Professor Hollaar just published a paper on this topic (probably the basis for this idea). I know for a fact that this has been in the process of being considered by the IEEE for a few years now, so it's not some half-thought-out idea.
While I don't always agree with Professor Hollaar on every issue, I think this idea deserves some serious consideration. There are many countries out there (australia, japan, etc) who have successfully implemented it.
It looks like these judges have an exceptional grasp of the technology stifling possibilities inherent in the DMCA. If you look in the concurring opinion you will find this passage:
I write separately to emphasize that our holding should not be limited to the narrow facts
surrounding either the Toner Loading Program or the Printer Engine Program. We should make clear that
in the future companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create
monopolies of manufactured goods for themselves just by tweaking the facts of this case: by, for example,
creating a Toner Loading Program that is more complex and "creative" than the one here, or by cutting off
other access to the Printer Engine Program. The crucial point is that the DMCA forbids anyone from
trafficking in any technology that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a [protected] work." 17 U.S.C. 1201(2)(A)
(emphasis added). The key question is the "purpose" of the circumvention technology. The microchip in
SCC's toner cartridges is intended not to reap any benefit from the Toner Loading Program - SCC's
microchip is not designed to measure toner levels - but only for the purpose of making SCC's competing
toner cartridges work with printers manufactured by Lexmark.
Not only did they smack down Lexmark in this abuse of the DMCA's (and copyright's) provisions, but they go so far as to state that the DMCA should be read to not apply to companies aiming to create a monopoly not supported by law.
I only wish this was a SCOTUS ruling instead of a Circuit ruling. Apparently there are now conflicts with other Circuit rulings.
Cosponsors of the bill include:
Bill Frist (majority leader)
Tom Daschle (minority leader)
Hatch (chairman of the judiciary committee)
Leahy (ranking member of the judiciary committee
There are a number of posters suggesting that this bill is pre-committee. It is not. It seems that the original intention was to try to get it passed as a "stealth" bill.
In fact, it made it all the way through the house of representatives. Fortunately, various organizations got involved (IEEE, CEA, EFF, PublicKnowledge) and forced them to have a committee meeting about it today. IEEE has also submitted alternative legislation.
You can find live blogging about the hearing at Ed Felten's site (www.freedom-to-tinker.com) and you can read more about the bill at a site set up specifically for that purpose. (http://techlawadvisor.com/induce/).
Also the text of the bill is below:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. INTENTIONAL INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.
`(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer.
`(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.'.
There are a number of posters suggesting that this bill is pre-committee. It is not. It seems that the original intention was to try to get it passed as a "stealth" bill.
In fact, it made it all the way through the house of representatives. Fortunately, various organizations got involved (IEEE, CEA, EFF, PublicKnowledge) and forced them to have a committee meeting about it today. IEEE has also submitted alternative legislation.
You can find live blogging about the hearing at Ed Felten's site (www.freedom-to-tinker.com) and you can read more about the bill at a site set up specifically for that purpose. (http://techlawadvisor.com/induce/).
Also the text of the bill is below:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. INTENTIONAL INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.
`(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer.
`(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.'.
Slashdot Mirror
Professor Hollaar just published a paper on this topic (probably the basis for this idea). I know for a fact that this has been in the process of being considered by the IEEE for a few years now, so it's not some half-thought-out idea.
f
e llFinalPaper.pdf
digital-law-online.info/papers/lah/mini-patent.pd
Also, some research I did for him last summer on this topic:
www.wise-intern.org/journal04/WISE2004-JeremyTunn
While I don't always agree with Professor Hollaar on every issue, I think this idea deserves some serious consideration. There are many countries out there (australia, japan, etc) who have successfully implemented it.
It looks like these judges have an exceptional grasp of the technology stifling possibilities inherent in the DMCA. If you look in the concurring opinion you will find this passage:
I write separately to emphasize that our holding should not be limited to the narrow facts surrounding either the Toner Loading Program or the Printer Engine Program. We should make clear that in the future companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies of manufactured goods for themselves just by tweaking the facts of this case: by, for example, creating a Toner Loading Program that is more complex and "creative" than the one here, or by cutting off other access to the Printer Engine Program. The crucial point is that the DMCA forbids anyone from trafficking in any technology that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [protected] work." 17 U.S.C. 1201(2)(A) (emphasis added). The key question is the "purpose" of the circumvention technology. The microchip in SCC's toner cartridges is intended not to reap any benefit from the Toner Loading Program - SCC's microchip is not designed to measure toner levels - but only for the purpose of making SCC's competing toner cartridges work with printers manufactured by Lexmark.Not only did they smack down Lexmark in this abuse of the DMCA's (and copyright's) provisions, but they go so far as to state that the DMCA should be read to not apply to companies aiming to create a monopoly not supported by law.
I only wish this was a SCOTUS ruling instead of a Circuit ruling. Apparently there are now conflicts with other Circuit rulings.
The key question for me is whether it is compatible with non-IE browsers. I would love to sign up for Rhapsody, but they are IE only.
You've posted this twice now and it's absolutely incorrect.
The Senate Judiciary committee had a hearing on it yesterday and Hatch expressed his intent to push this through in whatever form.
For more information on this bill visit
Tech Law Advisor's Perpetual Blog on the INDUCE Act
Cosponsors of the bill include: Bill Frist (majority leader) Tom Daschle (minority leader) Hatch (chairman of the judiciary committee) Leahy (ranking member of the judiciary committee
Sorry, here it is properly formatted.
There are a number of posters suggesting that this bill is pre-committee. It is not. It seems that the original intention was to try to get it passed as a "stealth" bill.
In fact, it made it all the way through the house of representatives. Fortunately, various organizations got involved (IEEE, CEA, EFF, PublicKnowledge) and forced them to have a committee meeting about it today. IEEE has also submitted alternative legislation.
You can find live blogging about the hearing at Ed Felten's site (www.freedom-to-tinker.com) and you can read more about the bill at a site set up specifically for that purpose. (http://techlawadvisor.com/induce/).
Also the text of the bill is below:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. INTENTIONAL INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.
`(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer.
`(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.'.
There are a number of posters suggesting that this bill is pre-committee. It is not. It seems that the original intention was to try to get it passed as a "stealth" bill. In fact, it made it all the way through the house of representatives. Fortunately, various organizations got involved (IEEE, CEA, EFF, PublicKnowledge) and forced them to have a committee meeting about it today. IEEE has also submitted alternative legislation. You can find live blogging about the hearing at Ed Felten's site (www.freedom-to-tinker.com) and you can read more about the bill at a site set up specifically for that purpose. (http://techlawadvisor.com/induce/). Also the text of the bill is below:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004'. SEC. 2. INTENTIONAL INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability. `(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer. `(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.'.
"Second, it can perform a denial-of-service against www.sco.com" Will this be the first virus I willingly load on my machine?