Prelude to a Million Lawsuits
Matt Richtel and Tom Zeller Jr. write (Bill to Curb Online Piracy Is Challenged as Too Broad, NYT, June 24, 2004) that Mitch Bainwol (RIAA chief exec) says that the INDUCE or IICA legislation "was meant to be narrowly tailored to address companies that build technology focused on illegal file sharing. He said he did not envision the legislation's enabling lawsuits against neutral technologies, like computer makers. 'This is not about going after the device makers,' Mr. Bainwol said, though he stopped short of guaranteeing that the recording industry would never use the measure to sue them."
As I've indicated before, this legislation could easily be used to threaten sellers of legitimate technology products with infringement suits if the RIAA thinks their products help "kids" share/steal music and movies online/off. The targets of the act are clearly Grokster, Morpheus, 3-2-1 and Sony betamax (doesn't Sony sell music too?), but that doesn't mean that Apple's ipod isn't next if they don't behave exactly as the content cartel wants them to. I mean the EFF supposes that Apple could be a target because the iPod makes P2P sexy or maybe because of some past issues 1, 2. see also: importance of on EFF/Apple (esp the comments).
As Professor Felten argues, the broad vague language leaves these companies open to attack. This in turn could cost the companies (and their insurers) millions in legal fees. Someone better say something before this thing gets passed.
[please note: The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or their clients.]
As I've indicated before, this legislation could easily be used to threaten sellers of legitimate technology products with infringement suits if the RIAA thinks their products help "kids" share/steal music and movies online/off. The targets of the act are clearly Grokster, Morpheus, 3-2-1 and Sony betamax (doesn't Sony sell music too?), but that doesn't mean that Apple's ipod isn't next if they don't behave exactly as the content cartel wants them to. I mean the EFF supposes that Apple could be a target because the iPod makes P2P sexy or maybe because of some past issues 1, 2. see also: importance of on EFF/Apple (esp the comments).
As Professor Felten argues, the broad vague language leaves these companies open to attack. This in turn could cost the companies (and their insurers) millions in legal fees. Someone better say something before this thing gets passed.
[please note: The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or their clients.]
