Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government The Courts News Your Rights Online

Alternatives To The INDUCE Act 178

Posted by timothy from the seduce-has-a-nice-ring-to-it dept.
The Importance of writes "The INDUCE Act, which has been discussed many times previously, will likely be getting a lot more attention thanks to the recent Grokster decision. The Register of Copyrights, who thinks the Betamax decision should be overturned, is supposed to come up with a consensus fix to the current language of the bill by Sept. 7. So, various people are proposing alternative solutions to the INDUCE Act. C|Net reports on one coalition's version [PDF] [HTML]. However, there are also versions by Prof. Tim Wu [PDF] [HTML], IEEE-USA [PDF] [HTML] and Ernie Miller [HTML]." Read more below about the proposed "Don't Induce" act.

Iphtashu Fitz writes "The 'Don't Induce Act' proposes that only someone who distributes a commercial computer program that is 'specifically designed' for wide-scale piracy on digital networks could be held liable for copyright violations. The proposal includes three requirements that must be met before a software distributor can be found liable: The 'predominant' use of the program must be the mass, indiscriminate infringing redistribution of copyrighted works; the 'commercial viability of the computer program' must depend on revenue derived from piracy; and the software distributor must have 'undertaken conscious, recurring, persistent and deliberate acts' to encourage copyright infringement. No surprise that the MPAA and RIAA are opposed to this 'watered down' bill. MPAA vice president Fritz Attaway showed his organizations true colors by stating that the Don't Induce Act was so narrowly drafted it would be impossible to use it to shutter even operators of peer-to-peer networks."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Alternatives To The INDUCE Act More

Alternatives To The INDUCE Act

Comments Filter:

  • Dear Mr. Attaway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:28AM (#10066370)
    You oppose the Don't Induce Act, because it is "so narrowly drafted it would be impossible to use it to shutter even operators of peer-to-peer networks."
    Now this may come as a surprise to you but this exactly is the purpose of this Act.

    This may even further surprise you but there are other uses for modern means of communication (e.g. computers, internet) then sharing "pirated" software. That is why a lot of people don't want your concerns about software piracy to hinder the free flow of information more then necessary and the Don't Induce Act is addressing these concerns.

    I hope this helped clear things up a little bit for you.
    Thank you for your time.

    Regards,
    AC
    • Am I reading this correctly? Your saying that the internet and other modern means of comunication has no other uses then Piracy... So Slashdot is one big piracy site?

  • Idiotic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sarastrobert ( 800232 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:28AM (#10066371)
    Bah, If they are to sue Apple and other MP3 player manufacturers then why not sue everyone that makes CD players also since they could be playing illegally copied CD's. Not to mention manufacturers of CD/DVD writers. They are all pirates!!!

    • Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tjebbe ( 36955 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:36AM (#10066420) Homepage
      Yes. Well, I don't think I am being extremely pessimistic here in thinking that will be one of the next steps. I seem to remember just having read something about companies being sued for making 'unlicensed' DVD players...

      After that (and now i am being pessimistic) i would not even be surprised if they start to try to making unlicensed *content* illegal.

      If these people are not stopped they will take more and more of our rights (and money) until everything belongs to them.

      • Strict scrutiny (Score:2, Insightful)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        After that (and now i am being pessimistic) i would not even be surprised if they start to try to making unlicensed *content* illegal.

        Congress can't do that because even more than the DMCA, it would run directly up against the First Amendment, which bans Congress from materially abridging freedom of expression.

      • I seem to remember just having read something about companies being sued for making 'unlicensed' DVD players...

        Yes; two chip manufacturers are being sued for breach of contract because they have done something that their contract specifically forbids. In this case, it's supplying chips used to unencrypt DVD data encrypted with CSS to manufacturers for use in players with analogue connectors that don't have Macrovision applied to their output.

        That is in direct contravention of their contracts, and so the
      • After that (and now i am being pessimistic) i would not even be surprised if they start to try to making unlicensed *content* illegal. Isn't this what Palladium is about? And whatever law would be used to force it down our throats? If you want to be able to watch your home movies you better make sure that they're licensed and encoded with approval from a regulatory body which will of course need money to perform its work so you'll have to pay a nominal fee for each work licensed and... The wonders of cap
    • Why stop with tunes?
      Why not go for every camera manufacturer.
      Afterall, they have the ability to copy any copyrighted image or text instantly an then produce multiple copies.

      Damn, better register my memory and brain while where at it - I have a pretty good memory and could possible copy any image, text or tune without any DRM restrictions.

    • They could sue the people that made up the DVD video standard for allowing movies to compress and be transmitted easily. Oh wait...

  • Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:29AM (#10066374) Journal
    Even the don't induce is watered down pig-shit.

    You cannot hold anyone liable who has not broken the law, but whose works has been used, without thier knowledge or consent (explicit) for purposes that may even be explicitly forbidden in the license terms.

    You cannot make laws just because you are big corporations and have deep pockets.

    Did I just say that?

    Don't even hold it with this. Anyone can program anything they want. How it is used and by who is the problem.

    Taking away liberties and rights to fight crime is not a good idea.

    What will become of all this? We are on the pinnacle of having Microsoft laud 3000 patents a year in everyones face, SCO finally might roll over and die, the RIAA are still dogs.

