- Related Stories
-
RIAA takes hundreds more 'John Does' to court
June 22, 2004 -
Antipiracy bill targets technology
June 17, 2004 -
Landmark P2P ruling back in court
February 2, 2004 -
Judge: File-swapping tools are legal
April 25, 2003
Their legislation says "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations, a prohibition that would
Proponents argue that the bill focuses on curbing illegal activity on the Internet. "In the film 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang,' the leering 'Child Catcher' lured children into danger with false promises of 'free lollipops,'" said Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Tragically, some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal; that they can legally lure children and others with false promises of 'free music.'"
The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act, which was made public Wednesday, represents the latest legislative attempt by large copyright holders to address what they see as the growing threat of peer-to-peer networks rife with pirated music, movies and software. Violations of the IICA would be punished with civil fines and, in some circumstances, lengthy prison terms.
Foes of the IICA, including civil liberties groups and file-swapping network operators, are alarmed that the measure enjoys strong support from prominent politicians of both major parties. Its supporters include Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of
America, praised the IICA as a "narrowly focused but meaningful" proposal that "places the spotlight squarely on the bad actors who have hijacked a promising technology for illicit means and ignoble profits." The
Targeting a court decision
The IICA is designed to overturn an April 2003
In that decision, which the entertainment industry
"This carefully drafted, bipartisan bill would respond to this erroneous decision by confirming that existing law should allow artists to bring civil actions against parties who intend to induce others to infringe copyrights," Hatch said.
An early version of the IICA seen by CNET News.com was called the Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act, or Induce Act. The final version appears to be identical.
Critics were assailing the measure even before it was introduced, saying that in addition to outlawing peer-to-peer networks, it could imperil products like ReplayTV and even the VCR. Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law, said the language was "worded so broadly" that it would put Web sites such as
Under existing law, companies are not liable for "vicarious copyright infringement" performed by their users, said
If the IICA were to become law, "let's say that you're selling an MP3 player and it turns out that the MP3 player can be used to move copyrighted material around really easily," Godwin said. "People start buying your MP3 player. Do you want a world where courts can say, 'Hey buddy, you're liable for copyright infringement?'"
Critics of the IICA have suggested that it also might have the effect of overturning the Supreme Court's 1984
Leahy, the top Democrat on the
A Senate Judiciary aide who spoke at length on condition of anonymity said concerns about the bill are misguided. The aide argued that the bill essentially reiterates
In the Grokster case decision, Judge Wilson noted that "additional legislative guidance may be well-counseled." The Senate aide said that "could be interpreted as a request for the status quo, if it is not answered" by Congress.
See more CNET content tagged:
Morpheus,
file-swapping network,
P2P,
StreamCast Networks,
Orrin Hatch
See what may no longer be available:
www.replay-radio.com
and
www.replay-music.com
I am sick of these idiot politicians making policies about technologies that they don't even fully comprehend. It just goes to show that policy makers of the future will have to be more than just elected in order to make unbiased decisions.
What's more important is they can NEVER shut down all the P2P websites because so many are now GLOBAL and they have no aothority to do so outside our borders.
ISPs wont be help liable? Up until someone sues them that is. Giving someone an internet connection that can be used for piracy is inducement according to this law.
Then theres the fact that short of calling your program "Piracy v3.0" and describing it as "A tool for pirating copyrighted material" there is no way to prove that pretty much any technology (including p2p networks) are designed to promote piracy, merely that they can be used for such.
But then again just about any technology can be used for piracy from a stick of chalk to every device, computer, server, router, etc currently attached to the internet.
This law will either have no effect or outlaw almost everything.
Considering that, is it really worth putting into effect?
Has anyone even bothered to think about how the public will react?
How about making a real "Can Spam" law that can work!
We already have copyright laws on the books and the RIAA is utilizing them already to sue P2P users. All this law would accomplish is that it would now make ISP and Software/Hardware vendors responsable. Sort of like blaming the gun or the SUV and not just the person pulling the trigger or driving the SUV.
Maybe another good bill would be to allow us to make car makers responsible for accidents when people drive drunk.
LMFAO on such lame reasons of "luring children".
**** you RIAA.
And **** all you corrupted retarded *politicans*.
This bill will do very little to stop what's been going on now for almost a decade. The music industry continues to fight this war with weapons that are outdated against today's technology.
If the industry REALLY cares about the music consumer it should: a) lower the price of CDs immediately. List prices between $15-$18.98 are completely unrealistic in time when best-selling DVDs are cheaper and kids (primary target audience for music) have more entertainment choices than ever where to spend their disposable income.
If the RIAA and major labels really believe that legislation like this is their salvation, then they REALLY have no clue what's going on out here in the real world outside their expensive offices where they lunch with their expense accounts.
I am a longstanding admirer of yours as well as a voting constituent. I appreciate and support all of the hard work that you do and know that you do your best job to make sound decisions and judgements.
