Slashdot Log In
Copyright Office Suggests Changes To Induce Act
Posted by
michael
on Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:10 AM
from the thar-be-pirates dept.
from the thar-be-pirates dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The US Copyright Office has proposed a new version of the Induce act. Under this new version it is apparently more difficult to bring charges against a company for inducement. Stories on the subject can be found at DRMBlog.com and at News.com."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Copyright Office Suggests Changes To Induce Act
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 263 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Finally.... (Score:1)
Re:Go big and ban it all. (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.crfh.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 14 2006, @02:47PM)
Section 2A would cover any p2p application that automatically starts sharing files
Section 2B would cover any p2p application that explicitly blocks suspected RIAA/MPAA peers
Section 2C would cover any p2p application that includes incentives for sharing copyrighted work.
Section 2D is an anti-grandfather clause: once this passes, if you're distributing a p2p application, it had better not be in violation of 2A, 2B, or 2C
2E is a problem: even if you didn't make the p2p application for copyright infringement, if the users have decided to use it primarily for that purpose, you're guilty. I don't think this section will stand up in court, though.
Oldest political trick in the book! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when pragmatism wins out over principle, but no one pays attention to that... same as when it happened with the DMCA, Mickey Mouse Copyright Act, AHRA, etc. Reactionary pragmatists come out in strong support for modifying it to strip some of its teeth away, dismissing campaigning on principle to abolish it as impractical... and the core of the law sits there festering on the books while the progress-minded pragmatists comfortably pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
Re:Finally.... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.student.gsu.edu/~nmancuso1 | Last Journal: Monday September 20 2004, @09:36PM)
It's a start... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.zenwerx.com/personal/)
Re:It's a start... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.lazylightning.org/)
Greed is a powerful thing. The laws are being made by people who enjoy the perks of working for the corporations.
Re:It's a start... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.lazylightning.org/)
Perhaps I wasn't clear... The government officials that are accepting payoffs to put through laws favorable to the coroporations are greedy.
Re:It's a start... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a start... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 10 2004, @06:46PM)
Re:It's a start... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tennesseeans, vote against Frist. He's a sponsor. South Dakotans? Daschle. Vote them out. If enough of the bill's sponsors are voted out of office, this bill will die as it should. With the exception of Graham in South Carolina, they're -all- up for reelection this year. Vote these corporate tools out of office. Tell all your friends to vote against them, too, and tell them why.
The INDUCE act is typical of what happens when a bunch of idiots think that they can legislate against social change. They tried it with prohibition and with segregation. Look how well those worked. The result of this law, if passed? Nothing. The people who maintain this software will suddenly be replaced by people in other countries. People will continue to violate the draconian copyright laws. P2P will become more and more untraceable and more and more secure. The end result will be that the MPAA/RIAA will lose the current benefits of P2P (tracking popularity), but their efforts will do nothing to stem the tide of illegal downloading.
The reality is that copyright law as we know it is over. Regardless of your views on whether copyright law is still valuable (and personally, I think it is), the public of the world has spoken. They have committed en masse acts of civil disobedience. There is no going back. The people pushing for this bill are trying to stop a train going at full tilt with no one behind the wheel. And while I, as a supporter of -reasonable- copyright, wish it weren't so, the cat is out of the bag. They watched and did nothing as the Internet became a popular mechanism for getting music, and in doing nothing, lost their right to do anything.
The world is a different place than it was before Napster, and no matter how much the people in power want to go back, wishing won't make it so. The sooner they accept this and work to find mechanisms for making money in spite of the inevitability of P2P, the sooner they'll be profitable again. The harder they try to fight technology, the more they will lose.
Remember: VOTE
Re:Copyright law over? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @04:43PM)
Talk about NOT getting the point of his post!
This is a war on the Information Commons, not piracy. They want to remove your ability to read a book twice, and similar rights you've always enjoyed. They are trying to lock up the exchange of information.
Please, who gives a damn about the so-called pirates (stupid phrase, anyway).
Re:It's a start... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.jhonor.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday May 09 2004, @01:43PM)
HTML Text and Analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.corante.com/importance/)
Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.lazylightning.org/)
Does this mean that the 9th Circuit is a radical judge making rulings based on personal opinion? I especially love the term "allies in Congress" as if this is some sort of important war.
