Sen. Hatch to Introduce Wide-ranging Copyright Bill

The Importance of writes "C|Net News is reporting that a new copyright bill, to be introduced next week by Sen. Orrin Hatch, will likely overturn the Betamax decision (which held that VCRs were legal) and threaten all sorts of innovation. EFF broke the story and Copyfight has been all over it. Don't miss the comments of law professor Susan Crawford who says, 'This is amazing. Now we're waaaaaay beyond contributory and vicarious theories of liability, which are court-created and pretty darn broad on their own.' Text of the bill here and PDF."

Powerful incentives

[SIGALRM (784769)]

the Induce Act was scheduled to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

Senator Hatch has a powerful incentive [opensecrets.org] in attacking P2P networks (see #'s 7, 15, 18).

Oddly enough, by the same logic he's using in this legislation prescription drugs should be illegal because they can be used to kill as well as heal. But since the rest of his top contributors are pharma co's he isn't likely to raise that as an issue is he?

Re:Powerful incentives

[cluckshot (658931)]

Has anyone out there noted that he is not sponsoring legislation to make sure that computer programmers get copyrights and royalties for their work just like musical writers and performers do? I think that if he gave one rats rump about realy copyrights he would start with the people who are being ripped off of their rights the most.

Re:Powerful incentives

[pete-classic (75983)]

I don't think writers or performers get royalties if the work is produced as work for hire.

-Peter

Re:Powerful incentives

[NoMoreNicksLeft (516230)]

Every summer movie preview that I haven't been lucky enough to avoid, seems so chock full of blatant formula, that you'd swear up and down that 1 scriptwriter wrote every single one of them, with his worn copy of "Hollywood Scriptwriting Formula" at his side.

To think that a Carmack-level uberprogrammer is somehow less creative than these worthless tripe peddlers is obscene, to state it publically with the conviction you seem to have is positively blasphemous.

Re:Powerful incentives

[Erwos (553607)]

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act was passed under a Democratic president. Please stop trying to pretend either party is terribly interested in giving you all the "fair use rights" you want for copyrighted works.

-Erwos

Re:Powerful incentives

[bnenning (58349)]

But seriously - look at the voting records as a whole on issues of copyright and personal freedoms. There is a *Massive*, *Stark* rift between the voting records of the two parties when it comes to civil liberties.

Yeah, I remember the principled opposition to the Patriot Act by Democrats...um, wait. But they did try to stop Republican Bill Clinton from passing the DMCA...hmm. Well, at least they stood up against Carnivore, Echelon, Clipper, CALEA and encryption export controls. Actually no, that never happened either. (In fact, John Ashcroft was a leading opponent of export controls).

It is increasingly obvious that neither major party gives a s**t about civil liberties; unfortunately the Libertarian Party consists mainly of nutjobs and there's no alternative for those of us who value both personal and economic freedom.

Lobbying = Corruption.

[DRWHOISME (696739)]

These congressman are paid hitmen and are all corrupt because the system is about lobbying(which needs to be outlawed). Lobbying = Corruption. This should not be a lobbyocracy but a democratic republic.

Re:Lobbying = Corruption.

[0123456 (636235)]

"the system is about lobbying(which needs to be outlawed)."

Lobbying wouldn't be a problem if the US government would actually abide by the constitution. There are so few things that the Federal govermment can legally do, that lobbying would be pointless... this law, for one, is obviously and blatantly unconstitutional.

Re:Powerful incentives

[Stargoat (658863)]

Hey, it's our old friend, the Jackass from Utah!
1. Senator Hatch was the fellow who last year wanted to develop software to physically destroy the computers of people who download music.
2. One of his staffers cracked into computers of House Democrats.
3. Senator Hatch's website used unlicensed (read illegal) hosting software for several months.
4. Hatch also thinks of himself as an amateur musician, who is losing money because people download his music.
5. Hatch's son is a lawyer, one of who's clients is the SCO.

