EFF's Letter to the Senate on INDUCE

z0ink writes "Picked up off of EFFector today a letter to all US Senators on the topic of IICA (Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 -- formerly the INDUCE Act). 'In February, EFF proposed an industry-led collective licensing solution that would ensure compensation for copyright owners while minimizing the need for governmental intrusion into the digital music marketplace,' writes EFF Executive Director Shari Steele in the letter. 'It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers.' IICA has been covered here on Slashdot with more information available here."

Comments

Re:No comment

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers

I hear some lawyers are more than just profiteering bastards and actually want to change things...

Re:Copyright owners != artists

[rokzy]

look at what follows the "little c in a circle" on CDs etc.

It's too vague...

[mratitude]

`(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability. `(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer. `(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.'.

The first paragraph isn't unreasonable and even includes the "reasonable person" test. Anything can happen in a process involving lawyers, judges and law enforcement but the "reasonable person" test has a long history of staving off overzealous lawyers and enforcement knee-jerks.

The problem is with the third paragraph. Making a copy of your legally purchased mechandise is still against the law. According to paragraph 3, even if you make a copy of an audio disc for your purposes; Should that copy ever be found in a condition by which it isn't under your immediate control (not on your person, on an internet connected PC, in your car) you are liable under the provisions of this law.

Re:Copyright owners != artists

[goldspider]

That's called treating the symptom, not the problem.

The problem is that entertainers (I refuse to call most of them "artists") are still signing contracts with the RIAA.

Any solution to the "P2P conflict" will have to center around getting entertainers to stop signing with the RIAA. Once that happens, the RIAA has absolutely no power over the entertainer and the means they choose to distribute their music.

Senator writing result...

[cdipierr]

I wrote to Dole & Edwards (the two NC senators) when Slashdot had the first INDUCE article.

While I've yet to hear back form Edwards's office (not suprising considering his current campaign), I did hear back from Dole's.

I was expecting the standard "but this is good for technology, live with it..." response, but instead got a short response that essentially said that she agreed that INDUCE might have some potential bad consequences for technology and innovation and that she'd investigate it.

Now, obviously it was just a form letter response, but it's perhaps the first time I've had a senator actually respond with potentially encouraging news.

Absolutely wrong

[CrystalFalcon]

Copyrights are always owned by the artists. By law. By definition.

The are the creator of the work, and therefore automatically assigned the copyright, which cannot be given away.

(The RIAA once tried to change this by changing the law to allow "work for hire"-type music contracts, which would make the studios the copyright holders. Thankfully, it didn't pass.)

What you are thinking of is the DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS to specific copyrights. Such distribution rights are typically owned by publishers, by form of a contract with the copyright holder, the artist.

And it is exactly these distribution rights that, with the advent of the Internet and P2P, suddenly don't add nearly as much value to the music as they used to do, yet the products (albums) are still being charged for as much as they were in the old days.

Something's gotta give.

Re:Absolutely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright initially vests in the author who fixes an original form of expression in tangible form. (17 USC 201)When this happens, the author receives the exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivatives, distribute copies, publicly display, publicly perform, and digitally transmit the work. (17 USC 106)

It is incorrect to say that the copyright cannot be given away. 17 USC 201(d) makes it clear that "ownership of copyright may be transferred in whole or in part." And such transfers may be effected through execution fo a written instrument (17 USC 204). That is why every single music contract signed by an artist is going to contain an assignment clause by which the recording artist assigns his/her entire copyright to the publisher. The publishers do hold the exclusive rights to the copyrights.

And there is no such thing as a work-for-hire doctrine in music. First, the artists are not employees of the record company. Next, songs do not fit into one of the enumerated categories in the work-for-hire doctrine.

Re:I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote Feinstein and this is what she wrote me back. Looks like I know who to vote against next time she's up for reelection (I don't think she's up this time)....

Her repsonse:
Thank you for writing to me about music file-sharing. I
appreciate your thoughts on this important topic and welcome the opportunity to respond.

I have always believed that the protection of intellectual
property rights is vital to a flourishing economy -- particularly in
California. As new technologies, such as P2P file sharing, have
developed over the past few years it has become increasingly
difficult to protect intellectual property from illegal copying and
distribution. I believe that we must work to prevent the creation of digital copies of copyrighted works that can be illegally distributed throughout the world.

The "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004" (S
2560) is currently pending consideration in the Senate Judiciary
Committee, of which I am a member. I will certainly keep your
thoughts in mind should this legislation come up in the Committee.

Again, thank you for writing. Should you have any further
comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator