wants the act passed for more multi-channel competition and lower cable prices. Yet Johanna Shelton, minority counsel of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, claimed that there are clearly problems in the bill and further stated “outright blocking is a huge problem.”

While the Web can ensure that everyone can get their point of view across the board regardless of size or influence, the Internet is made of various groups including universities and libraries, according to Shelton. As of right now, Shelton is not confident that the new act would meet this expectation. She questioned whether consumers would have choices with Web sites under the legislation, at a time when the consumer should be in charge of where they want to go.

Gregory Vadas, congressional fellow of Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., stated that, “We just need a compromise on the issue of Net neutrality” in order for the bill to pass.

Opponents of the new usage toll — predominantly the IT heavyweights — demand nothing less than “Internet neutrality” where all traffic remains free in the spirit of democratic usage and access.

But telephone giants like Verizon, AT&T and cable TV provider Comcast argue that opponents of the fee are standing in the way of progress since the charges would cover faster Internet access, and are waging their own “hands off the Internet” campaign.

“It would be the first time content is dictated by network owners,” said Republican Senator Olympia Snowe.