July 22, 2004 2:55 PM PDT
Senator wants to ban P2P networks
- Related Stories
-
Antipiracy bill gains new ally
July 21, 2004 -
Senate OKs antipiracy plan
June 25, 2004 -
Copyright truce excludes key voices
January 15, 2003
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he intended to move ahead with the highly controversial Induce Act despite objections from dozens of Internet providers and Silicon Valley manufacturers. The Induce Act says "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations.
Hatch added, however, that he welcomed comments from critics. "If you help us, we just might get it right," he said. "If you don't, we're going to do it. Something has to be done. There's no way to solve these problems so everyone's totally pleased."
The Induce Act, which enjoys broad support in the music industry and from a handful of software companies, is designed to overturn an April 2003 ruling from a California judge that said StreamCast Networks, which distributes Morpheus, and Grokster were not liable for copyright infringements that took place using their software. Critics of the bill warn that it could make hardware makers like Apple and Toshiba--and even journalists--liable for products and reviews that could "induce" the public to violate copyright law.
Vermont's Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the panel, echoed Hatch's comments. "Nobody wants to undermine the iPod or any other piece of technology out there," he said. "We have to understand that some people use P2P technology in ways that are wrong and illegal."
The Business Software Alliance, which counts as members Microsoft, Apple and Adobe Systems, initially applauded the Induce Act in a favorable statement last month that called it a "reasonable balance between antipiracy and technological innovation."
But by the time Thursday's hearing took place, BSA President Robert Holleyman had become far more tepid in his appraisal of the bill. Holleyman testified that the measure would be acceptable only if it were rewritten "to ensure that only bad actors are found liable."
Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, suggested that the Senate wait for the courts to figure out which file-swapping networks are legal. "Right now, I don't think legislation is necessary, because the harm is greater than any benefit that may be derived," he said.
More than 40 trade associations and advocacy groups voiced similar sentiments in a letter to senators July 6. The Induce Act "would chill innovation and drive investment in technology" overseas, said the letter, signed by CNET Networks, eBay, Google, Intel, MCI, TiVo, Verizon Communications, Sun Microsystems and Yahoo. CNET Networks is the publisher of News.com.
See more CNET content tagged:
Induce Act,
senator,
file-swapping network,
copyright law,
P2P
Don't rip & replace. VoIP as you are
------------------------------
Using this logic, then that means the Internet should be banned because people can use it to do evil also.
These same IDIOTS are the ones supposedly leading our country into wars.
This would not pass in any court of law, and they know it. It the same thing with guns, then everyone who owns a gun must be arrested because they can do evil with it.
If this keeps up, I just may vote for Nader.
--Vermont's Patrick Leahy
Some people use guns in ways that are wrong and illegal. Where's the hue and cry to ban them?
Some people use cars in ways that are wrong and illegal. Where's the hue and cry to ban them?
Personally, I think we need to ban some of these idiots from Congress.
I think such a law has a lot of legal weakness and won't hold up in court if over-enforced. It presumes no freedom of speach, and assumes guilt before proof. My biggest problem is it regulates a new market before the market has fully defined itself yet. Yes it is a very controversial market, but so was that of the newspaper before our country was even founded.
Our country prides itself on being a "free market" but if you look at how many laws our companies have to deal with to do business every day you will soonr ealise it's not a free enterprise as we all learned in grade school.
We over-regulate all products and services and this increases the cost of doing business. When you put the burden of safety and legal enforcement on companies who are providing services, then costs go up and inovation goes down. New products and services are unable to make their way to the marketplace because of the massive regulations they have to comply with before being able to release any product to the public.
Like freedom? Better start writing your senators and representatives now.
Seems USA have forgotten that Internet removes barriers. Making something illegal - doesn't make it vanish.
RIAA/MPAA have choosen to put they money on driving out threatening innovations, rather than trying to fit this innovations into the everchaning world, thus brinning value to their customers.
The sad part of it - what really make me sick - is that RIAA/MPAA have literally iron grip of media distribution channels. This channels are used not only by entertainment industry & show business, but also by people brining culture to us - talented musicians, actors, painter - artists of all kinds. Indies (who are homing most of the most talented artists) are growing - but I doubt they will ever keep in pace with industry & business.
