Induce Act Stalled For Now

Neil Wehneman writes "The AP is reporting, through Newsday, the great news that the Induce Act is not going anywhere this legislative term. Thanks to everyone who took action in various ways, although there's a strong chance we'll see this type of bill again soon. Additional thanks go to Copyfight for the initial heads-up."

Comments

Today we fight together..tomorrow?

[cOdEgUru]

Its commendable that Corporate America and its consumers worked hand in hand to push this bill back where it crawled out of. It was a fair fight and a dumb bill and it needed to be put to rest and now it has, albeit temporarily. I worry how the fight will go down when we are pitched against each other and the fight's fair on our end, but the cash pile is taller on their end? Also in today's world when corporate will can be swayed by a few choice words like "terrorism", "patriotism" lobbed at them by the Govt, do we think they will stand with us when we fight the beaureacracy? Everyone chooses their fight a lot more carefully these days, owing to their allegiances and their master's wishes..

Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow?

[erick99]

We will see next legislative session. I am surprised it died this time. I think that tells us that there are reasonable folks on the side of not passing this and it may not come down to who has the tallest pile of money. At least, I hope it doesn't come down to that. For now, I am encouraged.

Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow?

[Chrax]

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that typically government and corporate America work hand in hand. Corporate America isn't swayed by words like terrorism. As if they give a fuck about terrorism. Rebuilding's good for them in general. Did you notice that the first thing Bush said after 9/11 was "don't stop spending"? Government helps out corporations so that they can keep lining their pockets.

Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow?

[DAldredge]

No, it tells you an election is coming up and they don't want to be asked about this in the last 30 days before people vote.

That is all that has happened, nothing else.

Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow?

[MBCook]

Yes, it's worrysome, but there is some stuff on our side.

First is... we controll their cashflow. They can push and push, but one day they'll push so far that the average Joe starts to see it and rebel (already started some with people unable to copy their "CDs" to their iPods). And when they are spending tons on lawyers and it is only driving down their cash flow by pissing off consumers, that's a recipy for their death. Too bad that probably won't happen any time soon.

Second is that with at least the buzzwords of the day don't really apply. I mean, how high do you have to be to think that copying your legal CD to your iPod or watching a movie on your TV (God forbid!) is "terrorism" or that it's "patriotism" to not be allowed to tape a TV show?

Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow?

[grumpygrodyguy]

No, it tells you an election is coming up and they don't want to be asked about this in the last 30 days before people vote.

That is all that has happened, nothing else.

That is probably the most relevant post you'll see in this thread. Don't read the article with a sigh of relief and attribute it to the long overdue arrival of common sense on capital hill.

Be prepared to do whatever you can to defend your online rights in 30 days. If you still think this is just a bunch of hype, or don't understand what is at stake, please take a moment to read this article.

The Betamax ruling is the only thing that protects your right to own a VCR, tape recorder, CD-burner, DVD-burner, iPod, or TiVo. It's that important. But new legislation that's being pushed through the Senate by lobbyists for the music and movie industries would override the Betamax decision and create a huge liability for any business that makes products which can copy sound or video. This legislation (formerly known as the INDUCE Act) would essentially give Hollywood veto power over a huge range of new technologies.

Another great quote which describes the situation well:

Is Congress Insane?

You might think so at first glance. Voters, technology experts, public interest groups, and electronics manufacturers all oppose these efforts to weaken Betamax. So why is it still happening? Because the major record labels and the movie studios-- the same companies that opposed the Betamax ruling-- make huge donations to the re-election campaigns of the Senators who are sponsoring this legislation. And most members of Congress assume this is a non-controversial issue, off the radar of most voters. If they can please their donors without a big fuss, they will. It's bad policy, but until we start making noise, it's smart politics.

Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow?

[servognome]

Because the major record labels and the movie studios-- the same companies that opposed the Betamax ruling-- make huge donations to the re-election campaigns of the Senators who are sponsoring this legislation
It will probably become a pissing contest between electronics companies and record labels. Electronics makers/distributors/retailers have alot more money, and more importantly employ alot more voters than the labels. What most likely will happen is some watered down bill that goes against P2P and/or other "outside the corporate structure" copying methods. So betamax will be protected as long as you are running a megacorp.

Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow?

[halowolf]

If a sizable population of people start to affect the cashflow, that its possible that it will be represented by the MPAA and RIAA as the effects of piracy rather than disgruntled consumers. I mean they are shouting about piracy right now, and thats when their members are making more money than ever before.

Of course that kind of spin could only be sustained for so long until the cashflow problem became so acute that there would have to be an admission about what the cause of the problem was so that it can be fixed.

We may control the cashflow but they still have the books. Perhaps a independant third party review of their claims about piracy and the effects on sales volumes and profits should be conducted, just to make sure that the truth is not being misrepresented.

Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow?

[evronm]

No, it tells you an election is coming up and they don't want to be asked about this in the last 30 days before people vote.

That is all that has happened, nothing else.

You're close, but this is actually much more sinister. It's a very common tactic that goes like this:

1. Propose a piece of legislation which is laughably and completely unreasonalby draconian and make a half-hearted attempt at passing it.
2. Sit and watch while people all over the place spend their time and money opposing it until it is defeated.
3. Propose the draconian legislation you really want. By this point, the opposition has already exhausted their funds and energies, and your legislation passes with little opposition.

Steps 1 and 2 have now been accomplished. I'm just waiting for step 3 when more of my few remaining rights have been taken away. It will, as you say, though happen after the election.

*sigh*

And to celebrate....

[dudemm]

http://www.suprnova.org/

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Bias?

[SkyWalk423]

From the article:

• ...aimed at manufacturers of file-sharing software commonly used to steal electronic copies of music, movies and computer programs...

Wasn't there a more, how shall I put this... unbiased way to word the intro to this article??

Re:Bias?

[Chrax]

Why would they need to? What's being done is stealing. The point is that it's not the hardware or software that's doing it, it's the person using them. That's why everybody's against this act, because it would prevent us from using our stuff legally. If you choose to use it illegally, you are stealing, and we don't need an unbiased word, we need an accurate word.

Re:Bias?

[finkployd]

The accurate word you are looking for is "copyright infringment"

Ok, two words.

Finkployd

Goliath vs. Andre

[daemonenwind]

I was never really worried about this bill.

Quite frankly, it's new media vs. old media, and each side has their pet legislators and lobbyists.

And, in the game of law-passing, it's easier to stall something to death than it is to pass it through. Do Nothings always beat Do Somethings.

Especially in government.

Complete Coverage of INDUCE From the Beginning

[The Importance of]

Well over 100 posts, including a copy of the final draft that torpedoed the negotiations: INDUCE Act Archives

It ain't dead yet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, folks, this bill isn't dead yet. It's true that its scheduled committee vote was canceled, but Congress will reconvene briefly in November to pass several appropriations bills. Watch for the bill's supporters to try to tack it onto one of these big bills. If they can do that, it can easily sail through Congress as the end of the legislative session draws near, and Congress rushes to get necessary budget bills passed. This is a common tactic, and it often works.

So don't even think of celebrating until Congress adjourns for the year.

True story: Words with my Senator

[DaHat]

On Sunday I went to a lil rally for Senator Tom Daschle, a supporter of this bill sadly.

I told him how concerned I was about Induce and asked why he was supporting it... he explained that some of his friends talked to him about their concerns regarding their losses due to piracy.

Thankfully, he did say that that he didn't think the current revision of the bill was very good and did believe that more work was needed.

We spoke for about 10 minutes on the issue (I think I miffed the national guardsman in line behind me).

One interesting note... I mentioned the savebetamax campaign and he knew nothing about it... his aid admitted that they had received 'a few calls' on the topic... either they were lying... or not enough calls were made it seems.

what about the kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Loved the bit: "So long as illegitimate peer-to-peer services hijack a positive technology and intentionally offload their legal liability to America's kids, legislation will be a priority for the creative community," Bainwol said. Oh yes the big bad p2p companys are forcing there wares onto unsuspecting kids. Forcing them into a life time of slavery to downloading copyright software.

Not just kids

[_Hellfire_]

From the Newsday Article:

"So long as illegitimate peer-to-peer services hijack a positive technology and intentionally offload their legal liability to America's kids, legislation will be a priority for the creative community," Bainwol said.

I know plenty of "grown-ups" (40 and 50 year olds) who ride the mule all the time.

Of course these young-uns don't know any better and don't know that "stealing" music and movies is wrong.

Re:Not just kids

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

legislation will be a priority for the creative community," Bainwol said.

I didn't know lobbying was a creative occupation. If we can't buy next generation burners in the US, we'll buy them from China. No matter how much noise they make or how oppresive their laws become, there will always be ways around their "protection" to get free music/movies. However the collateral damage of these laws will soon enough hit a critical level and backfire on the lobbyists.
Let see if those who lose their jobs in the hardware industry will be as understanding about the **AA's need for "protection".

EFF Action Center

[skeeball]

If you really care about this issue and I'm sure many of you do, please head on over to the EFF Action Center at www.eff.org. After a quick registration (tinfoil hats need not apply) you can pick a topic you care about and have the EFF automatically generate an email, letter, or fax to the representative and/or senator that is appropriate to you. Or customize the message if you wish. Either way, it only takes a few clicks.

I love it, it allows me to be politically active and relatively lazy at the same time.

What did we lose?