Re:Powerful incentives

[DukeyToo (681226)]

Yep. As soon as I see "Sen Hatch to...", I just feel like crying. The fact that he is an elected official just drives me crazy. Its like a glazed donut, washed down with beer.

Wake up Utah, there's something stuck on your shoe, and you're stinking up the country.

Congressmen, Sponsors and Product Placement

[PetoskeyGuy (648788)]

I love the idea of a sponsored congressman. They should go to work each day dressed like those NASCAR drivers. Logos all over the place, head to toe. He pauses in the middle of his speach to take a refreshing drink of Coca-Cola. Ahhhhh.

Hell lets stop pretending anymore. Lets create corporate representatives and get our elected ones back. All these probablems coming from the fact that corporations are seen as people in the eyes of the law. Make the House, the Senate and the Market. People elect the first two, corporations vote for the third and can't contribute to the others.

Re:Powerful incentives

[clbyjack81 (597903)]

And even more screwed up is how he abides by his own convictions [wired.com].

Re:Powerful incentives

[Squareball (523165)]

Interesting that the government thinks it owns my body. ugh. I guess they can't risk me dying. They need the tax revenue.

Re:Powerful incentives

[TykeClone (668449)]

The perfect time (in the government's eyes) for you to die is at age 6x and 1/2 when you retire - you've spent 40 or more years paying into social security, but haven't yet started drawing from it.

Re:Powerful incentives

[TopShelf (92521)]

You have to remember that most of those goodies arrive after a lawmaker leaves office, in the form of cushy consulting jobs, or positions on corporate boards that require little if any actual work.

I'll bite.

[Mr. Neutron (3115)]

This brings up an interesting point. People hate Communism. Do you know why? Because Communism involves the State stepping in and telling you where you can live, how much money you can make, how much of X product you can purchase, what ideas you are allowed to express, what church you can go to, and so forth. The State takes away your rights.

Now we are faced with more and more right-wingers who want to regulate our lives to death to satisfy a few greedy entertainment executives. Load a "bad" program? Go to jail. Buy a VCR? Go to jail. Devise an algorithm to uncripple your own media? Go to jail. This is the world that faces us, if this agenda is successful.

Bill of Rights? We're talking about legislation specifically designed to take our rights away.

Now, back under your bridge, Troll.

Are we a police state yet?

[XeRXeS-TCN (788834)]

Sigh. Is anyone actually surprised anymore by yet another attempt to remove more freedoms? I thought progress was being made with the bill to remove the more dangerous elements of the DMCA, and now a new "Free Speech Killer"... The world's going to hell in a handbasket.

Is anyone surprised?

[absurdist (758409)]

Orrin Hatch has been in the pocket of the recording industry for ages. Could it have something to do with the disproportionate royalties he receives for his avocation as a "popular song writer?"

Could this pass?

[powera (644300)]

I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell, but as it might, we'd better make sure to make our side of the case clear. Hatch may want to blow up our computers, but I hope there are some senators who realize that "He took away your VCR" won't go well on the campaign trail.

Re:Could this pass?

[tanguyr (468371)]

"He took away your VCR" won't go well on the campaign trail

lol - if you thought Americans got mad when you went for their guns, wait till you see what happens when you go for their TVs.

Re:Could this pass?

[shadowcabbit (466253)]

Here's a plan. Go to the pawn shop, buy the junkiest, most disgusting VCR you can find, and mail it to any senator listed on the bill. Bonus points if it is a) old, b) heavy, or c) not working. Enclose with it a note that says something to the effect of "Dear Senator: As a loyal and concerned citizen of the United States, I am hereby turning over equipment which could potentially be used in copyright infringement, pursuant to the INDUCE Act which you are supporting. I intend to continue turning confiscated equipment over to you until I receive word that the Act has been rescinded. Sincerely, a patriotic constituent."

Re:Could this pass?