    Dear RIAA,

    I found this website with lots of illegal music on it, please invetigate.

    Illegal Music, only for RIAA people, do not click this link if you are not RIAA [goatse.cx]

    IANAY but if I was I would smack the government on the side of the head.

    People should contest this whole affair, not propose an equally distrubing watered down version.

    I think the world cannot get any crazier...

    • Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nahdude812 ( 88157 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @07:09AM (#10066565) Homepage
      I don't agree with the INDUCE act, but by your logic, we should be permitted to create weapons of mass destruction in our basement, and distribute these weapons to anyone we want, including those who have demonstrated a clear desire to use them for evil. As long as I, the creator of the weapon do not directly use it for evil, I should be able to provide tools which serve no other purpose to anyone I want.

      No, I think the Don't Induce act treats programming like it treats the creation of tangible goods. If there is no purpose served by the creation of an item but to break the law, then there is no reason to create *and* distribute it unless your intent is to either break the law yourself, or aid in the breaking of the law. Like it is not legal to manufacture smallpox in my basement, it should not be legal to create (particularly to distribute) software that can serve no legal purpose.

      In the software world, this breaks down to this: P2P software is legal to author and distribute since it *does* serve a legal purpose -- the distribution of files which are not copyrighted or which have the copyright holder's explicit permission to distribute (eg, music from a garage band looking to make a name for itself, or amateur art).

      I am at a loss to think of software that can serve no legal purpose. I'm certain that such purposes exist, but even cracker software such as L0pht Crack is used by network security professionals to test the strength of their security measures. Actually I'll correct that. Viruses serve no legal purpose, probably some spyware/adware is the same. These things would continue to be illegal.

      With the Don't Induce act as the standard for what is and isn't legal in software creation, specific measures can be put in place as other public threats are identified, such as (if it wasn't already the case) specifically making it illegal to share copyright works (which don't have the owner's permission for distribution). Fortunately with the standard set at a reasonable level, these exceptions can reach only so high with out contradicting the base law of Don't Induce.
      • Like it is not legal to manufacture smallpox in my basement, it should not be legal to create (particularly to distribute) software that can serve no legal purpose.

        Which is pretty much the same thing - I mean if you're a "serious" lab, then you can research the viral properties of various contagions (not sure if you get to play with small pox though). If you're an "unserious" small medical company playing in your basement lab, you can't.

        They seem to be taking the same stance with software. If you're a "s
      • OK, first off the grandparent post didn't really say anything, let alone anything insiteful.

        Now your WMD example is ridiculous. A p2p app is used to copy files from one place to another, the "bad" part of that is that it can illegally copy files. Now a WMD is used for mass destruction or the threat of mass destruction, I don't see any other way to use a WMD.

        • The lack of WMDs might get GWB out of the WH. There wouldn't be a lack of WMDs if there weren't WMDs in the first place (something has to exist before it can't exist, WOW, have I just made a scientific breakthrough ?! Where's Stephen Hawking's phone number, I had it somewhere around here ...)

          I'm sure the Democrats would agree that WMDs have other, non-explosive purposes if they win the next election.

          Sorry if I've gotten the Democrat / Republican thing the wrong way around, I'm an Australian.

        • I use my WMDs as end tables in my living room?
        • Now your WMD example is ridiculous. A p2p app is used to copy files from one place to another, the "bad" part of that is that it can illegally copy files. Now a WMD is used for mass destruction or the threat of mass destruction, I don't see any other way to use a WMD.

          Of course, if you read the parent post in its entirety, you'd see that the same conclusion was reached--authoring, distribution, and use of P2P applications should be legal because there are significant legal uses for them.

          On the other hand

        • Which is exactly the point I was making.

          Because WMD's have no legal use, their manufacture or distribution is also illegal. That's what the "Don't Induce" act says about software -- it is only illegal to author or distribute if illegal activities are the only action that can be performed with the software.

          P2P's have a legal use, and thus they would not be illegal to make, distribute, or use.
      • We have strict restrictions on the creation of smallpox because the release of smallpox into the wild could cause a massive epidemic and kill thousands or tens of thousands of people. I know that the *AA are fond of hyperbole, but comparing the theoretical loss of potential income to the deaths of thousands is simply grotesque.

        A better analogy would be lockpicks: as far as I know, it's entirely legal to possess and even use lockpicks, as long as they aren't used for illegal purposes -- even though most lo
        • A better analogy would be lockpicks: as far as I know, it's entirely legal to possess and even use lockpicks, as long as they aren't used for illegal purposes

          Exactly. This is why Jack Valenti was accidentally correct when he called DeCSS a "digital crowbar".
      • Granted I have not read the whole law yet, but it seems to me that if the predominant use is mass copyright infringement and that one must ALSO provide tangible efforts to further such mass infringement, it seems relatively ballanced.

        The RIAA/MPAA is using the argument that "without the INDUCE act, we have to resort to suing children." This law does call their bluff. It does give them a way to try to sue companies which are distribuing these sorts of tools while establishing a reasonable legal standard.

  • I still don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SledgeHBK ( 148480 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:29AM (#10066376)
    Piracy is okay as long as it's difficult? I mean nobody got too pissed about me using my VCR to copy the simpsons ten years ago, or record music from the radio back then.

    But if it's easy, it's illegal? I guess I just don't keep up enough with the p2p legal stuff.

    • Re:I still don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tjebbe ( 36955 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:41AM (#10066432) Homepage
      They tried to make the vcr illegal too (as well as the cassette). They failed. We did end up with the 'copy tax' thing on every blank media.

      Let's hope the system isn't too coorporationalized that they succeed completely this time.
      • We did end up with the 'copy tax' thing on every blank media.

        "We" being Canada? We certainly don't have a copy tax in the USA on all blank media.

        • Re:I still don't get it. (Score:2, Informative)

          by Coffee ( 95940 )
          "We" being Canada? We certainly don't have a copy tax in the USA on all blank media.

          Yes, we do. Cassettes, CDs, whatever can be recorded onto. It's just not charged seperately from the price on the shelf (unlike, for example, sales tax, which is assessed at checkout).

      • Re:I still don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by JWW ( 79176 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @09:12AM (#10067632)
        What I love is not only did the music industry fail, they proceeded to turn the VCR into a billion dollar business.

        They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They could distrubute competetively priced content over the internet (hell there are no inventory costs at all), but they won't do it.

        The betamax decision forced the MPAA to be creative in how they marketed their product and they succeded big time. Now, their just to damn lasy to figure out how to make this internet thing work.

        When they tried the betamax case they tried to label us all as potential criminals, then they managed to create a large market for real customers. They can do the same for digital/internet content, they just don't want too.

        I already will no longer buy CDs, regardless of whether I file share or not. If the MPAA keeps at this I will stop buying DVDs (yes I admit I am hooked on buying DVDs). The results of their efforts to guaruntee their revenue stream from me will have the effect of eliminating it alltogether.
    • Back then, you were in a tiny minority. Now, you're the majority. That's the issue. The easier something is, the more people will/can do it.
    • Piracy is not worth legislating against if it's sufficiently difficult that it doesn't occur on a large enough scale.
    • The argument is that now people can log on to any p2p program and instantly be sharing a copy of a song with millions of poeople. When you were recording it with a Vcr or whatever, you did not have a means to distribute and share with that many people.

      It has ALWAYS been illegal to make a copy of a song on a mix tape for someone (unless they own every song on the mix tape as well) it's just that they never went after people when you were only able to share with a few friends. Now it is a few million frien
      • It has ALWAYS been illegal to make a copy of a song on a mix tape for someone

        I'm pretty sure that's not true. If my memory serves me correctly, copyright law specifically requires infringement to cause significant harm to the copyright holder. One copy for a friend is not significant damage. That's why the RIAA is only going after the big offenders on P2P.

  • Deciding based on an arbitrary number now? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:30AM (#10066384)
    So. A court decides that software producers aren't responsible for the user's own actions with that software, and now these folks want to blame the software if a lot of the users abuse it?

    How is that a serious argument? If it's right, it's right. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Number of abuses is irrelevant.
    • Let's start with the fundamentals: copyright (NOT "copywrite") is a monopoly for a limited time (we hope) to promote innovation.

      Profits are seen as a means to this end--e.g. people will innovate more often if there's enough reward for doing so.

      Fair use balances that interest in that, if your use of the material doesn't, among other things, threaten their profits, if it is educational (e.g. likely to lead to more innovation), etc., it is not seen as harmful. Thus, it is protected by the First Ammendment,

  • While we'er on the topic of more laws... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn ( 203771 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:30AM (#10066386) Homepage Journal
    ...there needs to be a way for everyday people to take away corporate charters & lobbying rights from vicious, narrowminded groups such as this.

    Jaysyn

  • Induce (Score:5, Funny)

    by rokzy ( 687636 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:31AM (#10066391)
    Is it just my dialect or is the word induce almost exclusively used in the phrase "in event of... induce vomiting"?

    • further to the above... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rokzy ( 687636 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:37AM (#10066421)
      does this paragraph make anyone else feel sick?

      >Fritz Attaway, vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America, said the Don't Induce Act was so narrowly drafted, it would be impossible to use it to shutter even operators of peer-to-peer networks. "There is no way that anyone could ever meet the burden of proof that this establishes," Attaway said. "It's spin. (They're) not being honest here."

      what's wrong with peer-to-peer networks?
      what's wrong with burden of proof?

      oh I see the problem - the last remnants democracy that need to be outlawed.

  • The thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:32AM (#10066403) Homepage Journal
    The whole reason we're able to record and watch/listen to something later doesn't imply a right to be able to watch/listen more than once.

    This is only a side effect of the fact that to date there hasn't been an effective means of enforcing the right of the content distributor to broadcast something for one consumption only -- technology has only recently gotten to the point of allowing distributors to exercise some measure of control over their level of distribution.

    When DRM becomes a reality, it'd be up to Congress to determine whether or not we have a right to multiple uses of recorded content, in my opinion. And this Act seems to be a pretty clear sign of where things are going.

    • Re:The thing is... (Score:3, Informative)

      by grunt107 ( 739510 )
      The whole reason we're able to record and watch/listen to something later doesn't imply a right to be able to watch/listen more than once.
      Unless re-view is explicity limited by a broadcast, it does imply multiple viewings are allowed. Kinda like the 'rebroadcast of this NFL event is prohibited'

      When DRM becomes a reality, it'd be up to Congress to determine whether or not we have a right to multiple uses of recorded content, in my opinion
      If you are talking 'multiple uses' in the on PC/on CD/on Mp3/in
      • although Comcast for one is now offering unlimited viewings of an on-demand movie within a 24-hour period. Even allowing you to fast forward and rewind.
    • This is only a side effect of the fact that to date there hasn't been an effective means of enforcing the right of the content distributor to broadcast something for one consumption only

      Bullshit. Put an erase head after the read head. Write once, play once. That has been the case for decades. To claim it wasn't possible before, is a poor excuse to undo a decades-old accepted practice.

      Kjella
      • Bullshit. Put an erase head after the read head. Write once, play once. That has been the case for decades. To claim it wasn't possible before, is a poor excuse to undo a decades-old accepted practice.

        ... and who's going to ge the first one of us to open that end-user product up and cut the leads going to the erase head?

        There's a reason you don't find any products that use that type of read-once technology, besides the fact that nobody would pay extra for the erase head: there's always a way around it [anticrack.de]
    • there hasn't been an effective means of enforcing the right of the content distributor to broadcast something for one consumption only

      What right to broadcast for one consumption only? Ain't no such thing. Just because a content owner wishes to do something does not make it a right.

      The rights of copyright owners are pretty explicitly spelled out in the law. There's nothing there which says that you can limit how many times people watch what you have broadcast...

  • Free Software? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GaussianInteger ( 772028 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:34AM (#10066414)
    Alright, one of the criteria that a piece of software needs to meet according to this is that the software needs to get most of its revenue from the piracy use of the software. What if this is FREE software and there is no commerical revenue, like bittorrent.

    How about we take it a step further, and unlike bittorrent, we have a piece of free software whose authors made with the purpose of piracy, what is to be done about that?

    The way I see it, this bill won't satisfy those in Hollywood for the above loopholes. So all the software used for de facto pirating will be non-commericial, how does Hollywood benefit much from this. Looks like they'll still want to draft some other legislation.

  • The obvious answer to Sen. Hatch's problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:35AM (#10066417)
    IANAA (I am not an American) but isn't the obvious answer to Hatch's problem: Yes we know Senator. That's the idea.

    Or are you saying that you're happy to ban a technology which has many fundamentally excellent reasons to exist purely because it can be used to infringe copyright?

    That being the case, do you possess a camera? A VCR? A tape deck? You won't mind disposing of them, then?

    Oh, you say that the bill would never be enforced in that way?

    WELL DON'T WRITE IT IN THAT WAY, STUPID!

    • Re:The obvious answer to Sen. Hatch's problem is.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @07:29AM (#10066698)
      Look, the whole point of overly broad laws is to allow selective enforcement. Of course they won't enforce strictly! Just enough to keep the powerful in power, and the wealthy rolling in money. And that is really the purpose here...

      They might as well outlaw breathing, and arrest people for "air piracy" if they have a bone to pick. It would be convenient to all involved (except the victim, but he's a nobody anyway).

      • >Of course they won't enforce strictly

        Buh? Did you know a drug dealer was labeled as a "terrorist to our children" so they were able to use the Patriot Act against him, allowing them to wiretap & break in without a warrant?

        I think the RIAA/MPAA have proven time and again that they ARE willing to go overboard any chance they can get within the boundaries of the laws they've currently purchased.

        They still bandy about the $150,000 per copyright infringement to scare their civil suits into settling. T

      • Look, the whole point of overly broad laws is to allow selective enforcement. Of course they won't enforce strictly! Just enough to keep the powerful in power, and the wealthy rolling in money. And that is really the purpose here...

        Your first two sentences should end with for now and yet.

        People should be very concerned when people go around saying "Oh, they're just passing an overly broad law so they can selectively enforce it on the bad things and leave out the good". Because at that point you're only

    • Of course you're not an american, look at you're post time! It's freaking 3:00am here on the west coast!!

  • Don't INDUCE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XeRXeS-TCN ( 788834 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:38AM (#10066422)
    The "Don't Induce" proposals are definately the most ideal proposals, and despite what the MPAA/RIAA and Orrin Hatch might try to claim, it's the most fair to ordinary people.

    It is also not any attempt to justify or allow piracy. It is simply a *fair* suggestion, which will catch the true commercial pirating organisations, rather than kids who share the occasional piece of software with their friends, or legitimate users who wish to make backups of their original data.

    They claim that the Don't Induce act is also too narrow in scope, which would stop them from attacking p2p networks; I don't think this is a bad thing. They have proven over the last while that they are only too happy to use their legal powers against anyone, from young to old, to squeeze a bit more cash out of ordinary people, while commercial piracy is still rampant. It's not *too* narrow in scope at all, simply narrow enough to avoid ambiguity, and to stop half the net falling under their legal juristiction. It's narrow enough to be *fair*.

    But then, it's to do with making money, not doing the right thing.

  • Other changes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StevenHenderson ( 806391 ) <stevehenderson&gmail,com> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:39AM (#10066429)
    Now we must start holding gun companies liable every time there is a shooting death, and beer companies will be held accountable for all drunk driving incidents. Why blame the wrongdoer anymore when we can make the silly attempt to eradicate all avenues for wrongdoing?