[macz]

Whenever you pull your hand back out of this particular legal cookie jar and think you won, count your fingers... I am wondering what we lost in this fight. Surely the fat cats like Hatch who suckle at the teat of big Entertainment will simply re-introduce this and attach it to a "Free Day Care for Handicapped Children" bill or some such pablum.

Can anyone say tactical retreat?

Check out http://www.ipaction.org/ if you want to fight the power with the weapon of choice in this particular melee. Cold hard cash.

YES!

[enjoilax]

Ahhh my faith in humanity is restored again!
*looks out window*
Never mind.

Hatch is out

[Anonymous Coward]

[posting anonlymously because I'm a senate staffer]

Something worth mentioning - Sen. Hatch is outgoing chair of the Senate Judiciary committee. GOP rules limit chairmanships to 6 years, and his time is up. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is likely to be chairman in the next congress.

There have been rumors that Hatch is pushing to reconstitute the intellectual property subcommittee, but even with a subcommittee chair he'll be alot less powerful next session than he is now. He could push bills out of his subcommittee and have them bottled in the full committee, or significantly modified during full committee markup.

Specter isn't known for being in touch with IT/IP issues. This is a double edged sword. As committee chair he's likely to give significant leeway to Hatch on IP issues in order to focus on investigations and other legislation. Conversely, without strongly stated public views on copyright/IP issues, Specter will probably be receptive to lobbying. If the EFF/OSDN/Sun/Others effectively represent their issues, they'll be much better off with Chairman Specter than Chairman Hatch. If they blow it --- 6 more years of the same.

A few wrinkles - Specter is up for election and may end up losing his seat. Also, Sen. Grassley is second in seniority on the Judiciary committee. Senators can only chair one committee at a time, and conventional beltway wisdom is that Sen. Grassley will not relinquish his current chairmanship (Finance) in order to take Judiciary, leaving it to Specter.

We never fought together, we never should

[zaxios]

Its commendable that Corporate America and its consumers worked hand in hand to push this bill back where it crawled out of.

While some technology companies did oppose the Act, it is totally unreasonable to say that "Corporate America" opposed it. The INDUCE Act was lobbied for by the RIAA and MPAA and supported by Microsoft, among others. It is the ability of Corporate America to push bills into Congress with thick wads of bills in envelopes that resulted in the DMCA and the introduction of this Act.

I worry how the fight will go down when we are pitched against each other and the fight's fair on our end, but the cash pile is taller on their end?

i.e., now.

Also in today's world when corporate will can be swayed by a few choice words like "terrorism", "patriotism" lobbed at them by the Govt,

Businesses act in self-interest, so abstract, not-directly-profitable ideas like patriotism mean nothing. Meanwhile, terrorism means contracts from the U.S. goverment. These things are designed to scare the citizenry into line, not companies.

do we think they will stand with us when we fight the beaureacracy?

Okay, you are off the planet. Corporate America arm in arm with the Government has borne bureaucracy at its foulest. Corporate America does not fight democracy-choking bureaucracy. They fight for it. The more complex and indirect the Government's sovereignty it is, the less obvious and inescapable its accountability to its citizens. Bureaucracy affords corporate America far more ways to, for example, shove through acts like the DMCA or shoot down acts that would interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's profit margin, and importantly, keep the interests of the consumer and the people away from their government.

(This time, BSA (with its tech company members) opposed the INDUCE Act because it would hurt technology. Pure business pragmatism. Meanwhile, companies with an interest in maintaining control of digital content companies, lobbied for the Act. Again, pure business pragmatism.)

We never fought together; we never should. Our causes sometimes overlap. More often than not they don't. But this never changes: members of any "free market" should have no power in changing the rules of the market itself.

The Government should represent the people only, each person weighed equally, not proportionate to their access to capital. The government's power and authority is granted by every single person, from nowhere else, and it would do well to remember that if eventually we all grow sick enough of its corruption.

think of the kids!

[the-build-chicken]

hijack a positive technology and intentionally offload their legal liability to America's kids</snip>

The kids...it's all about the kids...won't somebody please think about the kids!

Re:Senator Geek

[mrchaotica]

Hey, thanks -- now I don't have to tell him that, since you did it for me.

From your answer, I'm guessing that you're a Libertarian. That being the (presumed) case, I have a question:

There's one part of this particular argument that I don't get: how do Libertarians regulate the commons*? Is it just that they would eliminate the commons entirely and make everything privately owned? If so, I don't really understand how they can regulate things like air pollution, since the problem doesn't stay on the producer's property. Besides that, it seems to me that there are some things that are inherently public, such as infrastructure. How would Libertarians keep that from being abused?

*In order to answer, you ought to be familiar with The Tragedy of the Commons so as to understand what I'm talking about.

