[IP] Major telcos and device makers go after Induce Act
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 24, 2004 10:03:19 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Major telcos and device makers go after Induce
Act
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Original URL: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/25/do_not_induce/>
Major telcos and device makers go after Induce Act
By Ashlee Vance in Chicago (ashlee.vance at theregister.co.uk)
Published Wednesday 25th August 2004 01:27 GMT
A coalition of technology heavyweights, including SBC, MCI and Verizon,
have taken a stand against the controversial Induce Act, offering up an
alternative to the proposed legislation that would allow consumers and
vendors to enjoy the culture they love in a more protected fashion.
A number of organizations today presented a draft of the Do Not Induce
act to the co-sponsors of the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act
of 2004 or Induce Act. While it may seem like a tit-for-tat move, the
Do Not Induce backers are responding to an earlier call for
"alternative language" in the act made by the co-sponsors. The revised
language drastically narrows the scope of what would be considered a
copyright infringement violation and "provides complete exemptions from
liablity" for ISPs, venture capitalists, credit card companies and
other groups.
Those backing the Do Not Induce Act include MCI, SBC, Verizon, the
American Association of Law Libraries, the US Internet Industry
Association, the Consumer Electronics Assocation and the US Telecomm
Association, among others. They sent their proposal to senators Bill
Frist, Orrin Hatch, Tom Daschle and Pat Leahy.
Senator Hatch has been the most vocal backer of the Induce Act. The
proposed legislation creates a very broad definition of what would be
considering a threat to copyrights. Apple's iPod, for example, would
likely be considering in violation of the act if it was found to
"induce" consumers into violating musicians' copyrights simply by
placing their songs on the device.
The Do Not Induce Act, by contrast, would only have the courts go after
targets that violated copyrights on a massive scale and continued to do
so after being asked to stop. Service providers or credit card
companies, for example, that may be indirectly involved with the
copyright infringer would not be held liable for their fringe roles.
"In your letter to the Register of Copyrights, you expressed interest
in a "technology-neutral law directed at a small set of bad actors
while protecting our legitimate technology industries from frivolous
litigation,'" the Do Not Induct backers wrote to the senators. "We have
developed such an alternative that would address mass, indiscriminate
infringing conduct while preserving the Supreme Court’s Betamax
decision, the Magna Carta of the technology industry which is in no
small measure responsible for our nation’s preeminence in technological
innovation and entrepreneurship. We believe that the enclosed draft
meets these goals and serves as the best platform for the discussion of
the interests of all concerned parties."
Just last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco
also pointed to the Betamax decision in its defense
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/p2p_lives_on/) of
decentralized P2P networks. The court argued that, like the Betamax,
P2P software can be used for numerous noninfringing purposes and
deserves a place in the market. Technology that first appears to hurt a
market often turns out to open new doors to both established and fresh
players, the court said, warning against legislation such as the Induce
Act.
Funny enough, Senator Hatch once shared many of these same "give the
little man a chance" beliefs - most notably in his pursuit of
Microsoft, which was seen as stifling competition by its dominance. In
the late 2001, Hatch even turned on the music labels for being slow to
put up content online and urged them to work with the Napster music
service in court testimony.
"I think working together in the marketplace cooperatively will lead to
the best result for all parties, the record labels, the online music
services, the artists and the music fans," Hatch said at the time. "I
hope the focus will be on the latter two. After all, without artists,
there is nothing to convey, and without the fans, there is no one to
convey it to. I think keeping the focus on the artists and the audience
can help the technologists and the copyright industries find a way for
all to flourish. And I hope this opportunity is taken before it is
lost."
And later Hatch backed up the idea of technology pushing innovation in
the music scene.
"Online systems provide a cheaper and easier method of
self-publishing," he is quoted as saying in Joe Menn's All the Rave.
So what made Hatch turn against the technology crowd?
Well, in 2001, the RIAA managed to convince Natalie Grant to belt out
one of his self-penned religious tunes called "I Am Not Alone." A short
while later Hatch moved to the music labels' side. (Hatch has since
gone on to sell tens of thousands of dollars worth of his songs every
year.)
If someone could find a librarian with an amazing voice to charm Hatch
back to the technologists side, the Do Not Induce Act might stand a
chance.
Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net>
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/