Slashdot Mirror
Alternatives To The INDUCE Act
Iphtashu Fitz writes "The 'Don't Induce Act' proposes that only someone who distributes a commercial computer program that is 'specifically designed' for wide-scale piracy on digital networks could be held liable for copyright violations. The proposal includes three requirements that must be met before a software distributor can be found liable: The 'predominant' use of the program must be the mass, indiscriminate infringing redistribution of copyrighted works; the 'commercial viability of the computer program' must depend on revenue derived from piracy; and the software distributor must have 'undertaken conscious, recurring, persistent and deliberate acts' to encourage copyright infringement. No surprise that the MPAA and RIAA are opposed to this 'watered down' bill. MPAA vice president Fritz Attaway showed his organizations true colors by stating that the Don't Induce Act was so narrowly drafted it would be impossible to use it to shutter even operators of peer-to-peer networks."
The whole reason we're able to record and watch/listen to something later doesn't imply a right to be able to watch/listen more than once.
Unless re-view is explicity limited by a broadcast, it does imply multiple viewings are allowed. Kinda like the 'rebroadcast of this NFL event is prohibited'
When DRM becomes a reality, it'd be up to Congress to determine whether or not we have a right to multiple uses of recorded content, in my opinion
If you are talking 'multiple uses' in the on PC/on CD/on Mp3/in car multiple usage that is one thing and Congress will probably keep it (via INDUCE) the way the **AAs want it (1 device). If you once again mean 1 time viewing, Congress will not mandate that either - the **AAs may try, but that (DIVx) model will fail (or be minimal) for almost every offering ('cept PPV, which is by definition meant to be 1 time).
The MPAA controls the bulk of the most addictive item on earth. Forget nicotine, booze, or crack...how many folks do you know that absofuckinglutely need their music fix?
What they should be doing right now is providing their own cheap, free, fast, and reliable downloading service and eradicate p2p services altogether.
Once the hardware dedicated to their system is omnipresent, start charging for the service. It wouldn't be too long before half the country is paying $50-$70/month for music, simply because it's by far the most convenient method.
What the MPAA can't wrap their heads around is that most people don't use p2p because they want to steal...they just want convenient access to a monster music library. Give it to them! Do you really think all the people spending $400 on an iPod won't pay exorbitant monthly rates for a truly useful and convenience source of music? Of course they will!
Yeah, there would be increased piracy under this system, but that's not lost revenue. People who won't pay for quality music access aren't the ones currently supporting the MPAA's obsolete brick and mortar infrastructure.
Hypothetically speaking, if I am a songwriter, I am perfectly within my rights as the owner of that song to tell you that you cannot distribute it. That is unlicenced content
I come from a background where "unlicensed content" refers to content that hasn't been approved by the owner of copyright in the player software, such as independently published console games. Imagine if every title published on DVD Video had to be approved by the DVD Forum.
Judge Richard Posner, a good writer, has been blogging about IP and fair use at Lessig Blog. The series of entries are very informative and give a good background to IP.
The INDUCE ACT and other legal efforts by the RIAA and other media organistions are lame efforts to control the current distribution model media companies have .IF you are an independant artist you will never have any chance of getting into Blockbuster, Best Buy, Wallmart ,Tower Records ect unless your record label is owned by one of the Major record companies as they have contracts that only allow thier artist to get into these stores .The EFF proposed a Voluntary Colletive Licencing model for payment of copyrighted material where you pay a flat fee to download copyrighted content from p2p networks but the problem is the RIAA rejected it becuse it screws up thier antiquated distribution channels. Thier Idea of inovative distribution is itunes or the new Napster . The problem they have is that an artist could release a independant recording without thier input and may even become a number one hit all without the input of the RIAA members .The record companies would have to become advertising agencys for the Artists and would actully become contractors or employees of the Artists. The current distribution model and bussiness models of media companies forces most Arists to be employees of the company and the company controlls the copyright .Collective Licencing would give the artists controll .
Big Champane and other p2p monitoring companies sell data to the RIAAs members and others to see what is swapped and have a TOP 10 so it is well documented and auditied on what is being shared out there .
http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php
In the example you give, putting Brittney Spears' music on your Kazaa server would indeed be a method of expression. During the copyright term, it would be an illegal one. It might even open you up to prosecution for criminal copyright infringment. (The First Amendment would shield you from prosecution for criminal bad taste.) However, speech is speech, and all the laws in the world can't make it "NOT-speech".
Yes, we do. Cassettes, CDs, whatever can be recorded onto. It's just not charged seperately from the price on the shelf (unlike, for example, sales tax, which is assessed at checkout).