Introducing the Induce Act
Text of the Bill: S. 501(g)
(1) In this subsection, the term 'intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, 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) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.
see also: RIAA's Mitch "I'm not a lawyer" Bainwol pens Induce Act letter to Senate / Dan Gillmor has published an email from Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, detailing how the bill's supporters tried to sneak through the Senate (Difference of Opinion) [via Ernest Miller who is thoroughly covering the Induce Act: Ernest's IICA index via Lawmeme]
You say INDUCE they say IICA (The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA))
Fred von Lohmann: "Rumor has it that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) will be introducing a bill tomorrow that would add a new Section 501(g) to the Copyright Act granting copyright owners a cause of action against those who "induce" copyright infringement...."
Susan Crawford: "The INDUCE Act of 2004 [pdf]. The logic is that P2P applications inevitably lead to exploitation of children. With me so far? So the act is called the "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act." The Act (to be proposed tomorrow by songwriter Sen. Hatch and others) amends the copyright law to say that anyone who "induces" copyright infringement is himself/itself an infringer."
In the c-net article (Antipiracy bill targets technology) Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law, says that 'that under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights.'
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.
Dear Senator Hatch:
re: S. 2560, the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004"
...respectfully request that you hold hearings on S. 2560, the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004" before your Committee takes any action ... understand your concerns for protecting children and addressing activity that infringes copyright ... S. 2560 would undermine the 20-year old Supreme Court decision in Sony v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ... the Supreme Court held that the manufacturer of a product could not be held secondarily liable for infringing uses of the product by others so long as the product was capable of substantial noninfringing uses ... These products include personal computers, scanners, CD burners, modems, instant messaging products, and the software that enables them to operate ... The legislation would provide copyright owners with a new legal avenue to attack every new technology about which a copyright owner is concerned. Even a product review that discusses how a product works could be implicated by the bill ... This new threat would chill innovation and drive investment in technology overseas....
Sincerely,
EFF: Letter to Senator Hatch
see also: Stop the INDUCE Act --- Downhill Battle, Click the Vote, and FreeCulture.org are doing their best to stick it to INDUCE, picking up on the EFF's good idea. Keep in mind that the iPod is just the type of technology that could be potentially targeted via INDUCE.
(update: it was about to fall off the main page so I had to change the date -- originally posted June 7, 2004)
(1) In this subsection, the term 'intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, 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) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.
see also: RIAA's Mitch "I'm not a lawyer" Bainwol pens Induce Act letter to Senate / Dan Gillmor has published an email from Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, detailing how the bill's supporters tried to sneak through the Senate (Difference of Opinion) [via Ernest Miller who is thoroughly covering the Induce Act: Ernest's IICA index via Lawmeme]
You say INDUCE they say IICA (The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA))
Fred von Lohmann: "Rumor has it that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) will be introducing a bill tomorrow that would add a new Section 501(g) to the Copyright Act granting copyright owners a cause of action against those who "induce" copyright infringement...."
Susan Crawford: "The INDUCE Act of 2004 [pdf]. The logic is that P2P applications inevitably lead to exploitation of children. With me so far? So the act is called the "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act." The Act (to be proposed tomorrow by songwriter Sen. Hatch and others) amends the copyright law to say that anyone who "induces" copyright infringement is himself/itself an infringer."
In the c-net article (Antipiracy bill targets technology) Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law, says that 'that under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights.'
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.
Dear Senator Hatch:
re: S. 2560, the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004"
...respectfully request that you hold hearings on S. 2560, the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004" before your Committee takes any action ... understand your concerns for protecting children and addressing activity that infringes copyright ... S. 2560 would undermine the 20-year old Supreme Court decision in Sony v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ... the Supreme Court held that the manufacturer of a product could not be held secondarily liable for infringing uses of the product by others so long as the product was capable of substantial noninfringing uses ... These products include personal computers, scanners, CD burners, modems, instant messaging products, and the software that enables them to operate ... The legislation would provide copyright owners with a new legal avenue to attack every new technology about which a copyright owner is concerned. Even a product review that discusses how a product works could be implicated by the bill ... This new threat would chill innovation and drive investment in technology overseas....
Sincerely,
EFF: Letter to Senator Hatch
see also: Stop the INDUCE Act --- Downhill Battle, Click the Vote, and FreeCulture.org are doing their best to stick it to INDUCE, picking up on the EFF's good idea. Keep in mind that the iPod is just the type of technology that could be potentially targeted via INDUCE.
(update: it was about to fall off the main page so I had to change the date -- originally posted June 7, 2004)
0 Comments: