[House Report 111-361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-361
======================================================================
INFORMED P2P USER ACT
_______
December 8, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Waxman, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1319]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1319) to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of
information on a computer through the use of certain ``peer-to-
peer'' file sharing software without first providing notice and
obtaining consent from the owner or authorized user of the
computer, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Amendment........................................................ 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 3
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 4
Legislative History.............................................. 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Statement of Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations.... 5
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 5
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 6
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 6
Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits............................. 6
Federal Advisory Committee Statement............................. 6
Applicability of Law to Legislative Branch....................... 6
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 6
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 7
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 8
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 11
AMENDMENT
The amendments are as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Informed P2P User Act''.
SEC. 2. CONDUCT PROHIBITED.
(a) Notice and Consent Required for File-sharing Software.--
(1) Notice and consent required prior to installation.--It is
unlawful for any covered entity to install on a protected
computer or offer or make available for installation or
download on a protected computer a covered file-sharing program
unless such program--
(A) immediately prior to the installation or
downloading of such program--
(i) provides clear and conspicuous notice
that such program allows files on the protected
computer to be made available for searching and
copying to one or more other computers; and
(ii) obtains the informed consent to the
installation of such program from an owner or
authorized user of the protected computer; and
(B) immediately prior to initial activation of a
file-sharing function of such program--
(i) provides clear and conspicuous notice of
which files on the protected computer are to be
made available for searching and copying to
another computer; and
(ii) obtains the informed consent from an
owner or authorized user of the protected
computer for such files to be made available
for searching and copying to another computer.
(2) Non-application to pre-installed software.--Nothing in
subparagraph (A) shall apply to the installation of a covered
file-sharing program on a computer prior to the first sale of
such computer to an end user, provided that notice is provided
to the end user who first purchases the computer that such a
program has been installed on the computer.
(b) Preventing the Disabling or Removal of Certain Software.--It is
unlawful for any covered entity--
(1) to prevent the reasonable efforts of an owner or
authorized user of a protected computer from blocking the
installation of a covered file-sharing program or file-sharing
function thereof; or
(2) to prevent an owner or authorized user of a protected
computer from having a reasonable means to either--
(A) disable from the protected computer any covered
file-sharing program; or
(B) remove from the protected computer any covered
file-sharing program that the covered entity caused to
be installed on that computer or induced another
individual to install.
SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices.--A violation of section
2 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or
deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(b) Federal Trade Commission Enforcement.--The Federal Trade
Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same
means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms
and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated
into and made a part of this Act.
(c) Preservation of Federal and State Authority.--Nothing in this Act
shall be construed to limit or supersede any other Federal or State
law.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) the term ``commercial entity'' means an entity engaged in
acts or practices in or affecting commerce, as such term is
defined in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 44);
(2) the term ``covered entity'' means--
(A) a commercial entity that develops a covered file-
sharing program; and
(B) a commercial entity that disseminates or
distributes a covered file-sharing program and is owned
or operated by the commercial entity that developed the
covered file-sharing program;
(3) the term ``protected computer'' has the meaning given
such term in section 1030(e)(2) of title 18, United States
Code; and
(4) the term ``covered file-sharing program''--
(A) means a program, application, or software that is
commercially marketed or distributed to the public and
that enables--
(i) a file or files on the computer on which
such program is installed to be designated as
available for searching and copying to one or
more other computers;
(ii) the searching of files on the computer
on which such program is installed and the
copying of any such file to another computer--
(I) at the initiative of such other
computer and without requiring any
action by an owner or authorized user
of the computer on which such program
is installed; and
(II) without requiring an owner or
authorized user of the computer on
which such program is installed to have
selected or designated another computer
as the recipient of any such file; and
(iii) an owner or authorized user of the
computer on which such program is installed to
search files on one or more other computers
using the same or a compatible program,
application, or software, and copy such files
to such owner or user's computer; and
(B) does not include a program, application, or
software designed primarily to--
(i) operate as a server that is accessible
over the Internet using the Internet Domain
Name system;
(ii) transmit or receive email messages,
instant messaging, real-time audio or video
communications, or real-time voice
communications; or
(iii) provide network or computer security,
network management, maintenance, diagnostics,
technical support or repair, or to detect or
prevent fraudulent activities.
SEC. 5. RULEMAKING.
The Federal Trade Commission may promulgate regulations under section
553 of title 5, United States Code to accomplish the purposes of this
Act. In promulgating rules under this Act, the Federal Trade Commission
shall not require the deployment or use of any specific products or
technologies.
SEC. 6. NONAPPLICATION TO GOVERNMENT.
The prohibition in section 2 of this Act shall not apply to the
Federal Government or any instrumentality of the Federal Government,
nor to any State government or government of a subdivision of a State.
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information
on a computer through certain ``peer-to-peer'' file sharing
programs without first providing notice and obtaining consent
from an owner or authorized user of the computer.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 1319, the ``Informed P2P User Act'', was introduced on
March 5, 2009, by Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), along with Rep.
Joe Barton (R-TX), the Ranking Member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and Rep. John Barrow (D-GA). The purpose
of the bill is to reduce inadvertent disclosures of sensitive
information by making users of certain file-sharing programs
more aware of how such programs work, how files are shared, and
the potential risks involved with the use of such programs.
The bill prohibits developers of covered file-sharing
programs from installing, or making available for installation
or downloading, a covered-file sharing program without first
providing consumers with notice that the program allows files
on the consumer's computer to be searched and copied. The
developer must then obtain the informed consent of the
consumer.
Under H.R. 1319, any covered file-sharing program must
provide notice and obtain consent twice: when the program is
first installed or downloaded and again immediately before the
file-sharing function is activated for the first time. The bill
also makes it unlawful to prevent the reasonable efforts of a
consumer to block the installation of a file-sharing program.
Finally, the program must provide a reasonable means to disable
or remove the program.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
File-sharing software enables consumers to share files over
the Internet by accessing each other's computer hard drives. To
share files, consumers download and install software from the
Internet, which enables them both to designate files on their
computer for others to copy, as well as search for and copy
files on other computers that are running the same or similar
file-sharing program. Once the files have been designated for
sharing, either intentionally or otherwise, any other person on
the file-sharing network can copy those files. People can share
any kind of file, from spreadsheets to movies. Currently, one
of the most common and well-known uses of such software is
commercial file-sharing programs used by millions of consumers
to lawfully share music, videos, pictures, and other files.
Lawful applications of file-sharing technology provide enormous
benefits to business, academia, and consumers.
The use of file-sharing software, however, also presents
significant risks for consumers. For example, recent news
reports and studies highlight the danger of inadvertent sharing
of sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers, tax
returns, and health records.\1\ Sensitive government documents
have been discovered on file-sharing networks, including
engineering and communications information about the
President's helicopter, Marine One.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\File-Sharing Breach at Investment Firm Highlights Dangers of P2P
Networks--Again, Computer World (July 9, 2008) (online at
www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=
viewArticleBasic&articleId=9108418); M. Eric Johnson, Dan McGuire, and
Nicholas D. Wiley, Why File Sharing Networks Are Dangerous?,
Communications of the ACM (Feb. 2009); and Academic Claims to Find
Sensitive Medical Info Exposed on Peer-to-Peer Networks, Wired.com
(Mar. 2, 2009) (online at www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/p2p-
networks-le/).
\2\Report: Obama Helicopter Security Breached, MSNBC (Mar. 1, 2009)
(online at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29447088/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inadvertent file sharing can occur for several reasons. In
some cases, users simply do not understand which folders are
available to other users on the network. In other cases, users
mistakenly place sensitive documents in shared folders. Some
consumers, focused on exchanging specific types of files such
as music or videos, fail to appreciate that the software can be
used to share any file on their computer. Different types of
file-sharing software operate differently, and the risk of
inadvertent sharing varies from program to program. File-
sharing software users must understand the risk of inadvertent
file sharing, properly configure their software, and know what
files are designated for sharing on their computer.
Reports of users inadvertently sharing sensitive files date
back to the beginning of this decade, when file-sharing
software and certain peer-to-peer (P2P) applications first
became popular on the Internet.\3\ Over the past few years,
certain distributors of file-sharing software have made efforts
to improve disclosures and implement protections to reduce the
risk of the inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information.
Despite these efforts, the problem persists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See, e.g., Nathaniel S. Good and Aaron Krekelberg, Usability and
Privacy: A Study of Kazaa P2P File-Sharing, Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (Apr. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1319, the Informed P2P User Act, is intended to reduce
inadvertent disclosures of sensitive information by making
users of file-sharing programs more aware of the risks
involved. H.R. 1319 focuses on a particular type of file-
sharing application that can expose its users to a specific
risk: inadvertently exposing their personal or sensitive data
to downloading by users of the same or compatible file-sharing
software without their specific knowledge or permission.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On March 5, 2009, Rep. Bono Mack, with Ranking Member
Barton and Rep. Barrow, introduced H.R. 1319, the Informed P2P
User Act. Rep. Bono Mack introduced similar legislation, H.R.
7176, in the 110th Congress. H.R. 1319 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on
March 6, 2009. The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 1319 on May 5, 2009. Testimony was heard from witnesses
representing the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC); the Center for Democracy and
Technology; the Business Software Alliance; the Distributed
Computing Data Industry Association; the Electronic Privacy
Information Center; Tiversa, Inc.; and the Center for the Study
of Digital Property of the Progress & Freedom Foundation. There
was no Subcommittee markup held on the legislation, as it was
taken up directly in the full Committee.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup
session on September 30, 2009, and considered H.R. 1319, as
introduced on March 5, 2009. The Committee adopted by a voice
vote a manager's amendment offered by Mr. Waxman to the bill.
The full Committee subsequently agreed to order H.R. 1319
favorably reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto. A motion by Mr. Waxman to order H.R. 1319 favorably
reported to the House, amended, was agreed to by a voice vote.
There were no recorded votes taken during consideration and
passage of H.R. 1319.
STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee are
reflected in the descriptive portions of this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the
estimate of budget authority and revenues regarding H.R. 1319
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974. The Committee finds that H.R. 1319 would result in no new
or increased entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or
revenues.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and
objectives of the Committee are reflected in the descriptive
portions of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee must include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress to
enact the law proposed by H.R. 1319. Article I, section 8,
clauses 3 and 18 of the Constitution of the United States
grants the Congress the power to enact this law.
EARMARKS AND TAX AND TARIFF BENEFITS
H.R. 1319 does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., section 5(b) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.
APPLICABILITY OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
H.R. 1319 prohibits developers of covered file-sharing
programs from installing, or making available for installation
or downloading, a covered-file sharing program without first
providing consumers with notice that the program allows files
on the consumer's computer to be searched and copied. This bill
does not relate to employment or access to public services and
accommodations in the legislative branch.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement on
whether the provisions of the report include unfunded mandates.
In compliance with this requirement the Committee adopts as its
own the estimated of federal mandates prepared by the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the
cost estimate of H.R. 1319 prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received
the following cost estimate for H.R. 1319 from the Director of
Congressional Budget Office:
October 19, 2009.
Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1319, the Informed
P2P User Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1319--Informed P2P User Act
H.R. 1319 would place new notification requirements on
companies that develop or distribute software that allows files
to be shared between computers. Specifically, the bill would
require such companies to provide clear notice that file-
sharing capability is being installed on a computer. Further,
prior to activation of the file-sharing function, the bill
would require companies to specify which files would be made
available for sharing and obtain the user's consent before the
files would be made available to be shared. The bill also would
make it unlawful to prevent a user of the software from
disabling or removing the file-sharing capability. The Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) would be required to develop regulations
to impose those requirements and to enforce the new
restrictions.
Based on information from the FTC, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 1319 would cost about $1 million annually
over the 2010-2014 period, assuming availability of the
necessary amounts. The additional costs would be incurred to
develop and enforce the notification requirements. CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 1319 could increase federal
revenues from additional civil penalties assessed for
violations of the new regulations. We estimate that any
additional revenues would not be significant because of the
relatively small number of cases expected to be involved.
Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending.
H.R. 1319 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect
the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
The bill would impose private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA. It would require companies that develop or distribute
software that allows files to be shared between computers to
provide certain features that give the user control over
various functions of the software.
Based on information from industry sources, CBO expects the
mandates in the bill would require only marginal changes in
such software, which would impose minimal costs. Consequently,
CBO estimates that the cost of the mandates would fall well
below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-
sector mandates ($139 million in 2009, adjusted annually for
inflation.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susan Willie
(for federal costs) and Sam Wice (for the private-sector
impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 provides that the short title of H.R. 1319 is the
``Informed P2P User Act''
Section 2. Conduct prohibited
Subparagraph 2(a)(1)(A) requires that if a covered entity
installs a covered file-sharing program, or makes that program
available for installation or downloading, that file-sharing
program must provide clear and conspicuous notice prior to
installation or downloading that the program allows files on
the computer to be made available for searching and copying to
other computers. Subparagraph (A) further requires that
following such notice, the file-sharing program must then
obtain the owner or authorized user's informed consent to the
installation or downloading of the program.
Subparagraph 2(a)(1)(B) requires notice to be provided and
consent obtained a second time. Specifically, the file-sharing
program must provide clear and conspicuous notice of which
files on the user's computer are to be made available for
searching and copying prior to the initial activation of a
file-sharing function of the program. The program must then
obtain the informed consent from the owner or authorized user
of the computer for such files to be made available for
searching and copying to another computer. Pursuant to this
subparagraph, notice must be provided, and consent must be
obtained, only the first time the file-sharing function of a
covered file-sharing program is activated on a protected
computer; and does not include subsequent uses of the program
on that protected computer.
Paragraph 2(a)(2) provides that the requirement for notice
and consent prior to initial installation or downloading of a
covered file-sharing program does not apply to the installation
of a covered file-sharing program on a computer prior to the
first sale of such computer to an end user. Notice must,
however, be provided to the end user who first purchases the
computer that a covered file-sharing program has been installed
on the computer. This notice should be clear and conspicuous
and serve the purpose of alerting the consumer that covered
file-sharing software already is installed on the computer and
such software may make files on that computer available for
searching and copying by other computers. The notice and
consent requirements of Subparagraph 2(a)(1)(B) that apply
prior to the initial activation of a file-sharing function,
however, still apply to such software. This paragraph
acknowledges the fact that for preinstalled software the
consumer does not take any affirmative step to install or
download the software, thus there is no reasonable opportunity
for the covered entity to provide notice and obtain consent
prior to installation.
