The Federal Inducement Act

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

damn, I got the name of the bill wrong in the title

 

Heres the article

 

(exerpt..)

A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes.

 

The proposal, called the Induce Act, says "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations, a prohibition that would effectively ban file-swapping networks like Kazaa and Morpheus. In the draft bill seen by CNET News.com, inducement is defined as "aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures" and can be punished with civil fines and, in some circumstances, lengthy prison terms.

...

Litman said 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. Web sites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients like the Morpheus software are also at risk for "inducing" infringement, Litman warned.

...

"It's simple and it's deadly," said Philip Corwin, a lobbyist for Sharman Networks, which distributes the Kazaa client. "If you make a product that has dual uses, infringing and not infringing, and you know there's infringement, you're liable."

 

The Induce Act stands for "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act," a reference to Capitol Hill's frequently stated concern that file-trading networks are a source of unlawful pornography. Hatch is a conservative Mormon who has denounced pornography in the past and who suggested last year that copyright holders should be allowed to remotely destroy the computers of music pirates.

 

Foes of the Induce Act said that it would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case, often referred to as the "Betamax" lawsuit. In that 5-4 opinion, the majority said VCRs were legal to sell because they were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." But the majority stressed that Congress had the power to enact a law that would lead to a different outcome.

 

The fact that people who make products that have both infringing and non-infringing uses are liable for the infringing uses is pretty scary. Think of how many pieces of technology have "Dual uses":

 

video recording and playback devices, such as VCRs, DVD players/recorders, video tape and optical disks, and even video-enabled cell phones

- Audio recording devices - answering machines, tape recorders, personal memo recorders including those in cellphones and provider-based systems

- computer Hard Drives and static memory devices

- digital cameras, and associated memory storage devices

- online and offsite storage/retrieval systems and facilities

- pc printers, scanners and copiers

- copy machines, networked printers and fax machines

- wired and wireless LANs, WANs and PVNs

- internet providers, email client software and online email and messaging services, including IM, IRC, FTP and chat systems

 

Honestly there's no way in hell this bill will be passed, but it would probably be a good idea to call your representatives in Congress and voice concern over the bill even before its introduced. If enough people complain, it might not even get introduced next week.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yuck. That reeks of the government trying to control the media by securing what can and cannot be produced. Horrible horrible shit. That has to be unconstitutional.

[Styles 0]

Yeah, they're gonna ban VCRs...ok....

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Obviously that won't happen, but I find it annoying that an elected official actually thought of a bill that would more or less try to do that.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

This is what happens when a bunch of old men, most who are ignorant of modern technology, writing the laws.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hatch is always the guy introducing these horrible, horrible bills.

 

INVEST IN AMERICA

BUY A CONGRESSMAN

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Yeah, they're gonna ban VCRs...ok....

It wouldn't be hard to ban VCRs since that Betamax lawsuit in the Supreme Court left it open for the government to create a bill that would do just that in the future if the need for such bill was deemed necessary. I think that Congress might have more of a concern for copyright infringment and the like now than they did 20 years ago, so its at least in the realm of a possibility although like I said, theres really no way this bill passes unless the RIAA and MPAA have paid off a lot of people or something..

 

Of course concerning banning VCRs, I doubt they'll worry with VCRs..it will probably be DVD +/- R/RW drives that get the most focus. Which would be just great since I just bought one...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That'll be as effective as similar methods of gun control.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

That'll be as effective as similar methods of gun control.

Not really so.

 

In a worst case scenario of doom, companies would be forced to quit manufacturing and selling things like CD and DVD burners in the U.S. Existing burners would be taken off store shelves and owning one would probably become illegal. Of course this would create a black market for CD/DVD burners and people will be going to Canada for them and the like.

 

With gun control laws, they are still making guns and in most respects its still legal to have some sort of gun, its just harder to get and more restricted in how you keep it.

 

And don't forget, this whole bill is veiled pretty good as being a bill to protect kids from online pornography and protect copyrights by shutting down the P2P services, but the language of the bill is far too broad and could eventually be used to do things like ban CD/DVD burners.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Of course this would create a black market

Thank you for proving exactly what I said about gun control.

 

When ____ is outlawed, only outlaws will have _____.

[Guest MikeSC]

Orrin Hatch sucks.

 

There is nothing more to say as the bill is so asinine I'd half expect a pimply-faced high-school "Marxist" to propose it.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

This is the problem when people who have no idea about technology or it's uses and positive aspects take bribes.........errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

rrrr.............get one-sided arguments from filthy rich greedy and power corporations about what the "need to do about it"

[NoCalMike 0]

Orrin Hatch sucks.

 

There is nothing more to say as the bill is so asinine I'd half expect a pimply-faced high-school "Marxist" to propose it.

-=Mike

like that cheap shot was necessary AT ALL...........

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I hereby support that someone put this album up for serving and that we all download it.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

And people wonder why I dislike conservatives?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

And people wonder why I dislike conservatives?