[robslimo (587196)]

Here's a better plan. Write to your senator(s) about this. Sometimes I think they live in a world too insulated from their constituents... let them know your thoughts on the matter... let them see the side of it that Hatch is not going to.

And of course it does no good to curse and flame at your senators; keep it clean and thoughtful. Here's my effort to that effect:


Dear Sir,

I've recently read that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is preparing a bill that is being referred to as the "Induce Act" which, were it to be passed, would make significant changes to copyright law.

It may be precipitous to be arguing against something which has not yet been presented, but this one is scary. Wrapped by the excuse of reducing the exploitation of minors, which is a worthy goal, this bill has the potential to wreck the development of software and technology in the US by making any product or service that could possibly be used for copyright violation illegal. Understand that this would have zero effect on technology development outside our borders, putting the US at a severe disadvantage in the global market.

What is worse is that this is a disingenuous attempt to place unwarranted power in the hands of copyright holders and, especially, publishers. If I thought it had the proverbial "snowball's chance in Hell" of achieving any improved protection for children, I might consider it. As it stands, it is a thinly veiled effort to further remove rights of "fair use" and access to technology from the public. Even assuming that was a desirable goal to a majority, this proposed bill would have deliterious effects of distasterous proportion to the freedoms of US citizens and our ability to compete in the world.

Please pause for a reality check, read what is appearing in the press regarding this and other efforts to undermine our rights and freedoms and take a very long and careful look at the true agendas and priorities of your colleague, Sen. Orrin Hatch. I don't know who's interests he is attempting to serve, but I am certain they are not those of his state nor this nation.

Thank you for your time,

[my name]
[my address]

Re:Could this pass?

[wwest4 (183559)]

Chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding to the end of
section 501 the following:
(g) Intentional Inducement of Infringement.-Whoever intentionally
induces any violation identified in subsection (a) of this section shall be
liable as an infringer.
(l) In subsection (g), "intentionally induces" means
intentionally aids, abets, induces, counsels, 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) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish the
doctrines of vicarious or contributory liability for
copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly
withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright
infringement.


See subsection 1 and the broad verbage. This won't get by, at least not without some serious surgery, because there are too many big companies (re: campaign contributors) who stand to lose from such a broad, sweeping change.

Also, beware of the supposed pretext - child pornography / pedophelia. Some people who are up in arms about these issues may see this bill as virtuous, when it's probably a pork barrel ruse. But I haven't seen any evidence that either thing is 1) correlated or 2) a serious, widespread threat warranting federal legislation. I've seen the same sensational coverage of abuses in the Catholic church, but that is a far cry from scientific studies. Surely Kinsey has done studies on this... but I can't find any clear web references. Maybe being armed with hard science about pedo could help fight the bill (and others using the same red herring).

Your Rights Online: Slashdotters to be executed.

[by Anonymous Coward]

"Your Rights Online: Sen. Hatch to Introduce Wide-ranging Slashdot Execution Bill"

Might as well, since it seems only people on /. know about these bills.. someone has to do something, the general public needs to know whats going on.. having flamewars on /. isn't going to stop this.. Doesnt ANYONE have the ability to get this in major news outlets? No one from CNN or something reads slashdot?

I'm so sick of reading on /. about how our rights are being taken away and then no one else i know offline knows anything is happenning. FUCK!!!

It's fine but....

[spirality (188417)]

It would be fine it the length of copyright was also reduced to say 7 years instead of the infinite lifespan copyrights have now. Not really infinite, but anything copyrighted right now will remain so long after I die.

Oh lord...

[Lonath (249354)]

The Induce Act stands for "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act,"

See? Stop being mean to them. They're not corporate shills trying to control culture and take away computers. They're doing it for the children. Think of the children. Don't you care about the children? I, for one, welcome our new child-protecting overlords.

I hope this passes.

[Three Headed Man (765841)]

Only by offending consumers and performing in-house raids to confiscate VCR's and arrest their owners, is it possible to get the public outraged. Non-slashdot-readers don't hear about bad laws until they're passed. Outrage from the general public will wait until this passes.

I'm not too sure of that.

[Too Much Noise (755847)]

Well, I'm not sure VCR users will be affected. Technically, that would have been an infreingement even without this and the present attitude doesn't have to change. On the other hand, here's something that won't offend most consumers, but might hit /. readers hard in the head. The bill says:

Intentional Inducement of Infringement.-Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) of this section shall be liable as an infringer.

In subsection (g), "intentionally induces" means intentionally aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures

Well, if you thought the DeCSS lawsuits were frivolous, you're in for a new type. This would effectively ban the LAME-type projects that are source-only in order to avoid copyright infringement. Yep - you're 'inducing' violations by providing a means to distribute illegal copies of copyright materials. What about audio rippers? Well, if they can be inducing violations, they're infringing. Forget about fair use. All you need to ban some product is an example of its use for copyright infringement and a benevolent judge that would accept some broader definition for 'intentional'.

Also, this will be a generalized ban for any devices non-compliant with future equivalents of the broadcast flag in other fields. Maybe even selling the old non-compliant devices, as they're sure to be used for an infringing purpose.

I hope I'm wrong, but remember, if the wording of the law allows it, sooner or later someone WILL use it.

VCR's illegal

[Honest Man (539717)]

That should make for some interesting news when nearly every household in America would be in violation of the law - what, are they going to storm down every home who has a vcr that is capable of 'recording'? They never cease to amaze me - whats next - the cassette recorder?? Or how about my camcorder?

Child Exploitation My Ass.

[American AC in Paris (230456)]

Section 1. SHORT TITLE This Act may be cited as the "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act of 2004."

Child Exploitation? Child Exploitation? This has about as much to do with child exploitation as it does with farming subsidies or strategic national defense. The only reason this has "Child Exploitation" in the title is so that Hatch et al. can demonize anybody who opposes this as "having voted against protecting children from exploitation".

This is not about protecting America's children against exploitation; this is about protecting the revenue stream of a powerful business lobby.

Senator, you're a schmuck and a tool. The afterlife, if it exists, will most likely be a very unpleasant place for you.

This will surely induce me...

[by Anonymous Coward]

...to vote Libertarian. Question for conservatives: What the hell do you see in Republicans these days? They've become a bunch of right-wing socialists at this point.

Re:This will surely induce me...

[cfalcon (779563)]

Growing up, I approved of the Republicans- being a fiscal conservative and all. I didn't really like their social issues, but all the talk was about what the Democrats were doing to take away our rights (remember it was the Clinton administration that talked about 3rd part escrow encyption [Clipper / Capstone], the DMCA, etc.) The implication was that the Republicans would preserve them- basically, Rush and friends sold the Republicans as if they were Libertarians on many social issues. Heck, during the Clinton administration the Republicans were the party of We Are Not The World's Policeman, so they were the antiwar party. When I talk with any Republican friend of mine, they usually speak of a belief in financial conservatism, and a disapproval of the current administration on spending too much (not fiscally conservative). They also don't like most of the freedom restricting things that we on slashdot don't like (in general, of course), but since all third parties are so kooky and radical and can never win they'll never vote for any of them. Long term implications? I bet within 20 years the current Republican party will be a lot more liberal on social issues. But for now a lot of people who would never vote for a third party are now looking at the Democrats a little more seriously.

Opposition

[yderf (764618)]

Originally, the Induce Act was scheduled to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, but the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed at the end of the day that the bill had been delayed. A representative of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a probable co-sponsor of the legislation, said the Induce Act would be introduced "sometime next week," a delay that one technology lobbyist attributed to opposition to the measure.

Does anyone know who opposes this in the Senate? They deserve a cookie.

This is messed up!