Later on RIAA/MPAA might another day think that indies are threat to them too and say that you have to have a license or contract with them to sign a song or make a performance on street. Sure contract with RIAA/MPAA will also do.
Internet have proven that exposing people to culture and *not* entertainment/show industry/business - drives CD/DVD sale of B.S. like Britney Spears down.
The first poster got the scope and breadth of this bill correct. It doesn't just have to affect P2P networks, but it can also have broad reaching effects on everyone else.
The definition of "intent" is so broad, it is just too easy to pervert this law as a weapon against anyone. This gives the government McCarthy-like powers to simply ignore the inherent rights of its citizens and send them to prison for anything the do that THEY consider to be illegal.
It's sad that Congress chooses to craft and pass laws on issues they are totally clueless on.
I wrote my own "ftp" client and server, which could be used in the exact same way as any other P2P software (Kazaa, etc.) to download "illigal" content, and they want to make *ME* responsible for someone elses use? Gee, that's nice. Lets make Toshiba (or RCA, Emmerson, Panisonic, etc) responsible for TV shows that are recorded by VCR... those are also under copyright! Just because something *CAN* be used to violate the law does not mean that it *ALWAYS* violates the law. Even considering this bill shows the ignorance of people who believe it will make a difference.
As for my development efforts, if this law passes, you can bet I'll never develop any internetworking product again -- and that includes for the company I work for... How is that for *NOT* (yea right!) stifiling innovation? I'm sure other developers will do the same thing. Who *wants* to be responsible for the acts committed by someone else? This bill will have to read like a car commercial, listing all the exclusions to have ANY hope of being successful. As pointed out by other posters, I don't think it would stand up in court either.
I'll be sending my complaints to the Senate
A concerned U.S. citizen, said he intended to move ahead with the highly controversial Reduce Act despite objections from dozens of clueless lawmakers. The Reduce Act says "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of the public's trust to create reasonable laws would be legally liable for those violations.
The citizen added, however, that he welcomed comments from critics. "If you help us, we just might get it right," he said. "If you don't, we're going to do it. Something has to be done. There's no way to solve these problems so everyone's totally pleased."
The Reduce Act, which enjoys broad support in the world community of computer users and from a handful of sensible law makers (both of them), is designed to overturn the moronic ideas of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah attempting to outlaw all P2P file sharing software, which would effectively ban all computer operating systems from Pocket PC's, to desktop's running Microsoft Windows, to Macintosh computers to government mainframes, all e-mail software, all web sites, including the entire internet itself. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah is the only person who would not be affected by this ban because he "doesn't understand these new techno-fangled devices and therefore sees no need to own one. My crayon never crashed.". Critics of the bill warn that it could make good intentioned lawmakers liable for laws they've written that are intended to protect people from violent crimes.
Another citizen, who's also outraged by this Sen. Orrin Hatch from Utah, echoed the first citizen's comments. "Nobody wants to undermine good law or any other piece of decent law out there," he said. "We have to understand that some people use the law in ways that are wrong and unconstitutional."
Some citizens who oppose stupid laws initially applauded the Reduce Act in a favorable statement last month that called it a "reasonable balance between abusive law and sensible, protective law."
But by the time Thursday's hearing took place, those citizens had become far more tepid in their appraisal of the bill. One of those citizens testified that the measure would be acceptable only if it were rewritten "to ensure that only bad actors are found liable."
One citizen suggested that the Senate wait for the courts to figure out which laws are legal. "Right now, I don't think legislation is necessary, because the harm is greater than any benefit that may be derived," he said.
More than 40 trade associations and advocacy groups voiced similar sentiments in a letter to senators July 6. The Reduce Act "would chill protection of the innocent and drive freedom loving citizens" overseas, said the letter,
- Legitimate File Sharing
-
by anonymuse
July 23, 2004 10:46 AM PDT
- This law would also wind up banning legitimate file sharing. There is a perception that "these kids" downloading are just trying to rip off the record companies and the artists. This is hardly the case. There are a lot of private hubs for various recording artists with very strict rules. Basically, if it's ever been recorded on vinyl, casette, CD, or DVD it is not available to be shared. Instead, the shares only include TV performances that have been converted to digital video. The primary purpose is to allow people in one country to view interviews and performances from another country and vice versa. The legislators need to stop trying to lump everyone into one category since it's just not true.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 44 Comments >>