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."

Comments

HTML Text and Analysis

[The Importance of]

I've posted both the email the Copyright Office sent out and the HTML version of the "discussion draft" along with some initial analysis here: Copyright Office Produces 'Discussion Draft' Alternative to INDUCE Act (IICA). My basic take is that although this bill is an improvement, that doesn't mean much. Instead of being ludicrously overbroad, it is now only excessively overbroad.

Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court!

[garcia]

Now groups like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and their allies in Congress are scrambling for legislation such as the Induce Act that would overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling.

Does this mean that the 9th Circuit is a radical judge making rulings based on personal opinion? I especially love the term "allies in Congress" as if this is some sort of important war.

Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court!

[dafz1]

IANAL, but I do have a degree in Poli Sci, and the INDUCE Act couldn't "overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling". The INDUCE Act will just be a not filed injunction in reality.

The Supreme Court, which has the tradition of judicial review, which allows it to overturn laws they see as unconstituional. The Betamax case, which doesn't specifically site a constitutional cause, allows use of technology in a non-infringing manner, even though the manufacturer knows it could be(gleaned from the Grokster decision). Unless the RIAA/MPAA have justices in their pocket, it's doubtful this law will be able to stand up to the Betamax standard. Then again, Orrin Hatch is chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, the first stop for federal(and Supreme) court justice appointees.

Note: I'n not volunteering to be the person to be the case that tries the INDUCE act, should this awful piece of legislation pass, against the Betamax standard.

Still is too vague

[Manip]

Scenario: If I had a CD and I lend it to my friend Fred. Now Fred wants to listen to this CD but based on this new copyright law couldn't I be inducing him to commit break copyright law because I have given him the digital media which makes it easier to copy?

Did anyone else notice how this law can be used to restrict information because you can induce someone to commit copyright infringement without providing links or files. I mean if I tell someone how to make a crack for a game by providing only locations and hex changes, I could be inducing them to break copyright couldn't I?

Artists are NOT suffering

[flinxmeister]

http://bmi.com/news/200408/20040818a.asp

"The performing rights organization generated royalties of more than $573 million for its songwriters, composers and music publishers. Royalties increased by $40 million or 7.5% from the previous year.

BMI President and CEO Frances W. Preston said both the revenues and royalty distributions were the largest in the company's history."

Sooner or later this 800 pound gorilla is going to trample their manufactured crisis.

Re:Artists are NOT suffering

[black mariah]

BMI claims to represent over 300,000 artists. Let's do some math.

$573,000,000 / 300,000 = $1910 per year

Re:Artists are NOT suffering

[flinxmeister]

I'll take kneejerk reactions without reading for 500 million, Alex.

Please read my post and my link, before calling me "full of shit"...(colossally even!) I never said anything about the RIAA and/or MPAA.

The article is from BMI. Anyone can join BMI, from the individual artist (like me) to the largest publisher. The fact that BMI is collecting record revenue and royalty payments means that the money is flowing regardless of what's happening with Kazaa/Morpheus/etc.

The fact that you don't see much of this money will NOT change with the INDUCE act...in fact it will probably get worse if the INDUCE act is passed because it will stifle the very innovation that is changing the system waaay for the better for musicians like you and I.

In short, this guy that's "full of shit" is full of the same opinion you are. The real exploitation is happening with the old status quo, not the new world of "illegal" downloading.

IRC?

[StevenHenderson]

The U.S. Copyright Office has drafted a new version of the Induce Act that it believes will ban networks like Kazaa and Morpheus while not putting hardware such as portable hard drives and MP3 players on the wrong side of the law.

Does this umbrella cover IRC - something that has a (supposedly) legitimate use? I can understand the regs on p2p software, but can't IRC users say "we're just chatting..."?

Re:It's a start...

[garcia]

but, are the people making this laws STUPID?

Greed is a powerful thing. The laws are being made by people who enjoy the perks of working for the corporations.

Dialog box loophole?

[patbob]

The draft of the act says:

".. causes the user of the technology to infringe copyrighted works without the user making a specific, informed decision, for each copyrighted work at issue, about whether to engage in such infringement; "

Doesn't this mean that all the file sharing programs have to do, is to pop up a dialog box for each file that is can't verify the user has the rights to download? Wouldn't that give the user a specific, informed decision about every file and also remove the program from inducing infringement by the terms of this draft?

501(3)(a)

[Sloppy]

(3) For the purposes of this subsection, and absent any other overt act, an "overt act" does not include:

(A) distributing any dissemination technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses knowing that it can be used for infringing purposes, so long as that technology is not designed to be used for infringing purposes;

With that exemption, I just don't understand how this act accomplishes anything. This is a complete waste of legislative effort. Any technology is going to be capable of substantial noninfringing use. Indeed, it's very hard (impossible) for tech to even know when it is infringing and when it is not.

I would like to hear a hypothetical example of any plausible scenario, where this act could somehow be used against someone for disseminating technology.