Comments on: continuing congressional confusion on copyrights (ie, not just (c), or (cc), or even (ccc) but (cccc))

By: John

John — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:36:58 +0000

The INDUCE act would definitely end up forcing the company I work for to either go out of business or move out of the USA, most likely to Canada since we are only a 3 hour drive from the border. We cater to the educational market, developing technology tools that schools can use to distribute media to the classroom from a central location. The INDUCE act would affect us because what we manufacture would be considered illegal under the INDUCE act because it has the potential to be used for infringement, even though the intent of use and purpose is noninfringing. That being said, I fear that my job will be lost or that I would need to move out of country in order to keep it. The INDUCE act will probably cause more of the same to happen. This country will eventually fall behind the rest of the world technology wise and our economy will surely suffer more. I've read some accounts of the fall of the Roman Empire, and the fact that they fell behind technology wise was apparently a contributing factor to their demise. I don't know how true that is, perhaps there is someone more knowledgeable about this that could verify it? If it is indeed fact, then a move to Canada may not be a bad idea if this act should pass and become law.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:35:07 +0000

"Unless the software is making decisions on what IP to filter based on some examination of the content of each particular file, there is no relationship between the two and your analogies fall apart."
Rob that is pretty much what they are doing. They locate the IP's from which the files are originating from, and they block them from the network.
An artist or rights holder that does not want their copyrighted materials shared, pays a service to offer a replacement. If the content is music, the replacement could be a loop of a portion of the song. It could be simply noise. It may contain a link to where the song may be purchased. Regardless, the content is legally being offered by the rights holder in an effort to protect against illegal sharing of their copyrighted content. When the P2P blocks the rights holders efforts, they are blocking access to legal content, and in doing so directing users to the illegal content. That's inducement.
I think in it's present form the Induce Act is a bad law, but that doesn't change the fact that the P2P's have to take responsibilty for their part in bringing it about. They are not a passive instrument like the Betamax, and all the other pieces of technology they are attempting to hide behind. They are an active business that attracts and serves their customers.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:39:27 +0000

Woah up there a minute, Joe. I think you are making some leaps here that are longer than you imagine. I don't equate IP filtering, which I understand to be blocking out certain IP addresses from participating in the network, with content control. Those are two completely different concepts. Unless the software is making decisions on what IP to filter based on some examination of the content of each particular file, there is no relationship between the two and your analogies fall apart. And what about radar detectors, should those be made illegal because they induce people to speed?

Cable TV descramblers and satellite decoders take an encrypted signal and restructure it so it displays normally on a TV set; the signal is coming in regardless of whether the device is present or not, the device acts on the content of that signal. I think a better analogy to a P2P client would be the satellite dish itself, which acts as a bridge between the microwave transmissions from the satellite (the files from the server) and the TV set that displays them (your computer). So by this analogy the content providers are saying that satellite dishes are evil because anyone can watch movies with them rather than having to go to Blockbuster and rent things, and the INDUCE act says that since satellite dishes are only bought in order to watch movies for free (once the basic service is paid for) they induce you to not go to Blockbuster and therefore should be illegal. They are trying to enshrine Blockbuster's profits in the law by prohibiting any technology that would enable you to avoid having to go there to rent movies to watch.

Again, this is just an analogy and not an attack on Blockbuster. You could also substitute in "movie theater", I just chose a well-known company that competes with satellite dishes in the field of movie presentation. The INDUCE act would stifle innovation and should be defeated.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:07:26 +0000

I believe it's very easy to overthink this issue, but for me it's very simple.
As long as the P2P's were passive regarding the content that flowed across their networks, they could take the position that like the "Betamax" they should not be held responsible for how their services are used or misused, by individuals.
The P2P's still portray themselves in this way, as passive providers, but in reality it is no longer the case.
In recent months the media industry has begun to increasingly employ services that attempt to prevent specific copyrighted materials from being illegally exchanged on the P2P networks. These services do not hinder the exchange of any materials that they have not been employed to protect. So in that way they do not affect fair exchange. The content they have been employed to protect is of course content that could be described as mainstream popular, copyrighted materials. The P2P's in an effort to make the protected content available to users, have taken steps such as IP filtering in an attempt to thwart these interdiction efforts. In doing so they have gone beyond the betamax and the cd burner, and have entered into the realm of pirate devices such as cable TV descramblers, satellite TV decoders etc.
For the P2P's to retain the status of passive providers of a benign service, that had only the potential for individual misuse. They would have had to refrain from interfering with the interdiction attempts of the rights holders. By choosing to resort to these efforts at interference, they have shown that they indeed can have an effect on the content that is exchanged on the networks, and that they will take steps to insure that their users can find the illegal content they seek.
In my opinion this the activity that has prompted the Induce Act. The P2P's want to hide behind a defense that no longer applies to them.
They said that they had no control of the content on the network. The rights holders said we will provide legal content to block exchange of our illegal content, and the P2P's suddenly found ways to control the legal content, so that their users could access the illegal content.
That's a clear case of inducement, and the P2P's have only themselves to blame. To compare it to the Sony principle is IMO, like comparing apples to oranges.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:31:36 +0000