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Supreme Court, which has the tradition of judicial review, which allows it to overturn laws they see as unconstituional. The Betamax case, which doesn't specifically site a constitutional cause, allows use of technology in a non-infringing manner, even though the manufacturer knows it could be(gleaned from the Grokster decision). Unless the RIAA/MPAA have justices in their pocket, it's doubtful this law will be able to stand up to the Betamax standard. Then again, Orrin Hatch is chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, the first stop for federal(and Supreme) court justice appointees.
Note: I'n not volunteering to be the person to be the case that tries the INDUCE act, should this awful piece of legislation pass, against the Betamax standard.
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.movetoiceland.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday June 02 2004, @11:02AM)
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:4, Informative)
From the State of the Circuit [uscourts.gov] speech:
- "Among some of the issues decided or, in one notable instance not decided, by the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit were: whether "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as recited in California schools; whether the EPA needs to perform an environmental impact assessment before allowing Mexican trucks to operate in the U.S. under NAFTA; whether murderers sentenced to death by a judge, in violation of the Constitution's jury trial guarantee, can nonetheless be executed without re-sentencing; whether reasonable suspicion is needed for immigration agents to disassemble a car crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in order to search its gas tank for drugs. These are not easy issues."
Indeed they aren't. Plus, the 9th has the most cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. They're rogues alright. But they make hard decisions, and generally are in favor of keeping the government the hell out of people's business.So it becomes... (Score:2, Redundant)
Shut that HATCH (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.notfud.com/)
First have a proposed act that is so ridiculous no one can sanely accept it, then turn around and seem to offer a compromise, and suddenly the masses gobble it all up!
Still is too vague (Score:5, Interesting)
Did anyone else notice how this law can be used to restrict information because you can induce someone to commit copyright infringement without providing links or files. I mean if I tell someone how to make a crack for a game by providing only locations and hex changes, I could be inducing them to break copyright couldn't I?
Re:Still is too vague (Score:4, Informative)
The reason is you no longer have have the CD, he now has it. So only one copy. Fee for the copy has alredy been paid.
If you maded a copy for him, or you lent him your to copy to make copy, then you would falling
Artists are NOT suffering (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.mikeshaw.net/)
"The performing rights organization generated royalties of more than $573 million for its songwriters, composers and music publishers. Royalties increased by $40 million or 7.5% from the previous year.
BMI President and CEO Frances W. Preston said both the revenues and royalty distributions were the largest in the company's history."
Sooner or later this 800 pound gorilla is going to trample their manufactured crisis.
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:5, Informative)
As a member of the American Federation of Musicians (I am a freelance musician in Chicago) who has performed and recorded in royalty-pay situations, I can tell you that the artists are the FIRST to get the shaft.
Yes, recording companies will tell you that royalty pay increases, but they never seem to release a breakdown of who gets that pay. I would venture to say that the majority of it does not go to artists like myself, who play on your film scores, your commercials, for whom this is a daily living, not the difference between the 1.2 million dollar or the 2.1 million dollar house.
It's the media conglomerates that are the gorillas here. Royalty checks for those like myself are insulting at best. (This is why I have a day job in IT for now.)
Please do not EVER confuse the RIAA and MPAA with actual ARTISTS.
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.mikeshaw.net/)
Please read my post and my link, before calling me "full of shit"...(colossally even!) I never said anything about the RIAA and/or MPAA.
The article is from BMI. Anyone can join BMI, from the individual artist (like me) to the largest publisher. The fact that BMI is collecting record revenue and royalty payments means that the money is flowing regardless of what's happening with Kazaa/Morpheus/etc.
The fact that you don't see much of this money will NOT change with the INDUCE act...in fact it will probably get worse if the INDUCE act is passed because it will stifle the very innovation that is changing the system waaay for the better for musicians like you and I.
In short, this guy that's "full of shit" is full of the same opinion you are. The real exploitation is happening with the old status quo, not the new world of "illegal" downloading.
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:5, Interesting)
$573,000,000 / 300,000 = $1910 per year
IRC? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this umbrella cover IRC - something that has a (supposedly) legitimate use? I can understand the regs on p2p software, but can't IRC users say "we're just chatting..."?
Re:IRC? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.beyondementia.com/)
You can? You understand it? Or you're willing to accept it? Or you just don't care? Because, I neither understand it nor am I willing to accept it. P2P has a myriad of legitimate uses, especially to someone running a *nix system.
See, the problem is that people go "Oh, well, they want to ban X? I don't use X, so that's alright." They don't think about the fact that it's X today, but hey, that just set a precedent for banning Y. Soon you're going "Aww crap, IM just got banned because it includes a file transfer feature. How did this happen?"
Anyone sensible even attending? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~ajayvb)
Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/~GillBates0 | Last Journal: Tuesday July 10, @04:36PM)
"First it was the Hollings bill, then Induce, now the Copyright Office's bill. They look different, but they all revolve around the same thing: Giving content (providers) veto power over all new technology," Rodger said. "Who decided that holders of government-granted monopolies should determine the future of high tech? I don't remember reading that memo."
Mirrors my feelings exactly. Just goes to show that companies (with convenient government puppets) will stop at nothing to establish monopoly over everything in their power.
Re:Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 15 2003, @05:16PM)
Also, the constitution is about the PEOPLE. It should, beyond any other purpose, serve the people who constitute the nation. Laws should also reflect the needs and wants of the people, and not of small groups and corporations. If the laws are badly implemented or irrelevant in a new society, they should be changed or annulled.
I don't want people who create works or invent, or think up new technologies to have those exploited by others for profit, but non-for-profit and personal use should not be outlawed.
A potential advantage... (Score:1)
Inducing people.... (Score:3, Interesting)
How can the RIAA believe that Apple and the other makers of MP3/WMA/etc players are trying to "induce" people into stealing music? My iPod has a very legitimate use: holding my entire music library in MP3 form so I can enjoy it anywhere I go (BTW: I own all the CDs I've ripped to MP3). I really don't care to carry 500+ CDs on me at all times so I can pop the right on into a CD player when the mood hits me.
Idiots....
Quite an Improvement (Score:2)
The following are some good provisions, really.
(A) distributing any dissemination technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses knowing that it can be used for infringing purposes, so long as that technology is not designed to be used for infringing purposes;
So BitTorrent is still okay, although the other P2P clients are in a little more shady of a situation.
(B) distributing any dissemination technology that incorporates reasonably effective measures to prevent or halt dissemination that constitutes infringement within the meaning of this subsection;
Reasonably effective is incredibly vague. If we can be as slightly effective as some copy protection crap, that would be simple.
(C) advertising, marketing or promoting a dissemination technology that does not specifically encourage the use of that technology for infringing purposes;
(D) the providing of information on the use of a dissemination technology by the creator or distributor of that dissemination technology when the information does not specifically encourage the use of that technology for infringing purposes, including through instruction manuals, handbooks, user guides or customer support services;
It's good to say both of those things, at the least. Just don't put up screenshots of your product being used illegally (um, Appollon).
(E) the providing of information on the use of a dissemination technology by a person not affiliated with the creator or distributor of that dissemination technology in the context of commentary, criticism, or reviews of the dissemination technology; or
So, wait, I can explain that a tool can be used illegally, so long as I didn't release it? At least they remember what free speech is. I didn't expect that.
(F) providing products or services to a distributor of dissemination technology in the same manner that such products or services are provided to other members of the public, including but not limited to financial services, delivery services, advertising services, product reviews or evaluations, library services, real estate services, customer-support services for users of computer software or hardware, utilities and telecommunications services.
Difficult for Corporate America (Score:2)
But its still bloody easy for "regular" America to get busted for "inducement". Jesus, why doesn't the RIAA and the MPAA just declare open war on their customers, and convince Congress to force us to give them X amount of dollars per month. That's the only thing that'll make them happy.
Bureaucrats Drafting Legislation? (Score:1)
(http://hutnick.com/ | Last Journal: Monday March 12 2007, @09:15PM)
-Peter
INDUCE not good, but something needed (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.cafeleprick.com/)
Could Kazza be used for legitimate uses? Sure it could. But is it? Not a chance in hell. And they do nothing to try and even try to push people toward using it legitimately. P2P shouldn't be outlawed. But if 99% of your network is copyrighted material, and you are told this over and over again, and you do nothing to even pretend to try and correct the problem, then your network should be shut down. Common carrier status only works because most of the traffic is legitimate traffic. When all the traffic is in violation, then common carrier status doesn't help anyone and should be revoked.
Re:INDUCE not good, but something needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite right! Probably the best idea is to get rid of the laws being violated. Or to put it another way, when even a large minority of people do something it is crazy to make that thing illegal. Laws should reflect the whole of society rather than just being a tool for certain well placed minority groups to mould everyone else.
