INDUCE proposal bans p2p nets
p2pnet.net News:- Under changes to Hollywood’s INDUCE act proposed by the US Copyright Office and surfaced on DRM Blog here, p2p networks would be outlawed, but the act’s effect on hardware manufacturers would be diminished.
It would be harder for a company to be charged for copyright violations – it would have to intentionally induce people to perform copyright violations, says the draft, which .also defines induce as an “affirmative, overt act” that’s “reasonably expected to cause or persuade” violations of copyright law.
The proposal would make things more difficult for a company to be charged for copyright violations, says DRM the post, going on:
“This draft suggests that a company has to intentionally induce people to perform copyright violations. It also defines induce to be an ‘affirmative, overt act’ that is ‘reasonably expected to cause or persuade’ violations of copyright law.”
US Register of Copyrights Mary Beth Peters is firmly behind Judiciary Committee chairman senator Orrin Hatch’s INDUCE Act, Hollywood’s most powerful remaining anti-p2p weapon of mass destruction, wielded behind the spectre of child pornography.
But rather than risk any last-minute slip-ups, Hatch and other entertainment industry stalwarts recently leaned on Peters to make sure she’s in lock-step.
This must represent the result of their labours.
Below is the text, or you can download a .pdf here.
=======================================
09/02/04 DISCUSSION DRAFT
A BILL
To amend chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, relating to inducement of copyright infringement, and for other purposes.
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) Whoever intentionally induces another to infringe any of the exclusive rights in Sections 106(3), 106(4), 106(5) or 106(6) under subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer. For the purposes of this subsection, ‘induces’ means to commit one or more affirmative, overt acts that are reasonably expected to cause or persuade another person or persons to commit any infringement under subsection (a) of this section.
(2) For the purposes of this subsection, ‘overt acts’ constituting inducement may include:
(A) distributing any dissemination technology that, when used as intended, automatically causes the user of the technology to infringe copyrighted works without the user making a specific, informed decision, for each copyrighted work at issue, about whether to engage in such infringement;
(B) actively interfering with copyright holders’ efforts to detect infringing uses of dissemination technology and enforce their copyright against those uses;(C) offering an incentive to users of dissemination technology to make infringing use of the technology, such as providing improved performance of the technology in exchange for infringing distribution of copyrighted works;
(D) failing to take reasonably available corrective measures to prevent any continuing acts of infringement resulting from overt acts described in subparagraphs (A)-(C) of this subsection (2) that were committed before the effective date of this subsection; or (E) distributing a dissemination technology as part of an enterprise that substantially relies on the infringing acts of others for its commercial viability or the revenues of which are predominantly derived from the infringing acts of others.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, and absent any other overt act, an ‘overt act’ does not include:
(A) distributing any dissemination technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses knowing that it can be used for infringing purposes, so long as that technology is not designed to be used for infringing purposes;
(B) distributing any dissemination technology that incorporates reasonably effective measures to prevent or halt dissemination that constitutes infringement within the meaning of this subsection;
(C) advertising, marketing or promoting a dissemination technology that does not specifically encourage the use of that technology for infringing purposes;
(D) the providing of information on the use of a dissemination technology by the creator or distributor of that dissemination technology when the information does not specifically encourage the use of that technology for infringing purposes, including through instruction manuals, handbooks, user guides or customer support services;
(E) the providing of information on the use of a dissemination technology by a person not affiliated with the creator or distributor of that dissemination technology in the context of commentary, criticism, or reviews of the dissemination technology; or
(F) providing products or services to a distributor of dissemination technology in the same manner that such products or services are provided to other members of the public, including but not limited to financial services, delivery services, advertising services, product reviews or evaluations, library services, real estate services, customer-support services for users of computer software or hardware, utilities and telecommunications services.
(4) For the purpose of this subsection, ‘dissemination technology’ means any product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that enables or facilitates the distribution of copies of a work to the public, performance of a work publicly, display of a work publicly, or the performance of a work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
(5) Courts adjudicating actions under this subsection should attempt, to the extent practicable, to minimize the potential burdens of such litigation upon the parties by measures including:
(A) allowing discovery and summary judgment on the objective questions of inducement and infringement before permitting discovery and adjudication of the subjective element of intent;
(B) exercising their authority under this Chapter to award fees and costs to the prevailing party.
(6) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement, including any defenses thereto or any limitations on rights or remedies for infringement, or the authority of courts to apply or adapt common-law standards. Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish liability for infringement of the exclusive rights in Sections 106(1) or 106(2).
(7) The limitations on liability in Section 512 shall apply to actions brought under this subsection.
SEC. 3. LITIGATION RELATED TO INOPERATIVE DISSEMINATION TECHNOLOGIES.
[A provision to make clear that this bill has no effect on pending litigation over inoperative dissemination technologies, such as Napster.]
September 3rd, 2004 at 5:25 pm
There has to be collusion. Isnt that in any way illegal?
September 4th, 2004 at 2:10 am
So if this law is passed… P2P networks will shut down?
Now P2P is WORLDWIDE… how exactly do they plan to enforce this when the P2P software goes off-shore?
Decentralized networks… you gotta love ‘em!