Subparagraph 2(b)(1) prohibits a covered entity from
preventing a consumer's reasonable efforts to block the
installation of a covered file-sharing program or file-sharing
function thereof. Thus, it would be unlawful for a covered
entity to install a covered file-sharing program on a
consumer's computer through any practice or mechanism that is
designed to circumvent security or other settings enabled by
the consumer.
Subparagraph 2(b)(2) prohibits a covered entity from
preventing a consumer from having a reasonable means to either
(A) disable from the consumer's computer any covered file-
sharing program or (B) remove from the consumer's computer any
covered file-sharing program that is installed on that
computer. This provision is intended to prohibit covered
entities from employing tactics that make their programs
difficult to remove. For example, practices such as installing
multiple copies of a program to avoid permanent deletion,
constantly changing file name or file location to escape
detection, or reinstalling automatically without the user's
intervention after a program has been removed would violate
this provision.
The Committee recognizes that software development is a
highly innovative field, and does not seek to impose specific
design requirements on software that may prove to be
inappropriate in some circumstances or unduly burdensome.
Rather, paragraph (2) is intended to prohibit those practices
designed to frustrate a consumer's effort to prevent a covered
file-sharing program from being installed in the first place or
from easily disabling or removing such a program after it has
been installed.
Section 3. Enforcement
Section 3 provides for enforcement by the FTC and
establishes that a violation of section 2 shall be treated as
an unfair act or practice in violation of a regulation under
section 18 of the FTC Act.
Section 4. Definitions
Paragraph (1) defines the term ``commercial entity'' to
mean an entity engaged in acts or practices in commerce, as
commerce is defined in section 4 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act.
Paragraph (2) defines a ``covered entity'' to include a
commercial entity that develops a covered file-sharing program
and a commercial entity that disseminates or distributes a
covered file-sharing program and is owned or operated by the
commercial entity that developed the program. Entities that
merely disseminate, distribute, or otherwise make covered file-
sharing software available to the public, but are not owned or
operated by the entity that developed the program, are not
required to comply with the provisions of this Act. In
addition, individuals who develop or modify a covered file-
sharing program for personal use or who do not profit from such
activities also are not covered, as they are not commercial
entities.
Paragraph (3) defines the term ``protected computer'' to
have the same meaning as the term in section 1030(e)(2) of
title 18, United States Code.
Paragraph (4) defines the term ``covered file-sharing
program'' to mean a program, application, or software
commercially marketed or distributed to the public that
satisfies all the requirements set forth in clauses (i), (ii),
and (iii).
Pursuant to clause (i), the program must enable files on
the computer on which it is installed to be designated as
available for searching and copying to one or more other
computers. This is satisfied if the user of the computer takes
an affirmative action to designate files for searching and
copying or if the program automatically initiates some action
to designate files or folders for searching and copying by
other computers.
Clause (ii) requires that the program enables files on the
computer on which the program is installed to be searched and
copied by other computers. In this case, the searching and
copying is done at the initiative of the other computer without
requiring any action by the owner of the computer on which the
program is installed.
Finally, clause (iii) provides that the program allows the
owner of the computer on which the program is installed to
search files on other computers using the same or compatible
file-sharing program.
Paragraph (4)(B) specifically excludes certain programs,
applications, and software from the definition. There are many
kinds of distributed computing applications that are not
intended to be covered by H.R. 1319, ranging from peer-to-peer
technologies used internal to a corporate enterprise to cloud
computing.
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
During markup by the full Committee, Chairman Waxman
offered a manager's amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The manager's amendment narrows the definition of a covered
file-sharing program to avoid sweeping in legitimate
technologies that are unrelated to the problem of inadvertent
file-sharing, such as Web servers, e-mail, instant messaging,
and computer security software. The manager's amendment also
adds a new definition for ``covered entity'' that limits
liability under the bill only to those commercial entities that
develop a covered file-sharing program or distribute a covered
file-sharing program and are owned or operated by a developer.
The manager's amendment clarifies that it is unlawful for a
covered entity to ``install on a protected computer or offer or
make available for installation or download'' a covered file-
sharing program unless the program makes the required
disclosures. Under the manager's amendment, the requirement for
notice prior to installation does not apply to software
installed prior to the initial sale of a computer if notice
that a covered file-sharing program has been installed is
otherwise provided in some form.
Finally, the manager's amendment provides the FTC with
discretionary rulemaking authority and clarifies that the bill
does not apply to the federal government.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
There are no changes in existing federal law made by the
bill, as reported.