If you don't like the way that concept of 'freedom' pans out then, as you American's like to say, why not give communist China a try.
I sit in awe as the situation escalates (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
However, for a person like myself who just wishes to lawfully make use of technology, I despise all of you on both extremes of this argument. That includes you fucking jackasses that continue to utterly abuse the rights of copyright holders with your weasely content stealing methods. Yeah, good job setting up your servers with the latest Hollywood movies, Silicon Valley games, etc.
Here's a big thanks from those of us in the middle who are caught up in your arms race of constantly increasing anti-piracy laws and pro-piracy techniques.
Thanks. Thanks a fucking lot.
Dialog box loophole? (Score:5, Interesting)
".. causes the user of the technology to infringe copyrighted works without the user making a specific, informed decision, for each copyrighted work at issue, about whether to engage in such infringement; "
Doesn't this mean that all the file sharing programs have to do, is to pop up a dialog box for each file that is can't verify the user has the rights to download? Wouldn't that give the user a specific, informed decision about every file and also remove the program from inducing infringement by the terms of this draft?
very squishy (Score:5, Insightful)
- (A) 13 14 distributing any dissemination technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses knowing that it can be used for infringing purposes, so long as that technology is not designed to be used for infringing purposes;
P2P networks are capable of substantial noninfringing uses (whether or not they experience substantial noninfringing uses).So the question comes down to whether or not a P2P network is designed to be used for infringing purposes -- it seems there is some measure or intent that is required for this to be true, and that seems awfully hard to decide or prove one way or another. But, this is sufficiently ambiguous that it would need to be decided in a very messy court battle. Plus, this clause doesn't place any limitations on the extent of infringing purposes for which the technology must be designed - one could argue that if it allows even a single infringing use, it was designed that way, and therefore it was designed to be used for infringing purposes.
Of course, one could make the same claim about email.
I see. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:I see. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.no2id.co.uk/)
Interestingly, Hatch introduced (it says here [techlawadvisor.com]) legislation "in March 2000 to protect firearms manufacturers from lawsuits arising from crimes committed with their guns".
'Hypocritical douche-bag', is the phrase you're fumbling for.
Form letter from Orrin Hatch (Score:5, Informative)
here [slashdot.org]. This was the 3rd time I've contacted him, and the other twimes, he (or whoever answers his mail) always personalized the response, addressing specific concerns and questions I had. This time, it seems to be nothing more than a form letter. Enjoy!
----Begin Letter----
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 (S. 2560). I appreciate your comments and apologize for the delay in my response.
The media have widely broadcast misconceptions about the intent and purpose of this bill, spreading concerns that S 2560 would outlaw Google, eBay, iPods, VCRs, TiVos, computers, CD burners, recordable DVDs, and a litany of other multi-use devices and Internet service providers. Let me be clear: This legislation was not designed to have any effect on these or future technological innovations, and I will work to ensure the final bill that is considered by Congress meets those criteria.
S. 2560 has one goal - to crack down on those whose intended purpose and sole business model is to induce children, teenagers, and others to illegally download copyrighted music and movies for free. Without the illegal copying, these filesharing companies would be out of business, yet they amass huge profits while their customers are being forced to pay thousands of dollars in damages to the copyright owners. This bill is merely an attempt to close the safe-harbor loophole that these companies are using to knowingly lure their victims into this illegal activity and make them face legal liability for their actions.
From the beginning, I have worked with the technology industries to craft S. 2560 so it targets only a small group of bad actors without affecting legitimate technology interests, and I will continue to work with them to ensure that we find the best way to achieve this goal. I certainly welcome any proposed improvements or alternatives to the approach taken in @. 2560.
Again, thank you fro writing.
Sincerely,
[Sig]
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator
Ernie Miller's Guide to the Induce Act (Score:2)
Rather than get rid of copyright entirely... (Score:3, Informative)
A similar solution could also be applied to software patents (and maybe other patents, dunno), though with the speed the industry is moving something like two years would be more appropriate.
* No, I did not include the RIAA in 'everyone', as while they technically are most unfortunately a part of it, statistically they are an entirely insignificant portion (there's like, a single to double digit number of executives, and maybe a few hundred employees?).
ONLINE RENTALS THEORY (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 06 2005, @10:30PM)
American flag (Score:2, Informative)
(http://operagost.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 01 2006, @12:08PM)
"More Difficult" ? (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
Other then that they should NOT be responsible for its (mis)use by its customers..
End of story.. no need for a yet another law..
Here's a really radical idea (Score:2)
THEN we can make the President's "Abu Ghraib" argument (disregard all these memos about torture, it's just a few bad apples)
My reading of it says this act would outlaw... (Score:2)
(http://www.casaichiban.com/)
1) Upload/Download ratios of any kind no matter what the purpose.
The act states that anything that gives incentives or better performance by requiring the end user to participate more in a possibly infringing act... wait a minute - does this mean that slashdot's moderation system would have to be reworked -- you get moderation rights by reading more... hmm. The possibilities and permutations of twisting this bugger.
2) FTP, SCP, SFTP combined with directory listing of files.
Well -- it's definitely peer-to-peer. Just twist...
3) E-mail
Okay - not quite peer-to-peer however definitely has infringing abilities.. er.. okay.. this would tkae a lot of bending.
If you stretch it a bit further, it could also make VPN networks illegal.
Wouldn't it be kind of fun to have the Congressional Network shut down due to infringing activity?
501(3)(a) (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.biglumber.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 18, @12:25PM)
I would like to hear a hypothetical example of any plausible scenario, where this act could somehow be used against someone for disseminating technology.
OMFG! (Score:1)
You see, after 9-11, I was all freaked out, but Bush got on TV and told America that we should go back to our daily lives, and that would include shopping. So I set aside my fear, and went to the local mall. While I was there, I saw some new records that had come out the week before. I listened to them, and wanted to get a couple, but I didn't have enough money to buy them, since the recession led to me getting "let go" by my employer, who apparently didn't need anyone with Python skills anyway. So I went back home, and was all psyched about buying the CDs online, but with the shipping costs and everything I just couldn't afford to buy the music legally. So finally, I just got on Hotline and downloaded a few songs.
WTF? Is the FBI going to go after Bush for making me download music illegally?
Why isnt the tech industry fighting back? (Score:2)
These new bills are likely to hurt companies are people hang on to old hardware/software/electronics instead of buying new DRM stuff. Plus the cost to implement theis stuff.
Not to mention ISPs and such who have to spend $$$ acting as "copyright police" for Big Media.
Why dont they get together and form a TIAA (Technology Industry Association Of America) or something and fight back.
What is keepnig the tech companies from fighting Big Media?
The price of music (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Tuesday August 24 2004, @09:19PM)
Re:I should probably RTFA, but... (Score:1, Informative)
Pronunciation: in-'düs-m&nt, -'dyüs-
Function: noun
1 : a motive or consideration that leads one to action or to additional or more effective actions
2 : the act or process of inducing
3 : matter presented by way of introduction or background to explain the principal allegations of a legal cause, plea, or defense
synonym see MOTIVE
Re:I should probably RTFA, but... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 11, @09:31AM)
saying: "KazAAm 2.0 is released, it is a P2P network designed for decentralized distribution of binary files" isn't.
Sort of like selling a smartcard reader/writer is no crime, but advertising it as a tool to hack DirecTV is.
Frankly, there are regulations governing other businesses that could be "shady". Most municipalities have pawn shops licensed and required to report every transaction, and it's illegal for them (or anyone else) to knowingly buy stolen goods.
I think the goal here is to stop companies from profitting by promoting an illegal product. The law probably sucks though, because laws always go to far.
Re:I should probably RTFA, but... (Score:5, Informative)
"inducement" as a legal term with a specific meaning in intellectual property law. It typically means that someone is doing something which would *not* strictly speaking be considered an infringement of a copyright or a patent. But what they are doing is "inducing" infringement, i.e. causing, encouraging, soliciting others to infringe.
It's a concept that carries over from criminal law. It's sort of like, hey, she didn't commit the crime, but she did solicit others to do it for her, or something like that.
Re:Canada, here I come. (Score:2, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 11, @09:31AM)
At least the US govt is predictable because you can understand what motivates it ($$$$$). Canadian govt is just plain fuckin insane.
Tell Sheila Copps I never got my flag if you see the bitch.
Re:I am thinking about moving to Canada, too (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://akatsuki.ca/)
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Drug use is not legal here. Marijuana is still illegal, although there have been thoughts of decriminalizing it, which is completely different from making it legal.
Decriminalizing it basically means the users (of marijuana) who are caught with small amounts (I can remember the exact amount) don't face charges and/or possibly jail time. It's the drug dealers who get hit.
But this is far from making it legal.