“What could probably happen is that Sony and Microsoft
will work together to develop copy technology that is
satisfactory to both of them.”–I am thinking now we could get into anti-trust issues.

The more I think about INDUCE, the more I can hardly wait for it to pass. It seems like such crappy law, I think the best strategy for the anti-INDUCE crowd would be to push hard for an even more restrictive INDUCE act, get it to pass and then watch the sparks fly.

This strategy is not without precedent. In the sixties, certain southern Congressmen made Civil Rights legislation even more progressive in the hopes that it would not pass. The strategy backfired on them, obviously. A super restrictive INDUCE act would certainly cause enormous friction between the big media companies and be doomed to failure in the courts.

Very good point.

The scenario that you described could happen. This
reminds me of the old saying, “Be careful what you
wish for”.

What could probably happen is that Sony and Microsoft
will work together to develop copy technology that is
satisfactory to both of them. But then, they will be
in a catch-22. Who will buy their products if their
copy technology is too restrictive?

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>

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

Thanks, but I am still confused. What if I am an inventor/manufacturer of copy technology as well as an owner of copyrighted works like Sony; where does that put me. Can another company, say Microsoft, tell Sony not to use or develop such technology because it can be used to circumvent Microsofts copyrights. Can Sony tell Microsoft not to invent or use any technology which they may use to reproduce their own stuff. Help me with this? It looks like this is as big a quagmire for copyright holders as it is for copy technology makers since they are often the same entity.

Because the recording companies are themselves
the copyright holders, they can use any available
copy technology to sell the copies of their
copyrighted works. It is the manufacturers that
are at the risk. If a manufacturer does not
honor the wishes of the recording companies
(for example, making a device that refuses
to recognize the copy protection in the CD’s),
we can expect that the manufacturer will be sued.

If there is an analogy to describe the relationship,
the recording companies want to be like king that
can subject the manufacturers to his wishes.
Else, the king can order the manufacturer to be
executed.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>

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

How will it affect the Recording Companies’ ability to create and use copy technology?

Won’t they also have to obey the law. If the technology to burn CD’s becomes illegal for me, won’t it be illegal for each and every one of the record companies as well? Do they get an exemption?

OK, so the iPod is permitted under (1)(A). What about (B) and (C)?

Interesting that the Office’s accompanying memo stated that iPods are not covered by the draft, but for a different reason — the distinction between copying and dissemination. “Liability, if any, for conduct related to such personal reproduction technology remains the province of existing copyright law, and is not affected in any way by this new form of liability.”

I find deeply troubling the lack of any means to determine what “predominant” means. A binary test of revenue (infringing dissemination-causing revenue, vs. other revenue) is one thing, but it will have to be weighted. What if most users are acting unlawfully, but most uses, bandwidth, or ad revenue, occurs as part of legitimate sharing? Is the product or service spared or banned?

I started reading your blog when Richard Posner was guest blogging, so I am new and unaware of all the IP latest. Would the Induce Act really ban mp3 players, DVD-RWs, etc?

It may be a comfort to see that the new proposal
is more balanced than the original proposal.

However, the history of Congress indicates
that what is balanced at one time can be tilted
toward the interests of authors, artists and
copyright holders and away from the interests
of users in the future. Just look at how
enthusiastic Marybeth Peters is to get the bill into
law. Keep in mind that she strongly supported
copyright term extension.

In other words, I don’t trust Congress.

It is the plan of Senator Hatch to get anything,
even if it is well balanced, to become a law to
add the another layer of infringement. Once it
is written into a law, there is no more turning
point and in the future, Congress will say, “Induce
law is not enough and we need to strengthen it more”.

The best prevention to such abuse of the law is
not to let it become law at the first place.

Authors and artists have enough legal tools to
punish the infringers. We should not give them
any more weapons and we should not let them
rule our lives.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>

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

I just followed all the links on that page, and it can’t be that you agree with their analysis. For one thing, almost none of it addresses the actual Copyright Office proposal. The link to Ernie Miller, for instance, goes to town on an old version, which the Copyright Office rightly revised. For another, much of the rest is just plain wrong. The inflamatory stuff about iPods, for example; no way iPods are illegal under the new statute, given that iPods have very real commercial viability for perfectly legitimate uses.

So I guess I am back where I was at the start: can you explain why you are opposed to the new compromise draft? It is not the full immunity of Grokster, but it seems to be a genuine, thoughtful, balanced attempt to show a little respect for copyright law while still offering flexibility for innovation. Is full immunity really the only acceptable outcome in your view?