With that said, I must ask that you fight against the Induce Act coming before the Senate. The Induce Act, like the DMCA Act of 2000 are a last-ditch effort by monopolistic media companies to empower themselves and their antiquated business models in an effort to avoid adapting to the Internet age. Their lobbying and congressional support is destructive to further development of the Internet, our society, and the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution.
Somehow in the past decade we have come to think that copyright law dictates the use of technology. On the contrary, copyright law has been molded time and again to fit with the technology of the day! The technologies of today are no more different than the invention of the printing press or other monumental inventions which we now regard with both respect and appreciation.
Passing the Induce Act will retard technology and development for the sake of a few (but powerful) luddites who lack the creativity to adapt to a new world. Furthermore, it shows a pitiful lack of long-term vision by the congressional members involved.
The Induce Act (and the former DMCA) are first and foremost unconstitutional, secondly unenforcable, and finally detrimental to the progress of the last decade.
Contrary to popular belief, the lack of Digital Rights Management and iron-fisted copyright control will not: cause artists to starve, exploit children, or destroy capitalism. Please take the time to read this article: http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt, and rethink your position on DRM, the DMCA, and the Induce Act.
With all due respect,
____________
I am a longstanding admirer of yours as well as a voting constituent. I appreciate and support all of the hard work that you do and know that you do your best job to make sound decisions and judgements.
With that said, I must ask that you fight against the Induce Act coming before the S&T subcommittee next week. The Induce Act, like the DMCA Act of 2000 are a last-ditch effort by monopolistic media companies to empower themselves and their antiquated business models in an effort to avoid adapting to the Internet age. Their lobbying and congressional support is destructive to further development of the Internet, our society, and the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution.
Somehow in the past decade we have come to think that copyright law dictates the use of technology. On the contrary, copyright law has been molded time and again to fit with the technology of the day! The technologies of today are no more different than the invention of the printing press or other monumental inventions which we now regard with both respect and appreciation.
Passing the Induce Act will retard technology and development for the sake of a few (but powerful) luddites who lack the creativity to adapt to a new world. Furthermore, it shows a pitiful lack of long-term vision by the congressional members involved.
The Induce Act (and the former DMCA) are first and foremost unconstitutional, secondly unenforcable, and finally detrimental to the progress of the last decade.
Contrary to popular belief, the lack of Digital Rights Management and iron-fisted copyright control will not: cause artists to starve, exploit children, or reinforce communist sentiments. Please take the time to read this article: http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt, and rethink your position on DRM, the DMCA, and the Induce Act.
With all due respect,
____________
In that sense, I think that P2P networks should be leagal, as should guns, but that the operator should be lible if the MAIN use is for illegal copyright violation, as should gun dealers if they are primarly selling to stores that are not selling guns legally.
Thus I will suggest that the law be "re-written" to define "intentionally induces any violation" as providing a resource that is primarelly used for violation...
Does that make sense, assuming that we don't want to go off into Copyright is Good or Bad?
2) See: The Obsessively Annotated Introduction to the INDUCE Act
http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/004563.html
Concerns are MISGUIDED? I don't think so. The language of this bill says that if a product can be used to infringe on copyright, then said maker or purveyor of product is guilty of inducing copyright infringement and therefore liable.
No matter how you dress this up, it's still an infringement on trade and freedoms. This bill has too broad a scope and can be used to create a condition where nothing and no one is safe. Next thing you know, the legislators and some bright individual eager to make a quick buck at everyone else's expense will claim copyright infringement by taping or burning a copy of what they hear over the radio. Last time I heard, music played over the radio and available on the air waves was free to use or play or copy or do with what the listener will. Think that will last long? Not on your tintype. This needs to be stopped now.
As a writer, I am very aware of copyright infringement and would sue the first person who tried to make money from my hard work, but this is beyond the pale, folks. Wake up and smell the end of freedom as you know it because this bill is just the first step.
If there isn't a big campaign contribution in this,I'll eat my hat. if it is no different than laws already on the books? Why the bother?? A government of the RIAA and Hollywood; by the R&H; and for the R&H. In case you are wondering: I have a music collection (a big music collection)and I sometimes add to it. 99% of it is LP's: vinyl and most of the artists have been dead for over 100 years. I don't download any of the garbage that needs so much "protection." I don't have MP3(and i'm not sure what that is.) I do know corruption when I see it. Maybe it would save us a lot of time and money in the courts by just making it illegal to produce the garbage to entice children to break the law. Then, again, from what I read, just maybe, the new law will do just that.
ed vinson
- Yet Another Ridiculous Legislative Attempt
-
by LANjackal
June 24, 2004 9:00 PM PDT
- Wow, at the rate we're going, pretty soon you won't be able to breathe or [use the bathroom] without violating some copyright, patent, or law related thereto. It doesn't have to be that way, however. Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation at www.eff.org and do your part to safeguard your digital rights.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 39 Comments >>