New Content-Delivery Tech Should Be Presumed Illegal, Says Former Copyright Boss

TrueSatan writes "Reminiscent of buggy whip manufacturers taking legal action against auto makers, the former U.S. Register of Copyrights, Ralph Oman, has given an amicus brief in the Aereo case (PDF) stating that all new content-delivery technology should be presumed illegal unless and until it is approved by Congress. He adds that providers of new technology should be forced to apply to Congress to prove they don't upset existing business models."

Comments

Congress

[roman_mir]

Congress has no Constitutional authority to authorise or not authorise technology for its use.

Re:Congress

[tepples]

How does Congress lack this authority? Congress has already banned particular technologies in the purported interest "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".

Re:Congress

[Voogru]

That's called breaking the law.

The Congress also passed bills that allow the government to kill people with no due process of law, doesn't mean it has the authority to do it.

Re:Congress

[Joce640k]

"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea
that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the
public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing
circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is
supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or
individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock
of history be stopped, or turned back."

- Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

Re:Congress

[Type44Q]

"Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."

- Thomas Jefferson

Re:Congress

[causality]

"Yes. The drug war is evil."

Wrong on the first part; agreed on the second. The fact that the drug war is evil, stupid, in my opinion unconstitutional, and clearly a war against personal freedoms, in no way, shape, or form means that the supreme court has ruled that it is illegal.

You're depending on the court to settle that matter for you? The same court which approved abusing eminent domain to raise tax revenues?

Tell me this. Why was it necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to give the government power to prohibit alcohol, which was then repealed... but it is not necessary to apply the exact same process to different substances?

I have never seen anyone explain that. Sure, I am certain they can expand the Commerce Clause to mean they can rape your wife anytime they want, because they might buy condoms first, and buying condoms affects interstate commerce .. but c'mon. At some point you have to call the absurd absurd.

One of the plaintiffs is PBS.

[webbiedave]

They sure as hell won't be getting a donation from me this year.

no new dance steps....

[Roskolnikov]

Wow, to preserve current business models all new thoughts should be reviewed..... yep, clearly representing the people,er, businesses on this one, innovative ideas need not apply, I try not to fan boi this much but imagine if iTunes online music sales had to clear congress first? I imagine those that lobby would have had a lot of fun with that one, clearing congress is a lot harder than convincing one label to sell online, this doesn't protect anyone other than those currently milking the masses..... Please, show this man the door, he has clearly lost his way.

Re:I don't even

[Adriax]

Pray the judge understands that type of setup wouldn't chill online innovation, it would stop it completely with no hope ever.
You couldn't even start to create anything new, because you would be committing a crime by researching how to create an illegal thing. Like someone trying to research new methods to produce meth in their garage...

Dear lord, this guy is so completely off his rocker it's no wonder the US is as fucked up as it is.

No, that's not what he said

[russotto]

He argues that copyright protection holds regardless of the technological means used to engage in an action which constitutes infringement, which is true as far as it goes. He further argues that Aereo is committing infringement and claiming it's not because of mere technological details, and there he's on shakier ground.

But actually his argument fell apart a bit earlier than his discussion of Aereo, when he disputes the Cablevision decision:

To be consistent with that entirely correct analysis, if, instead of a subscriber sending an electronic instruction to Cablevision or Aereo to make a copy by pressing a âoerecordâ button, the customer had sent an email to one of their employees with instructions to make a copy and transmit a performance, there would be no question as to the direct liability of Cablevision or Aereo. Copyright liability should not turn on minor technical features as to whether âoerecordâ instructions are communicated by verbal commands, pressing a button, sending an email or as a result of automated functions.

I am sorry, Mr. Oman, but that is not a "minor technical feature". My giving instructions to a machine and my giving instructions to a human being are a very different thing. The human being can make a choice, he can say "Mr. Russotto, to make that copy would be an infringement of copyright and I will not do so". The machine is a machine, it does what it's told, and direct liability is rightly placed on the person who told it to do something.

Best I can tell, Aereo is claiming its retransmissions do not amount to public performance because each individual is getting his own transmission. That is, it's not one public performance but many private ones. This is indeed splitting hairs, but since when has the law been opposed to splitting hairs?

17 USC 101 is quite clear that it does not matter "whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times." However, it does matter whether there is one performance or many; if I set up a booth where one person can view a DVD, it's not a public performance if 100 people view the same DVD in sequence; it's 100 private performances. Similarly, if I have 100 such booths with 100 such (identical) DVDs and everyone watches them at once, it's still 100 private performances. However, if I rig up one DVD player to play one DVD to all those booths, it's a public performance.

Thanks for making copyright look even worse

[bzipitidoo]

How is copyright to be killed off? Give guys like this a megaphone.

What words could possibly be more damaging to copyright than this proposal to turn it into a blatant fascist tyranny? Plus, making everyone wonder if all supporters of copyright are just as stupid also hurts it. Such proposals do more to kill off copyright than any words Lessig, the EFF, or any other pro technology boffins could say. Go, Ralph, go!

Before you act shocked...

[J'raxis]

Before you act shocked about this, exactly how is this different than any other products sold nowadays?

It's illegal to make and sell electronic hardware without approval from the FCC. It's illegal to make and sell most any food products without approval from a state-level health agency. It's illegal to make and sell any medical products without approval from the FDA. It's illegal to make and sell any motorized vehicles without approval from multiple safety bodies. So now, we can simply add "content delivery technology" to the list of things the government presumes is guilty of... whatever, until you prove it's not.

Isn't it great to live in a "free" country? Aren't you glad you're free?