Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Office Suggests Changes To Induce Act
An anonymous reader writes "The US Copyright Office has proposed a new version of the Induce act. Under this new version it is apparently more difficult to bring charges against a company for inducement. Stories on the subject can be found at DRMBlog.com and at News.com."
saying: "Download KazAAm for $5.00 and get access to all the copyrighted songs and movies you want!" is "inducement".
saying: "KazAAm 2.0 is released, it is a P2P network designed for decentralized distribution of binary files" isn't.
Sort of like selling a smartcard reader/writer is no crime, but advertising it as a tool to hack DirecTV is.
Frankly, there are regulations governing other businesses that could be "shady". Most municipalities have pawn shops licensed and required to report every transaction, and it's illegal for them (or anyone else) to knowingly buy stolen goods.
I think the goal here is to stop companies from profitting by promoting an illegal product. The law probably sucks though, because laws always go to far.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
"First it was the Hollings bill, then Induce, now the Copyright Office's bill. They look different, but they all revolve around the same thing: Giving content (providers) veto power over all new technology," Rodger said. "Who decided that holders of government-granted monopolies should determine the future of high tech? I don't remember reading that memo."
Mirrors my feelings exactly. Just goes to show that companies (with convenient government puppets) will stop at nothing to establish monopoly over everything in their power.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
"inducement" as a legal term with a specific meaning in intellectual property law. It typically means that someone is doing something which would *not* strictly speaking be considered an infringement of a copyright or a patent. But what they are doing is "inducing" infringement, i.e. causing, encouraging, soliciting others to infringe.
It's a concept that carries over from criminal law. It's sort of like, hey, she didn't commit the crime, but she did solicit others to do it for her, or something like that.
Lending him the CD - would not be an inducement.
The reason is you no longer have have the CD, he now has it. So only one copy. Fee for the copy has alredy been paid.
If you maded a copy for him, or you lent him your to copy to make copy, then you would falling
Excuse me, but for lack of a better way of putting it, you're colossally full of shit.
As a member of the American Federation of Musicians (I am a freelance musician in Chicago) who has performed and recorded in royalty-pay situations, I can tell you that the artists are the FIRST to get the shaft.
Yes, recording companies will tell you that royalty pay increases, but they never seem to release a breakdown of who gets that pay. I would venture to say that the majority of it does not go to artists like myself, who play on your film scores, your commercials, for whom this is a daily living, not the difference between the 1.2 million dollar or the 2.1 million dollar house.
It's the media conglomerates that are the gorillas here. Royalty checks for those like myself are insulting at best. (This is why I have a day job in IT for now.)
Please do not EVER confuse the RIAA and MPAA with actual ARTISTS.
From the State of the Circuit speech:
- "Among some of the issues decided or, in one notable instance not decided, by the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit were: whether "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as recited in California schools; whether the EPA needs to perform an environmental impact assessment before allowing Mexican trucks to operate in the U.S. under NAFTA; whether murderers sentenced to death by a judge, in violation of the Constitution's jury trial guarantee, can nonetheless be executed without re-sentencing; whether reasonable suspicion is needed for immigration agents to disassemble a car crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in order to search its gas tank for drugs. These are not easy issues."
Indeed they aren't. Plus, the 9th has the most cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. They're rogues alright. But they make hard decisions, and generally are in favor of keeping the government the hell out of people's business.Do not touch -Willie
Well, I posted the email I sent to Hatch
here. This was the 3rd time I've contacted him, and the other twimes, he (or whoever answers his mail) always personalized the response, addressing specific concerns and questions I had. This time, it seems to be nothing more than a form letter. Enjoy!
----Begin Letter----
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 (S. 2560). I appreciate your comments and apologize for the delay in my response.
The media have widely broadcast misconceptions about the intent and purpose of this bill, spreading concerns that S 2560 would outlaw Google, eBay, iPods, VCRs, TiVos, computers, CD burners, recordable DVDs, and a litany of other multi-use devices and Internet service providers. Let me be clear: This legislation was not designed to have any effect on these or future technological innovations, and I will work to ensure the final bill that is considered by Congress meets those criteria.
S. 2560 has one goal - to crack down on those whose intended purpose and sole business model is to induce children, teenagers, and others to illegally download copyrighted music and movies for free. Without the illegal copying, these filesharing companies would be out of business, yet they amass huge profits while their customers are being forced to pay thousands of dollars in damages to the copyright owners. This bill is merely an attempt to close the safe-harbor loophole that these companies are using to knowingly lure their victims into this illegal activity and make them face legal liability for their actions.
From the beginning, I have worked with the technology industries to craft S. 2560 so it targets only a small group of bad actors without affecting legitimate technology interests, and I will continue to work with them to ensure that we find the best way to achieve this goal. I certainly welcome any proposed improvements or alternatives to the approach taken in @. 2560.
Again, thank you fro writing.
Sincerely,
[Sig]
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
My reading of the law is that it is targeted mainly against p2p networks that are used mainly for copyright infringement.
Section 2A would cover any p2p application that automatically starts sharing files
Section 2B would cover any p2p application that explicitly blocks suspected RIAA/MPAA peers
Section 2C would cover any p2p application that includes incentives for sharing copyrighted work.
Section 2D is an anti-grandfather clause: once this passes, if you're distributing a p2p application, it had better not be in violation of 2A, 2B, or 2C
2E is a problem: even if you didn't make the p2p application for copyright infringement, if the users have decided to use it primarily for that purpose, you're guilty. I don't think this section will stand up in court, though.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.