September 4th, 2004 at 4:26 am
(B) actively interfering with copyright holders’ efforts to detect infringing uses of dissemination technology and enforce their copyright against those uses;( This is where they get you with the first punch. P2P nets will have to turn over the names of those who fileshare Riaa crap music. The second punch is the Pirate act which will allow DOJ to go after those who share Riaa crap music and with the info from P2P’s they’ll know right where to find you!!!! But these laws (if they become law) might backfire on them. Indie Music is getting Bigger by the day???? If P2P were to go All INDIE then music fans might start enjoying mostly unsigned Bands / Artists ect. 60 million people that’s one hell of an audience and with all the angry music fans who no longer able to share Riaa crap music 60 million people might just start seeing it as Hey Riaa keep your crap musak WE (60 million) have found something better so to hell with your product!!!!! Without the Riaa musak in the way of Indie bands the best of the best of the Indie bands will suface and rule on P2P’s after all where were all the Riaa artists before they were signed by a major label????? They were Indie(and some have gone back to being Indie after a major label dropped them from their roster) Hardship tends to make you try harder to win your goals and their are alot of Bands/Artists that are ready to cut out the middlemen and go right to the music Fan’s and with the Riaa crap music out of their way this could be the last Stake to drive in the heart of the major labels’s to kill them off???????? Be carefull of what you wish for Riaa you may just get it!!!!!!!
September 4th, 2004 at 10:33 am
this proposed act is just absurd!
how can you prove you “induced” anyone to do anything? Dave Webb has it right – ban pencils … hell why don’t we just outlaw computers? The internet? Both “induce” people to potentially infringe on copywrite … hell while we’re at it – get rid of vcr’s, dvd players, cdr’s … hell get rid of music players … oh wait that wont work then they can’t try to make money off of us … bloody hypocrites
Sad thing is while this is going to stifle innovation it’s NOT going to stop p2p networks in any of thier forms from continuing on.
September 4th, 2004 at 7:18 pm
Unfortunately, they are hoping that the other countries will follow suit and make p2p illegal there too.
I’m certainly hoping it won’t even work in the US.
September 4th, 2004 at 7:22 pm
They work around this by changing the legal definition of “induce”
to actually mean something that can be demonstrated more easily.
“For the purposes of this subsection, ‘induces’ means to commit one or more affirmative, overt acts that are reasonably expected to cause or persuade another person or persons to commit any infringement under subsection (a) of this section.”
“reasonably expected” eh?
Whose reason is it do you think?
September 5th, 2004 at 9:42 am
ahh but take a look at any of the p2p sites offering software here’s winmx;
“It allows you to connect, download, and share files with MILLIONS of other users through the decentralized WinMX Peer Network … you’ll have access to one of the largest and most diverse networks of shared media files in the world.”
It doesnt say copyrighted material is available on its networks.
In free speech there is a difference between standing up on a soap box and telling people to commit a crime and no one actually going at out and commiting said crime vs those who listen to the person on the soap box and go out and commit a crime. In the first instance the person on the soap box is protected under free speech (no crime commited), in the second instance they can be held liable for the actions of others.
Stretching it a bit with the free speech parabel, but winmx isn’t telling anyone to commit copyright infringement. They offer software that allows the sharing of files of any kind. It’s PEOPLE not software infringing on copyrights.
It’s just like gun makers, automobile manufacturers, etc. Those products can be used to infict harm or not. But neither of those industries have been shut down because they have the potential to inflict harm.
I still think it’s absurd. From what I’ve read the list of technologies that could potentially be killed if Induce was enacted is huge:
email, IM, iPOds, streamripper, XM radio to mp3, etc. You name it if it can make a copy or send it to someone else it can fall under the Induce Act. The thing is, this isn’t really about copyright infringement this is about the big four trying to contain new technology and prevent it from being used. It’s not the first time (betamax being the biggest case but there are other technologies – including, the radio that the music industry has tried to stop and/or make a profit from.)
This is big corporations becoming big brother – freaks me out.
September 14th, 2004 at 7:30 pm
all this will do is drive the computer technology business overseas.
This is one bad law.
They say any kind of home recording technology would not be exempt from scrutiny from the riaa and mpaa gestapo to include:
1. consumer grade cd and minidisc recorders even with the serial copy management system.
2. Any professional grade cd and minidisc decks with a serial copy management free input jack even for use among professional musicians.
3. any type of dat deck
4. any kind of cd copying or ripping program for computer including mp3 and wma computer files.
(even the windows media player could be considered an infringer).
5.Any kind of combination dvd player and vcr combo.
6. any kind of dvd standalone dvd recorder.
7. And of course any kind of dvd copying program that defeats css encoding
(which is already illegal ; ask bob moore of the defunct 321 studios )and computer grade dvd recorders.
September 15th, 2004 at 7:36 pm
Everything you say is true……..
if it is true this truly stupid law is to protect children then what ever happened parents keeping up with their children’s internet activity?
This is a cheap attempt from what is a parent’s responsibility to the goverment being involved in the business of babysitting…….
The concept of secondary responsibilty is a crock of excreta……..
It merely shifts responsibilty from the primary offender to a third party such as a webmaster on a website.
It’s much like trying to sue a porno site because children could get exposed to smut.
It’s a laughable concept.
It’s already been to court and it got thrown out as being unconstituational and even more importantly, not enforcable.
Just like life in america.It’s always somebody’s fault but mine.Any lawyer can tell you that……
It’s just a cheap attempt by the riaa and the mpaa to impose A defacto p2p ban under the guise of children’s issues.
It is just for the riaa’s and mpaa’s benefit.
The entertainment will stoop to any level to get their way.
I don’t have to be a us congressman to see all of this.
Of all of the issues that effect this country today including terrorism why people like orrin hatch wastes his time on frivolous legislation i would not dare to speculate.
Unless he is truly a fucking moron.
People say that orrin hatch has the highest rate of laws that he authored that gets thrown out of court because of those laws being unconstitutional.