Responding to Joseph Riolo:

The real force comes from the authors and artists and it is responsible for propelling the corporations to protect their copyright interest.

I have to disagree with this. While the authors and artists may indeed have an interest in protecting their works, I doubt they're the ones behind the INDUCE act. Corporations are not propelled by authors and artists, authors and artists are the laborers that produce what the corporations distribute. In most cases, the corporations are the ones claiming copyright (I don't see a lot of artist's names next to the (c) on movies and music that I buy), and I'm conviced that they are the ones behind this act.

I don't scapegoat corporations. A scapegoat is something that is incorrectly accused, and I think corporations are absolutely behind some of the evils that befall society. Maybe "demonize" would be a better term for you to use.

Moreover, Congress tends not to see users in good light, thanks to the users who choose to be infingers.

Now there's your scapegoat. All of this restrictive legislation is being proposed because of this supposed Mongol Horde of "infringers" out there who are pillaging and looting the entertainment industry. Meanwhile we get news of said industry reaping record profits and movies setting box-office records every other weekend. So give me break, and don't be fooled by all the pro-industry propaganda out there. All they are trying to do is squeeze every last possible cent out of what they own, which may be in their nature as corporations but doesn't mean that we have to pass laws to increase their profits.

You are correct that the INDUCE act has nothing to do with political parties. It's all about money, and money is non-partisan. But while I expect Republicans to fall in line behind whatever corporate interests want them to pass, I was very disappointed to see leading Democrats also lining up behind this. The Democrats are supposed to be the "party of the people" and this act (and the whole Copyright debacle in its entirety) is such an obvious anti-consumer money grab that they should have known better than to support it, let alone co-sponsor it.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:34:20 +0000

There may be some hope on the horizon. Dan Gillmor has good article in the San Jose Mercury News today on S. 2560. With a little more media exposure like this, there might be some hope of sending INDUCE the same route as Hollings and friends' CBDTPA.

By: jane ashton

jane ashton — Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:33:28 +0000

I agree, but you fail to see the secondary infringements that might be caused. A good example is the copyright on this Bill Clinton blog. Who owns this?

By: Joseph Pietro Riolo

Joseph Pietro Riolo — Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:40:58 +0000

Commenting on Crosbie Fitch's comment:

Don't be too hopeful. There is no guarantee that
the authors and artists will not withdraw Creative
Commons licenses any time during their lifetime
and 70 years after death. There is no guarantee
that they will not modify terms and conditions in
the licenses. Moreover, the current U.S. copyright
law allows authors and artists to change their
mind during five years at the end of 35 years after
license or grant or in case of the right of
publication, 40 years after the date of publication,
whichever term ends earlier (Section 203).

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:58:34 +0000

If the INDUCE act was passed it would be pretty good for the Creative Commons. All developers of new technologies would then ensure that they'd only operate with content certfied to permit uncontrolled duplication, e.g. CC-SA say.

I say "Bring it on!". The INDUCE act hastens the demise of the anachronism of copyright being applied in the digital domain.

Incidentally, the CC should consider creating an MD5 index of CC'd works. It'll soon be sorely needed.

By: Joseph Pietro Riolo

Joseph Pietro Riolo — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:54:42 +0000

Induce Act (or any copyright law) has nothing to do
with political parties. We love to make corporations
a scapegoat for all the evils that fall on society.
But, in our blind criticism and angry, we overlook
the real force behind Induce Act. The real force
comes from the authors and artists and it is
responsible for propelling the corporations to protect
their copyright interest. These authors and artists
are part of the people that Congress is supposed to
represent. Historically, Congress tends to give
sympathetic ear to the authors and artists, even
though they are fewer than the users in term of
population. Moreover, Congress tends not to see users
in good light, thanks to the users who choose to be
infingers. It is no surprise that Congress introduces
Induce Act. And, to prove my point that it has
nothing to do with political parties, authors and
artists come from all parties.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.