I'm not sure Orrin Hatch really qualifies as a conservative anymore.

 

Hatch is also a posterchild for Senate term limits. The reason he can get away with proposing such ridiculous legislation is he doesn't run the risk of getting turfed by his constituents because he's one of these senators who will get voted in just because his name is familiar.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

It's a pity. We're i'm from we have a member of Parliment like that that's probably Hatch's long lost twin.

[Guest Cerebus]

Actually rediculous legislation is a staple of the Congess nowadays. Only a small fraction of the number of bills actually proposed (around 3000 if memory serves) actually get passed. Nearly all of the others die in subcomittee or in full committee of either the House or Senate. It appears that this is one of them.

[Guest CronoT]

Hatch is a conservative Mormon who has denounced pornography in the past and who suggested last year that copyright holders should be allowed to remotely destroy the computers of music pirates.

If Orrin Hatch believes copyright holders have the right to remotely destroy my PC, then I believe I have to right to kick the crap out of him if it happens.

 

Mormons are screwy, anyway; and yes, I know this from experience, unfortunately.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually rediculous legislation is a staple of the Congess nowadays. Only a small fraction of the number of bills actually proposed (around 3000 if memory serves) actually get passed. Nearly all of the others die in subcomittee or in full committee of either the House or Senate. It appears that this is one of them.

Thing is --- I don't like taking the risk that it might pass.

-=Mike

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

This bill was introduced on Tuesday:

 

Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 2560, the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act.

 

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

 

S. 2560

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the ``Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004''.

 

SEC. 2. INTENTIONAL INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

 

Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

 

``(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.''.

 

WAY. TOO. BROAD.

[Jingus 0]

Even if this dumbass waste of paper got passed, I doubt it'd actually change anything in the electronics industry. Here's why:

 

``(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

 

That means you have to prove that not only does a product do something illegal, but that the makers of the product intended for it to do something illegal. And as anyone who's ever been involved in a slander/libel lawsuit knows, proving criminal intent can be damned difficult at times.

[Guest MikeSC]

Unfortunately, this reeks of a slippery slope problem. If this passes, I can easily see more such laws forthcoming.

-=Mike

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Fake Complaint against Apple/Toshiba based on the Induce Act from the EFF

 

DEFENDANT APPLE COMPUTER'S INFRINGING CONDUCT

              ---------------------------------------------

 

    4. The iPod is the most popular and successful portable digital music

device in the world. As of April 2004, nearly three million iPods had been

sold, driven by an international marketing campaign that has vaulted the

'mp3 player' from a small, obscure market into a must have item for every

music fan.

 

The Commercial Viability of Apple's iPod Relies on Copyright Infringement

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

    5. A substantial element of the iPod's commercial viability can be

traced to its ability to play infringing music files, whether downloaded

over the Internet from peer-to-peer ('P2P') networks or the result of

promiscuous hand-to-hand copying of sound recordings among friends and

acquaintances.

 

    6. Apple has been fully aware, as has most of the world, that for the

past several years, millions of computer users have been engaging in

unauthorized reproduction and distribution of music files using P2P

software such as Napster, Audiogalaxy, Aimster, KaZaA, Morpheus, Grokster,

Limewire, Bearshare, and eDonkey. These networks have been described by

some as the biggest piratical bazaar in world history.

 

    7. In addition, computer users illegally reproduce and distribute

music files in person using the iPod. As detailed further in the report of

Professor Joe Expert, attached hereto as Exhibit A, many iPod owners copy

CDs from, and use their iPods to 'share' their music with, their friends

and acquaintances. Plaintiffs maintain that this promiscuous 'hand-to-

hand' reproduction also constitutes copyright infringement.

 

    8. Before the introduction of portable digital music players, the

value of the music files derived from infringing sources was limited by

the fact that computer users generally had to be sitting at their

computers in order to play and enjoy them. Defendant Apple knew this and

hence made the calculated decision to intentionally induce and enhance the

attractiveness of infringement by providing these infringers with a device

to enhance the rewards of their illegal labors – the iPod.

 

    9. As detailed further in Professor Expert's report, the iPod would

have been much less attractive to consumers had it been incompatible with

the music files downloaded from P2P networks and had it not allowed

consumer- to-consumer transfers. Professor Expert's report also makes it

clear that the iPod, in turn, enhanced the attractiveness of P2P networks

by offering iPod owners expansive storage capability and lightning- fast

data transfer, allowing them to listen to any number of infringing music

files when away from the computer.

 

    10. Surveys conducted by Professor Expert establish that a majority of

iPod owners have used at least some significant portion of their iPods to

store and play infringing music files, whether derived from P2P networks

or promiscuous hand-to-hand copying. Upon information and belief, Apple

was certainly aware of this fact from its own internal marketing research.

