<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Orrin Hatch INDUCE Act intro&#8217;d</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1744/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1744</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:30:38 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1744/comment-page-1#comment-3163</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:19:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3163</guid>
		<description>In theory, this could bring down the entertainment industry as we know it.

Here&#039;s my reasoning. RCA cables, which are commonly used to connect video devices to TVs and audio devices to amplifiers, can also be used to connect CD players to tape decks and VCRs to DVD Recorders. Would these cables be effectively outlawed? How then would we connect our entertainment appliances?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In theory, this could bring down the entertainment industry as we know it.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s my reasoning. RCA cables, which are commonly used to connect video devices to TVs and audio devices to amplifiers, can also be used to connect CD players to tape decks and VCRs to DVD Recorders. Would these cables be effectively outlawed? How then would we connect our entertainment appliances?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1744/comment-page-1#comment-2857</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:05:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-2857</guid>
		<description>Cameras, photographic equipment...but wait! I was in a museum the other day and a student was painting a reproduction of a Picasso painting...do we have to get rid of canvas and paint too? Or, I could copy a passage from a book in a notebook, so I guess paper and pens are out. Well, hell, if I whistle a song I heard on the radio and someone hears me and starts whistling it too...is that inducing copyright infringment too?

Starling </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cameras, photographic equipment&#8230;but wait! I was in a museum the other day and a student was painting a reproduction of a Picasso painting&#8230;do we have to get rid of canvas and paint too? Or, I could copy a passage from a book in a notebook, so I guess paper and pens are out. Well, hell, if I whistle a song I heard on the radio and someone hears me and starts whistling it too&#8230;is that inducing copyright infringment too?</p>
<p>Starling</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1744/comment-page-1#comment-2838</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-2838</guid>
		<description>From a fact sheet by the Home Recording Rights Coalition (www.HRRC.org) --

„«	Inducement of infringement already is a part of the test for contributory infringement. The main effect of adding a separate, broad provision based on ¡§acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement¡¨ is to allow a different outcome on the same facts, even of the Betamax case itself.  

„«	If the Inducing Infringement Of Copyrights Act is enacted as proposed, all kinds of legitimate products will be at risk because the Betamax doctrine no longer will be a valuable defense.
 
„«	HRRC appreciates the efforts of the drafters in adding a provision that says the bill does not enlarge or diminish the ¡§doctrines¡¨ of contributory or vicarious infringement.  However, by creating a new and separate doctrine of ¡§induced¡¨ infringement, the bill effectively renders these doctrines irrelevant as defenses -- just as the DMCA effectively made irrelevant the ¡§fair use¡¨ defense by leaving it alone in other contexts.
 
„«	As a result, the bill will likely have a broad, dramatic and negative effect on the development and introduction of new products, and to anyone creating and marketing them.  Just as the ¡§Hollings Bill¡¨ in the last Congress had some laudable objectives but swept much too broadly, this initiative also threatens innovative consumer devices, software, and home networks.

„«	The bill is aimed at over-ruling a lower court decision that has been under review by the Court of Appeals for more than half a year.

„«	The Judiciary Committee should hold a full hearing to consider all the implications of this legislation, from all points of view and all interests potentially affected, before making such a fundamental change to the substance and scope of the copyright law.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From a fact sheet by the Home Recording Rights Coalition (www.HRRC.org) &#8211;</p>
<p>„«	Inducement of infringement already is a part of the test for contributory infringement. The main effect of adding a separate, broad provision based on ¡§acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement¡¨ is to allow a different outcome on the same facts, even of the Betamax case itself.  </p>
<p>„«	If the Inducing Infringement Of Copyrights Act is enacted as proposed, all kinds of legitimate products will be at risk because the Betamax doctrine no longer will be a valuable defense.</p>
<p>„«	HRRC appreciates the efforts of the drafters in adding a provision that says the bill does not enlarge or diminish the ¡§doctrines¡¨ of contributory or vicarious infringement.  However, by creating a new and separate doctrine of ¡§induced¡¨ infringement, the bill effectively renders these doctrines irrelevant as defenses &#8212; just as the DMCA effectively made irrelevant the ¡§fair use¡¨ defense by leaving it alone in other contexts.</p>
<p>„«	As a result, the bill will likely have a broad, dramatic and negative effect on the development and introduction of new products, and to anyone creating and marketing them.  Just as the ¡§Hollings Bill¡¨ in the last Congress had some laudable objectives but swept much too broadly, this initiative also threatens innovative consumer devices, software, and home networks.</p>
<p>„«	The bill is aimed at over-ruling a lower court decision that has been under review by the Court of Appeals for more than half a year.</p>
<p>„«	The Judiciary Committee should hold a full hearing to consider all the implications of this legislation, from all points of view and all interests potentially affected, before making such a fundamental change to the substance and scope of the copyright law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1744/comment-page-1#comment-2837</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-2837</guid>
		<description>Wouldn&#039;t it be easier to just ban all cameras and photographic equipment?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn&#8217;t it be easier to just ban all cameras and photographic equipment?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