[by Anonymous Coward]

There is just something wrong about advocating PRISON TIME for someone commiting a nonviolent offense WITH NO PROFIT MOTIVE. Unlike the previous boogeyman of drug laws, nobody is even being hurt here - hence the whole idea of fair use. There's just something fundamentally wrong here. These proposed bills are getting crazier and crazier.

Legislators in Canada (I am not an American. YMMV) looked at this and while recognizing a problem, rejected the notion of stiff criminal penalties for this kind of thing. This concerned me here enough to write a detailed letter to the committee reviewing these laws in Canada.

Control over media devices has another impact to - it's about control over the PRODUCTION OF MEDIA. With so much news and speech regulated THROUGH the media, this is tremendously important for the future of free speech in the USA.

Sigh, sometimes I think the world went mad while I wasn't looking. You just don't put people in PRISON for sharing a SONG with NO PROFIT. There is this thing called CIVIL law. Sue him into the ground, sure. Prison is where you put murderers and rapists - not copyright infringers. I wonder how many politicians in the USA would see the irony if they looked back at the treatment of international patents over historical timescales.

Arrgh! Please, get involved in this process and get organized. DO SOMETHING.

Exploitation?

[genixia (220387)]

"Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act of 2004."

What!!???
Using peoples' fear of child exploitation as a tool to push through draconian copyright measures to help BigCorp Inc. is despicable.

Surely this _is_ child exploitation.

It's bad enough that there are sickos in society preying on children for their bodies without someone to then abusing that exploitation to steal their legal rights.

Fascist Alert.

LDS Soon to Run Country

[cthrall (19889)]

I, for one, welcome our new Mormon overlords.

I just sent my contribution to EFF...

[skyryder12 (677216)]

...I would recommend that you do the same. Looks like a full court press while the Republicans control everything...too good an opportunity for the greedheads to pass up.....

Insanity

[LightStruk (228264)]

Since they "aid" and "abet" copyright infringement, normal CD Burners would also be illegal under this law. It's as if Sony Music wants Sony Electronics to stop making devices that are obviously designed solely to pirate their copyrighted works.

Aaaagh... my head is imploding...

[The I Shing (700142)]

Ralph Nader called Washington DC a "corporate-occupied terrority," and I think we need little proof beyond this bill to bolster his claim.

Giant corporations walk into a congressman's office, just flat-out order him to introduce a bill that their lawyers wrote that suspends the Constitution so that they can make a little bit more money, and the congressman goes right along with it, apparently without a moment's hesitation.

As far as enforcing this law, I cannot imagine in a million years that any standard of fairness would even be considered in its application. As Drummond states in Inherit the Wind, "I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish. I warn you that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches -- its upholders as well as its defiers."

When people who innocently use technology like TiVo and VCRs and CD burners start getting randomly sued and arrested by RIAA and MPAA members, I can only hope that the public outcry is strong enough to reverse the trend. But I fear that the opposite will happen, that we'll all be huddled under our bedclothes, shivering in fear that the giant corporations will come after us next. Terrified that armed corporate goon squads, deputized under the banner of protecting copyright, will break our doors down, confiscate our computers and home entertainment systems, and lead us off in handcuffs, we'll do anything to protect ourselves from them, even if it means testifying against a neighbor, friend, or family member. Boy, do I hope that I'm just being paranoid.

Typo in the CNet article

[MarkGriz (520778)]

Hatch is a conservative Mormon who has denounced pornography in the past and who suggested last year that copyright holders should be allowed to remotely destroy the computers of music pirates

I think they misspelled "moron"

Anti-American Activities

[Esion Modnar (632431)]

I'm sure that Mr. Hatch is properly within his rights as a US Senator to introduce this Bill, and that nothing he is doing is treason. He is, however, attacking the 1st Amendment, which Amendment protects his right to introduce this Bill in the first place.

I'm also pretty sure that he's got himself covered in regards to any possible charges of being bribed by lobbyists, PAC's, etc. He's probably too smart for that.

However, I can't but help feel that he is a traitor. He is un-American, and I hope that he loses re-election. The 1st Amendment is 1st because of its importance to America, and the 1st Amendment is America.