  • This is pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:42AM (#10066440)
    Rather than arguing about how copyrights are going to be enforced, we should be revisiting the whole idea of copyright itself.

    It bothers me that the debate has been framed in terms "stealing stuff that you didn't pay for and how can we stop that" rather than the fact we have, for the first time in history, a culture whose important facets are all owned by corporations, and whether or not that's a very good idea.

    • Re:This is pointless... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Oddly_Drac ( 625066 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:51AM (#10066489)
      "It bothers me that the debate has been framed in terms "stealing stuff that you didn't pay for and how can we stop that" rather than the fact we have, for the first time in history, a culture whose important facets are all owned by corporations, and whether or not that's a very good idea."

      Or, how to create taxation for non-governmental organisations. And no, it's not a good idea when companies can buy the ability to introduce laws to prop up their business model. However, the INDUCE act itself might provide precedence for all kinds of laws intended to stop people being assholes at the detriment of freedom.

      At this rate, the US will lawyer itself into oblivion.

    • The misconception about copyright violation is is part of the problem---and I would place the big interests as the source of the confusion; they benefit when you misunderstand copyrights.

      Making a copy of a copyrighted work and distributing it is not theft. It is a copyright violation. These are two different things.

      • Making a copy of a copyrighted work and distributing it is not theft. It is a copyright violation. These are two different things.

        Only legally. Morally, there's no difference. Financially speaking is another thing again.

        If I download "Garfield" and watch it then I have morally stolen something because I clearly wanted to see it enough to bother with the download time but I refused to pay for it, so I have something for nothing while depriving the seller of payment for their goods. On the other hand, if I

  • Still aiming for the man... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:44AM (#10066449) Homepage
    ...and not the ball.

    If
    a) 99% of the people wanted to use a kitchen knife to stab someone
    b) 99% of your sales were thus made for that purpose
    c) if you tell that your knife is razor sharp, anyone with IQ > shoesize will figure out it works for the purpose they want ...is it then the kitchen knife producers fault?

    Kjella

  • What might a viable Induce Act look like? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @06:52AM (#10066492) Homepage Journal
    Will it ever be possible to target the makers of Kazaa and Morpheus, without the supposedly unintended consequences that everyone worries about?

    Now, obviously the law can't simply name the companies it wants to get rid of, so there has to be some kind of test to identify these "bad actors". The fundamental problem (for the Induce Act) is that there may not exist an objective test that can effectively isolate those they wish to isolate, meaning that the Induce Act will inevitably require a subjective test. Subjective tests must be clarified by litigation, but it only requires the threat of litigation to torpedo many potentially valuable new technologies before they even get out of the angel investor's office.

    It is therefore my suspicion that it will be impossible to rewrite the Induce Act such that it addresses the concerns of the IEEE, CEA, EFF, and others, while still achieving its stated goal. This probably means that the current effort to come up with a compromise is unlikely to bear fruit. I doubt the situation is improved by the fact that the person charged with achieving this compromise is the Register of Copyrights, Mary Beth Peters, who has a more anti-technology view than even the RIAA will comfortably admit to.

    Whatever happens, I am sure that history will regard the Induce Act as the most violent death throe yet of a powerful and influential industry. Lets hope they don't take too many useful technologies down with them.

    • Will it ever be possible to target the makers of Kazaa and Morpheus, without the supposedly unintended consequences that everyone worries about?

      I should hope not!

      First of all, Kazaa and Morpheus have legal uses as well as the more common illegal ones. One such use is for transferring files that are too large for email attachments or reliable transfer by MSN or similar. I've used this myself; I had people send me files by sharing them on Kazaa.

      Second, going after the authors of this software is wron

    • If the stated goal is to punish conduct only, as opposed to create a loophole to the Betamax test so that litigation may be used to effect technology regultion, there are many ways to do that. Indeed, responsive to requests from Senate staffers asking precisely the question you pose in the title to your piece, namely; "what might a viable induce act look like," IEEE drafted its proposal, which can be found at the end of my written testimony [ieeeusa.org].

      The patent Act has had conduct-based secondary liability coextens
      • If the stated goal is to punish conduct only, as opposed to create a loophole to the Betamax test so that litigation may be used to effect technology regultion, there are many ways to do that.
        But would that allow the RIAA to go after Streamcast and Grokster again (which will, I suspect, be their litmus test of acceptability for a future version of the Act)?
  • Read more below about the proposed...

    did u say comment more? oh, sorry...

  • More than one side to piracy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vulcan_pupil ( 718417 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @07:01AM (#10066530)
    It is very clear which side some of our Senators and Legislators are viewing the piracy problem from. But what about the consumers who are paying $20 for a movie/cd that cost the producer $0.10 to make? Of course the **AA is going to want to hold on to that enourmous profit. But maybe thats the problem. I think a step in the right direction would be these companies asking themselves why people are stealing their products rather than buying them; not how. I also think giving the consumer a little more for their money would be in order. If someone can get digital data easily, then the value has obviously decreased. Give the consumer something more than digital information (a unique t-shirt, a one of a kind sticker, discounts on concert tickets, etc....).
    • Come on, everyone should know by now that there are other costs in producing a CD than the materials. Distribution and mostly Marketing.

      Besides, they already are providing more on the CD's these days!

      ...CrypKey, DiscGuard, SafeDisc, SecuROM, etc!

  • Possible solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Peter_JS_Blue ( 801871 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @07:02AM (#10066531) Homepage
    The problem with the music industry seems to be this :-
    1. Spend lots of cash on creating music in expensive studios.
    2. Spend more cash distributing music to shops.
    3. Customers buy music.
    4. Music industry and Artists earns cash.
    5. Some customers copy music for friends
    6. Music industry and Artists loose "potential" cash.
    7. Music industry spends even more cash trying to stop people copying music
    8. Lots of unhappy customers.
    Possible Solution
    1. Artist create music using cheap digital tools - these are already available.
    2. Artist uploads digital music to web sites
    3. Lots of people download / copy music for free
    4. Artist gets well known by lots of people
    5. Artist does a gig - lots of people pay to come
    6. Artist gets paid further by selling special CDs,DVDs or other merchandise on web site.
    7. RIAA now totally redundant - I think they already know this.
    8. Do same thing with software (Already happening - OSS)
    9. Do same thing with movie industry
    10. Do same thing with all forms of information
    11. Human race leaps forward, as it tends to do when information is freely available
    I know some people already planning some of this !!

    • Re:Possible solution (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rembem ( 621820 )
      Step 1 of your solution is only feasable for electronic music. If you want to do real instuments you'll need: a soundproof studio, the instuments themselves, lots of high quality microphones (each instrument needs different types), an unimaginable number of expensive cables, a mixing/mastering solution (this could be that 'cheap digital tool'). Furthermore you'd need someone with the skills to mix and master it. And possibly some session musicians to play the instruments, if you're a singer/songwriter.

      Oh

    • Re:Possible solution (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PMuse ( 320639 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @10:56AM (#10068858)
      Your detractors don't see the economic drivers behind what you're suggesting. The demand side of the music marketplace consists of masses of people who want music -- that hasn't changed. The supply side of the music marketplace, on the other hand, is changing. It has had one model since the vinyl LP became ubiquitous, but cheap personal electronics are eroding the foundations of that model.

      In the old model, the "music industry" contributed (i) means of recording, (ii) means of mass reproduction, (iii) means of distribution, and (iv) means of promotion. (The music itself has always come from the artists.) Currently, means of distribution are nearly free (e.g. p2p networks). Currently, means of mass reproduction are nearly free (e.g. copying files or burning CDs).

      Currently, means of recording are becoming cheaper and cheaper as recording / mixing equipment drops in price relative to other goods. Viva la semiconductor revolution! Seriously, how expensive would it be today to produce a recording of the same quality as, for instance, the Beatles masters? That cost is within the reach of artists who have day jobs. It certainly doesn't require a multi-national corporation to pay the studio fees, not when the multi-nat demands a usurious contract signed in blood.

      That eliminates 3 of the 4 things the "music industry" used to contribute to the supply of music. What about means of promotion? This is actually the biggest bill the "industry" used to pay for an artist. If the "industry" can be replaced as the promoter of music, then they become totally unnecessary. (It would help to get some real numbers from a real economist to understand the relative costs of promotion, production, and distribution. We're just speculating here.) Free distribution provides a little promotion on its own, but just word of mouth will not achieve the kind of promotion that an expensive marketing campaign does today. So, promotion is the problem we still need to work on. Here is a slight revision of you problem / solution lists reflecting who kept/keeps what money.

      Current state of music market:-
      1. Artist performs music
      2. Industry spends cash recording and enhancing music in expensive studios.
      3. Industry spends more cash distributing recordings to shops.
      4. Industry spends far more cash promoting music. Music becomes popular.
      5. Customers buy recordings.
      6. Industry keeps (nearly all) revenues from recording sales.
      7. Artist tours. Fans buy tickets.
      8. Artist and venues split ticket revenue.
      9. Some customers copy bought recordings for friends
      10. Industry "loses" _potential_ recording sales.
      11. Industry spends small amounts of cash on laws and lawsuits to stop copying.
      12. Lots of unhappy customers.


      More efficient state for music market:-
      1. Artist performs music.
      2. Artist records and enhances music using digital tools and independent studios.
      3. Artist uploads recordings to web sites
      4. People download / copy recordings for free.
      5. Music becomes popular.
      6. Artist tours. Fans buy tickets.
      7. Artist and venues split ticket revenue.
      8. Artist sells some recordings to customers who prefer this format.
      9. Artist sells merchandise.
      10. Industry now totally redundant - I think they already know this.
      11. Few / no laws against copying are needed.
      12. Lots of happy people.

      In your new model, artists will get relatively the same money as in the old. However, the people will get lots more recorded music for far less money. So, where will the money that people used to spend on recordings go? Answer: the people will keep it instead of the Industry.

      Contrary to what some of the replies have said, you're not being Polyanna here. An industry only exists if it is the cheapest producer of something people want. All we have to do is keep it legal for independent artists to make and distribute their own music and the "music industry" as we know it today will fall. We just don't need them.

  • MPAA = idiotic (not in the way you are thinking) (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The MPAA controls the bulk of the most addictive item on earth. Forget nicotine, booze, or crack...how many folks do you know that absofuckinglutely need their music fix?

    What they should be doing right now is providing their own cheap, free, fast, and reliable downloading service and eradicate p2p services altogether.

    Once the hardware dedicated to their system is omnipresent, start charging for the service. It wouldn't be too long before half the country is paying $50-$70/month for music, simply because

  • No vacuum. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by malkavian ( 9512 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @07:29AM (#10066695)
    The thing that the senators and businesses in the US seem to be forgetting is that the Asian bloc is now starting to gain foothold in the markets.
    China, for one, is starting to roll into tech markets, with all it's own internal infrastructure. Entirely self sufficient.
    What the acts will mean is that the US ability to innovate, and distribute information effectively enough to research and develop at the rate required to compete with the new and upcoming countries (India, China etc.) will be seriously impared.
    All the devices and mechanisms will be so tied up with 'legality enforcement' parts, and the ability to litigate under the existing legal system will mean most of the time that should be R&D will be spent on 'negotiations' to agree that certain areas may be used (for certain sums of money of course) by other people.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the unencumbered world will be advancing apace, using a smaller set of laws, and a greater set of freedoms.
    The US is showing all the signs of a 'falling empire'. In it's heyday, it had simple laws (relatively) that allowed it to adapt quickly to the way the world was moving. It advanced to become pre-eminent. Then it sat down, and tried to tie everything up to maintain itself. Internal politics and interests fought over shares of the pie.
    And now laws are flowing like water, and researchers are being required to look more to internal information, and ways to work around the intrusive legal mechanisms.
    This is a huge brake on development and innovation.

    One that won't be shared by a good deal of the upcoming countries. At least not in the same way.

    Now, if the world would remain static, and things would 'always be this way', then the laws, although draconian and oppressive in their implementation, would make some modicum of sense for the corporate entities to persue.
    However, when there is going to be competition arising from areas that are NOT bound by those laws that have been bought, then it's the equivalent of long term commercial suicide.

    If the US decides to stick to it's laws and carry on down this route, it stands an uncomfortably large chance of ending up on the wrong side of a built in firewall, preventing a lot of the international information from ever entering it's networks, due to legal reasons that nobody else can be bothered to work around.
    Once it's cut out from the international flows, it'll start the slide into being a collapsing empire. Trashed economy, no effective R&D, and generally falling behind the times.

    Given the chance, most people out there are decent and honest. Hamstringing the country's ability to develop, just to try and catch a few people who may (or may not) influence a company's net profits by a tiny fraction of a percent is a dangerous game. One day, if these laws go ahead, those clamouring corporations may just realise how they've managed to sow the seeds of their own destruction.

    • Re:No vacuum. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Carmody ( 128723 )
      The US is showing all the signs of a 'falling empire'. In it's heyday, it had simple laws (relatively) that allowed it to adapt quickly to the way the world was moving. It advanced to become pre-eminent. Then it sat down, and tried to tie everything up to maintain itself. Internal politics and interests fought over shares of the pie.

      And President Londo is trying to negotiate a deal with the Shadows to bring us back.
    • True. Although blown out of proportion. The media industry isn't going to make or break America. They're just not as big as they puff up and say they are.

      And there has been no stock market crash due to One-click shopping patent from Amazon, or the gif/jpeg fiasco.

      I agree with everything you say, but just not the outcome. It's not that black & white. MONEY TALKS. And as soon as any of this crap gets in the way of a real gravy train, laws will be smacked down, or exceptions will be made. If we're willin

  • Circumvent the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @07:34AM (#10066738)
    Why not pay your favorite artist personally?

    Circumvent the managers at the RIAA by letting your software music jukebox manage your favorite artists. This requires a central database listing creative works and the artists who actually made them so that you can donate automatically to your favorite artists.

    problem: telling some site what kind of music you have my get you sued as you declare to have illegal music.

    solution: give partial hash code (checksum). Site returns say 200 potential hits. You verify for yourself if you have have a copyrighted song 'belonging' to the site. You discard the 199 misses and you use the info about the song to compensate the listed artist directly. This can be done anonymously: "I love your (unspecified) work here is a donation of 20 cents". Artist uses statistics to figure out how to compensate those who helped him with popular creations if the donations rise above thousands of dollars.

    So you spend say 300 dollar per year to (automatically) compensate your favorite artists directly without confessing a crime as your jukebox figures out compensation anonymously and you can also donate manually, even though you do not have any works of arts of that artists in your possession, making the system a black box, meaning that donations do not directly indicate illegal possession.

    Why pay for distribution? Let's circumvent the RIAA.
    --
    Dennis SCP
    • Still copyright infringement. As most artists (and all who sign with riaa) give up their rights to their works for the huge distribution channel that these companys can provide.

      So no paying the artist directly still gets these associations after you, Except now your paying more (your settlement plus what you sent the artist)

  • Coorporate controlled software anyone ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For some reason software is regarded differently than about everything else in this world. That's nonwithstanding that computers & their communication are (becoming) as common as a screwdriver.

    Why is it than that (specific) software is singled-out in a (company-supported, broad) "we take you down, if we can find any illegal use for your product" -attack, when most *if not all* producs that are created today have their illegal uses.