 

              Apple's 'Rip, Mix, Burn' Campaign Demonstrates

                  Its Intent To Induce Infringement

              ----------------------------------------------

 

    11. Apple has directly encouraged music piracy through its 'Rip, Mix,

and Burn' campaign used to sell both its Macintosh computers and iPod

player. There can be no better evidence of inducing infringement than to

literally spell out the steps to one's customers. The Apple iPod's Storage

Capacity Demonstrates Apple's Intent to Induce Infringement

 

    12. The iPod's remarkable storage capacity also demonstrates Apple's

intent to induce, aid, and abet infringers. For example, Apple itself

advertises that its 40 GB iPod can hold 'up to 10,000 songs.' This amount,

over 500 albums, far exceeds the capacity necessary to hold the total CD

collection owned by the vast majority of Americans. This suggests that

Apple knew and intended that iPod owners would be getting their music from

elsewhere, including P2P networks and promiscuous hand-to-hand copying.

 

    13. Apple does sell authorized music that is specifically licensed for

use with iTunes and its iPod from its iTunes music store. However, the

number of songs sold comes nowhere close to the number of songs that Apple

knows or reasonably should know are on its customers' iPods. To fill up a

40 GB iPod with authorized songs from the iTunes music store would cost

the average user $9,999. It is inconceivable that any iPod user would

spend almost $10,000 in order to fill a $499 iPod. In contrast, there is

no question that the iPod's $499 price is made more palatable to buyers by

the availability of the infringing no-cost music available on P2P networks

or via friends.

 

    14. Thus there can be no doubt that Apple materially relies on illegal

infringement by its customers to support the commercial viability of its

iPod and to maintain its high price in the marketplace.

 

  Apple's Design Choices Demonstrate its Intent to Induce Infringement

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

 

    15. Moreover, Apple has also demonstrated its intent to induce

copyright infringement through the decisions it made when designing the

iPod and related iTunes software. For example, Apple chose to allow the

iPod to reproduce, store, and perform copyrighted works in 'MP3' file

format, knowing full well that this is the most popular unprotected format

used by pirates on P2P networks. Because this format includes no content

protection or digital rights management features, it also encourages

promiscuous hand-to-hand copying by iPod owners. This decision cannot be

seen as anything but an invitation to infringe.

 

    16. Apple could have, at a minimum, designed its iPod to play only

music files with content protection and further, could have designed its

iTunes software to only rip CDs into a protected format that would not

allow further promiscuous hand-to-hand copying. Of course, an iPod that

only played authorized and protected files such as Apple's own AAC format

would be far less popular in the marketplace, and thus, less commercially

viable. The iPod's ability to play unprotected MP3 files not only enhances

its own value to infringer users but also encourages such users to

increase the amount of infringement they perpetrate.

 

    17. Plaintiffs are pressing a claim under the Induce Act and not a

claim of contributory or vicarious infringement. Hence, the Supreme Court

ruling in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

has no application to this case, nor is it a defense that Apple has no

control over the activities of iPod owners.

 

...

 

DEFENDANT TOSHIBA'S INFRINGING CONDUCT

              --------------------------------------

 

    22. As alleged in previous paragraphs, Apple's iPod is being used to

induce massive and uncontrolled copyright infringement.

 

    23. Defendant Toshiba supplies the 'micro' hard drives that Apple uses

in the iPod. Toshiba ships in excess of 100,000 such hard drives to Apple

each month.

 

    24. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Toshiba knew or

should have known that Apple's iPod would be used to induce infringement.

Plaintiffs specifically brought the facts detailed herein to Toshiba's

attention and asked that Toshiba cease supplying Apple with hard drives

until Apple took steps to address the infringing capabilities of the iPod.

Toshiba refused Plaintiffs' request.

 

    25. With this knowledge, Toshiba intentionally chose to aid, abet, and

induce copyright infringement by iPod owners by continuing to supply Apple

with hard drives intended for use in iPods.

 

    26. The commercial viability of Toshiba's 'micro' hard drives depends

substantially on consumer demand for the iPod and similar music players

that could store thousands of works at a time and could import them

quickly from a variety of sources, including illegal music file-sharing

and promiscuous hand-to-hand infringement. By supplying tiny hard drives

for portable music players not even capable of recording original music,

Toshiba clearly knew it was abetting reproduction of copyrighted works on

a massive scale.

 

    27. Thus, Toshiba materially relied on infringement for the commercial

viability of its 'micro' hard drives and has clearly demonstrated intent

to induce infringement of Plaintiffs' works by continuing to supply Apple.

 

If this goes through, Apple and Toshiba are SCREWED because that is pretty much a clear infraction (and the EFF has done most of the work for the government .

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

That's our Orrin for ya...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

              Apple's 'Rip, Mix, Burn' Campaign Demonstrates

                  Its Intent To Induce Infringement

 

This reminds me of Steve Jobs talking about how he was explaining how iTunes Music Store would work to all the label bigwigs. Michael Eisner of Disney (who is now on the outs with Jobs over Pixar) thought that "Rip" meant "to rip off." And according to Jobs, Eisner was the only guy who put forth this concern and didn't get it.

 

Seems like Eisner and Hatch really deserve each other.