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."
It's a start to change, but there's still a long way to go. The fact that they're still planning on outlawing P2P networks is crazy. I'm not going to bring up all the arguments about what P2P networks are and what could be illegal like has been done so many times before... but, are the people making this laws STUPID?
Find Nearby Indie Events
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.
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.
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!!!!
Could it be another trick by Orin Hatch?
First have a proposed act that is so ridiculous no one can sanely accept it, then turn around and seem to offer a compromise, and suddenly the masses gobble it all up!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
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?
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.
From TFA: "Last week's meeting was attended by representatives from IBM, Apple, Hewlett-Packard, the Business Software Alliance, the RIAA and the Motion Picture Association of America." How come no one very interested in free speech is attending these meetings? I'd expect maybe the Creative Commons people, or someone similar to attend.
"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.
I can understand the regs on p2p software
You can? You understand it? Or you're willing to accept it? Or you just don't care? Because, I neither understand it nor am I willing to accept it. P2P has a myriad of legitimate uses, especially to someone running a *nix system.
See, the problem is that people go "Oh, well, they want to ban X? I don't use X, so that's alright." They don't think about the fact that it's X today, but hey, that just set a precedent for banning Y. Soon you're going "Aww crap, IM just got banned because it includes a file transfer feature. How did this happen?"
While I think the INDUCE act goes WAY to far in criminalizing things, I think something needs to be done about P2P networks that thrive on copyrighted material. There are legitimate uses for P2P (as many torrents show), but when something is used for 99.9% copyright violation, something needs to be done. If I ran a flea market and rented booth, I couldnst claim I didn't have any control over what was being sold. And if 99% of the booths sold illegal merchandise (stolen merchandise, illegal fireworks, drugs, etc) you can guarantee that the flea market would be shut down eventually. Plausible deniablility can and should only go so far.
Could Kazza be used for legitimate uses? Sure it could. But is it? Not a chance in hell. And they do nothing to try and even try to push people toward using it legitimately. P2P shouldn't be outlawed. But if 99% of your network is copyrighted material, and you are told this over and over again, and you do nothing to even pretend to try and correct the problem, then your network should be shut down. Common carrier status only works because most of the traffic is legitimate traffic. When all the traffic is in violation, then common carrier status doesn't help anyone and should be revoked.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
".. 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?
Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
- (A) 13 14 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;
P2P networks are capable of substantial noninfringing uses (whether or not they experience substantial noninfringing uses).So the question comes down to whether or not a P2P network is designed to be used for infringing purposes -- it seems there is some measure or intent that is required for this to be true, and that seems awfully hard to decide or prove one way or another. But, this is sufficiently ambiguous that it would need to be decided in a very messy court battle. Plus, this clause doesn't place any limitations on the extent of infringing purposes for which the technology must be designed - one could argue that if it allows even a single infringing use, it was designed that way, and therefore it was designed to be used for infringing purposes.
Of course, one could make the same claim about email.
People that sell weapons, tools, and cars better be punished too. I mean, they sold me that car, I had to run down the school children. They sold me the pistol, so I had to shoot someone. They sold me the chainsaw so I had to re-enact a movie that they produced.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
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.
Ask for a lot more than you expect to get. Then you can appear reasonable when you compromise down -- even as the resultant compromise exceeds your original, occulted goals.
This is what happens when pragmatism wins out over principle, but no one pays attention to that... same as when it happened with the DMCA, Mickey Mouse Copyright Act, AHRA, etc. Reactionary pragmatists come out in strong support for modifying it to strip some of its teeth away, dismissing campaigning on principle to abolish it as impractical... and the core of the law sits there festering on the books while the progress-minded pragmatists comfortably pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
It is still completely absurd that they can outlaw something that 'induces' someone to be music pirates or what have you. Guns are still legal. Could those induce someone to go on a shooting spree? There are perfectly legal uses for p2p. Congress must realize that destroying something because of bad side effects dispite monumental good uses is totally and utterly inane.
I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting be
[blather]...piracy will continue...[blather]
Talk about NOT getting the point of his post!
This is a war on the Information Commons, not piracy. They want to remove your ability to read a book twice, and similar rights you've always enjoyed. They are trying to lock up the exchange of information.
Please, who gives a damn about the so-called pirates (stupid phrase, anyway).
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!