    Telephones are used to communitcate evil intentions between common rob

  • Insider's view (kind of) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Deep Fried Geekboy ( 807607 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @08:34AM (#10067264)
    Okay, I'm not with the MPAA or the RIAA but I am a professional screenwriter and director, and I've recorded a few CDs as a musician, too, so my entire livelihood relies on people paying for my shit. The problem is that both the music and movie industries have consistently focused on notional lost revenues instead of revenues gained. During the last 25 years the penetration of CD, DVD and MP3 players has massively increased but instead of using the net to leverage this opportunity, the industry has instead focused on the entirely bogus idea that people who pirate would otherwise have paid for what they pirated. Imagine if, five years ago, the movie studios and big music recording companies had aggressively pursued digital distribution via the internet for their content instead of leaving it to Napster and subsequently iTunes. iTunes in particular has shown that the public is totally willing to pay a dollar a song to download high quality music free of malware. I believe the same is going to be true of movies for those who have the bandwidth. By concentrating on the notional lost revenue and forming their wagons into a circle, the companies with most to gain from the net have instead consistently cast themselves as the bad guys. If they had instead embraced digital distribution and implemented a responsible, rational and reasonable DRM strategy they would have won the PR battle and made a lot of money into the process. The most ridiculous aspect of this is the idea that there was some 'golden age' before piracy. There never was. It was exactly the introduction of easily copiable media -- the audio cassette in fact -- that really opened up the way that the public consumed music (Walkman, anyone?). The MP3 (and MP4) format could, if handled properly, have enormously leveraged the business operations of the audio and movie companies, at the risk of a certain amount of leakage -- the digital equivalent of what happens at Walmart every day. It baffles me that it is STILL not straightforward to download a legal copy of a song or movie from the distributor's website. (Here in Canada, still no iTunes). The movie and music industries formula for business success in the internet age would appear to be: point gun at foot; shoot; repeat.
    • Great post!!
      I have often mentioned that the music industry would rather make 100% of 5 billion dollars, than 70% of a 20 billion dollars. It's crazy.

      "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." - Jack Valenti.

      But what happened? The VCR/DVD rental aftermarket today is actually bigger than the theatrical market?!

      One of the best things I noticed when Napster first came out was the sheer selection. Rare, out of pr

  • if the Register of Copywrites is either being (over) zealous in performing her duties or is trying to protect her job...
  • Judge Richard Posner, a good writer, has been blogging about IP and fair use at Lessig Blog [lessig.org]. The series of entries are very informative and give a good background to IP.

  • Electromagnetism is one place to use the word "induce", but most of the population that reads warnings on the sides of bottles associate:

    ...induce...vomiting.

    Must be that whoever [democracymeansyou.com] came up with names like:

    • "Digital Rights Management",
    • "Patriot Act",
    • "Clear Skies Initiative",
    • "Digital Millenium Copyright Act",
    • "Healthy Forests Initiative",

    etc. was on vacation that day. They missed their chance to name it the

    "Protection and Assurance of Digital Rights, Digital Theft Prevention and Early Terrorism Se

  • If the maker of a P2P network should be held accountable for piracy committed with their software, why can't gun manufacturers be held responsible for murders committed with their guns?

    If the 'induce' principle is worth a damn, it should be a general legal principle rather than a single piece of legislation aimed at a particular target.

  • Guns dont kill people, but machines violate IP? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by originalhack ( 142366 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @09:26AM (#10067775)
    Ever notice that the same legislators who argue against gun control (like waiting periods and background checks) on the grounds that the gun has nothing to do with people getting shot have no problem accepting the argument that machines violate copyrights all by themselves?

  • The INDUCE ACT and other legal efforts by the RIAA and other media organistions are lame efforts to control the current distribution model media companies have .IF you are an independant artist you will never have any chance of getting into Blockbuster, Best Buy, Wallmart ,Tower Records ect unless your record label is owned by one of the Major record companies as they have contracts that only allow thier artist to get into these stores .The EFF proposed a Voluntary Colletive Licencing model for payment
  • with my own copyrighted material, then suing. What's to stop me from doing that? Nothing. If this continues with the RIAA/MPAA using the court system wastefully, even little guys like me will be able to sue the pants off of people I discover are sharing my "seeded" file.

    I can't believe no one has brought this up before, and I can't believe I just thought of it.
  • Don't pass the INDUCE act. There, that's my alternative. Can I have a cookie?
  • No one has an implicit right to profit till the end of their lives (or beyond) for a nice piece of IP (music, code, whatever) that they came up with once. The biggest problem with the copyright/patent laws isn't that they exist, as they have been shown to be effective at encouraging innovation/creation, but rather that they last, for all practical purposes, damn near forever. Reduce the duration of software patents (possibly other patents as well, but I have no idea whether it'd be good or bad) to no more t
  • It's already illegal to obtain or redistribute copyrighted material, so why the supplemental laws?

    Like the whole "no open alcohol container in a car"... these are just useless "babysitting" laws. It's already illegal to drive drunk, so why keep making laws?

    In any case, people worry for nothing about these laws. IF this got passed (at that point you might as well call this country a failure), it would just spawn more desire for open source anonymous P2P networks.

    Once those are released, then what? They wi
  • "Rip, Mix, Burn" is going to come back to haunt him.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Close