You attack the 1st Amendment, you attack America.

So, Mr. Hatch: ES&D.

Don't forget the other vector: WIPO

[michaelmalak (91262)]

The entertainment industry is also pursuing this through another vector: through WIPO. If the U.S. signs the new WIPO treaty, then Betamax will be overturned even without Hatch's bill. See my Nov. 8, 2003 blog entry U.S. corroborating with WIPO to overturn Betamax decision and also eliminate public domain [underreported.com].

Only one infraction by Senator Hatch

[mysterious_mark (577643)]

It is worth noting that Senator Hatch has a long history of supporting legislation that tramples upon constitutional rights and civil liberties, this man is definitley an enemy of your rights and the constitution, anyone in Utah really needs to remember to vote and get this bastard out of Office. He has waged war on the Bill of Rights long enough. M

Re:So he's pretty much out of his mind?

[tanguyr (468371)]

Why doesn't he find a new cause?
Campaign donations. I guess he gets paid just to bring this stuff up, irrespective of whether it passes or not. Just making the right noises to please his masters.

Re:So he's pretty much out of his mind?

[tsg (262138)]

Just making the right noises to please his masters.

Or (and this is probably closer to a tin-foil-hat type theory, but that doesn't make it false), he is taking the extreme so much farther out that the merely ridiculous looks sane by comparison.

Re:Can't overturn the decision

[John Seminal (698722)]

The court case specifically said Congress has the power to enact laws which would change the Betamax case outcome. The Court said they came to the conclusion based on laws congress had on the books. If those laws change, the outcome of the case would change.

What I think is more important is the RIAA hired Senator Hatchs son as one of their lobbyists. It should be a conflict of interest. Since they can't outright buy the Senator, they hire the kid who will have a wealth of oppertunity to influance his father.

Oh yes they can...

[mosel-saar-ruwer (732341)]

Congress can't overturn a decision by the Supreme Court, thats a convenience of having a well-designed government.

Your "well-designed government" was designed by this thing called The United States Constitution, which states, in no uncertain terms:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Of course, The Constitution ain't the most politically correct document these days, and goodness knows the courts don't give a damn about it...

Re:Can someone tell me...

[gamgee5273 (410326)]

Utah. He's from Utah.

Re:Overturn Betamax?

[DunbarTheInept (764)]

A handgun is designed specifically to be capable of destroying flesh, with the intent to wound or kill. If you shoot someone with it, you are using it for exactly what it was made for. The fact that it can be a deterrent to crime is just a side-effect of this feature. It is not a seperate type of use altogether, as the gun lobby tries to phrase it. (Note: I favor gun ownership rights - I just think that this particular argument is a stupid way to try to support it. The reason I support gun ownership rights is specifically *because* guns are an unbalancing factor that makes it trivially easy to kill - that's the kind of power that shouldn't be solely in the hands of government.) Digital copying, on the other hand, has uses that are totally independant of copyright violations. Outlawing it is like trying to reduce traffic fatalities by making it illegal for anybody to own a car.

Re:When does this fucker's term expire?

[Hoodsen (751434)]

From what I have heard, Hatch is a very amiable, likable guy. People who have told me that have also told me he is completely full of BS. The folks in particular I am thinking about who met him came away with an overall good impression, saying "he's a really nice guy" but were also somewhat frustrated because he would pretend to answer their questions but really just gave them a stream of BS (that sounded good, but looking back it was clear he didn't know what he was talking about). Unfortunately, folks like this slip through the cracks and into office a lot in a democratic system; I think that's the bad we take with the good.

I think if Hatch were up for re-election in November, he might get the boot (even in the ultra-conservative state of Utah). But his term isn't up until 2006. There is a good Democrat running against him then, I wish I could remember his name, that might have a shot. But I am just worried that with 2 years left to go, Hatch has plenty of time to do some positive PR work to help his image.