That would be Boucher (D-VA)

[MacDork]

Rick Boucher of Virginia. He's running for re-election this year, so send him a few bucks. I don't care if you are a R or a D, he's the only friend you've got up there. So contribute, and if you're in his district, go vote for him.

ANYONE is better than Hatch...

[Ghostgate]

Hatch was the guy who wanted to remotely destroy people's computers if they were found to contain items that infringed on copyright. Yes, you read that right. Remotely destroy people's computers.

I'm all for destroying their machines, Hatch said during a Committee hearing Tuesday. "'If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize' the seriousness of their actions," the wire service quotes him as saying. (source)

Re:Request for Utah...

[jcr]

I always liked Ross Perot's idea: if you can't vote, you can't contribute. Restrict all campaign contributions from anyone who's not a registered voter for the election in question.

Sure would improve the signal/noise ratio on network television..

-jcr

On the other end of the scale

[Big Nothing]

Meanwhile, Norway's government just made it's budget proposal where the music and film industry will be compensated by government funds for their losses due to private/personal copying.

In the proposal, all forms of personal/private copying of copyrighted will be legalized, including P2P. Also, no further fees on recordable media (such as CD-R and DVD-R) will be introduced.

If you understand Norwegian or have an excellent fish, you can read the article here: http://www.nrk.no/musikk/4149551.html.

Translation (and no, I'm not a 'fish)

[Kjella]

Securing private CD-burning

You may now freely copy your own CDs. Through the national budget the government proposes securing the private right to copy, and is allocating 32,5 MNOK (about 4,8M$) to rights holders.

The proposal is appearing ahead of the departments own evaluation of a new copyright law by proposing a new compensation arrangement which will secure compensation to copyright holders for private copying.

The iundustry overrun

The government has thus chosen to not listen to the music industry, who was seeking to criminalize the private copying of music. The government has also chosen to not follow the industry's proposal of introducing a levy on different storage media, such as unrecorded CD and DVD records.

When the department of culture in the spring of 2003 sent out a hearing with regards to new copyright law NRK.no/musikk wrote about a democratic deficit in the process. Of 126 hearing instances invited to have an opinion on the draft, only one represents the consumer; the small, idealistic organization Elektronisk Forpost Norge (EFF in Norway).

Small voice heard

Now David has won over Goliath. EFN has been heard on all their ideas of securing the consumers' rights.

- This shows that it is not the number of arguments but the strength of the arguments that is decisive, says Bjørn Ramseth, VP of EFN.

- The problems surrounding copyright is not simply a question of market- and technologyadoption.

- It is first and foremost cultural policy. The decision belongs in parlament and not in the court room, something I'm happy that the goverment has realized, says Ramseth.

More court cases

- TONO, IPFI and several other rights holder organizations has chosen to sue individuals that have broken copyright law. Do you believe there will be an end to such suits and threats of lawsuits now?

- No, I don't think so. The industry will all the time try to find new ways to sue people, because they seek to criminalize everything that has to do with file sharing.
- But this will at least make it much harder for the industry to do so. At least in Norway.

Great importance

Copyright law is complex. This is not a case that has engaged the masses. Bjørn Ramseth think it'll take time before people realize how important this is.

- File sharing is becoming more and more an integral part of our culture. We consider this as natural, despite great pressure from the music industry to make us percieve it as illegal and immoral. Now it is clearly decided that this is legal and okay.

Complementary arrangements

The department of culture writes that the new compensation arrangement must be seen in context with the grant of 19,5 MNOK to the "Fund for sound and images". The funds will be granted collectively by application, while the compensation will be individual.

It is still unclear how one is to calculate the share of each composer, text writer and artist should be granted for private copying. Because how do you measure private copying? Should record sales decide? Or perhaps net based music sales? Or what about radio air time?

The government will probably not use the download statistics from the still illegal peer-to-peer servers on the Internet.

----
End article, begin personal comment

WTF? Private copying is ok, but Internet is not? And while I do appriciate the deal, it seems like local musicians will be funded, while Britney et al get the shaft. Ah well another wierdo suggestion from the goverment. That's not new at least.

Kjella

Wanted this to pass

[dieatom]

Darn I was really hoping that this would pass. It opens up so many more doors for us. I for one think that I should be able to sue GM, Chryslar-Daimler, BMW and the rest for producing cars that go more then 65mph thus inducing me to speed. Those speeding tickets weren't y fault sir I was induced to speed. Let's not forget to sue fast food for inducing us to splurge and fatten ourselves due to their biggy size's. Gone is the age of individual responsibility /cheer. Let's not hold users accountable for their actions no no it is the saftware writers fault damn you naughty naughty geeks. This type of bill is why we get Redhat linux distro's unable to play mp3's and why SuSE pro 9.1 will not play a DVD right out of the box. This alone and well maybe the DMCA will do more to stifle innovation then any band of world war 2 germans.