Induce Act 2
p2pnet.net News:- Now there’s another draft of the Induce Act floating around. This one is trying to keep the iPod, TiVO and others out of harm’s way. The approach is commendable and not bad at first look. But who are they going after? Better yet, who are they trying to go after?
I posed this question before but this time I’ll justify it.
When I was younger I dabbled in music and tried Disk Jockeying. I sucked, but it taught me to appreciate all the different sounds you hear in a song.
At that time, a new thing came out called a "sampler" or Rhythm Box, as we used to call it.
What it did was simple: while mixing songs using turntables, you could use the sampler to bridge the gap between two songs. It sampled the previous song, without the voices, and gave you the time flip thru your album box or cover-up your terrible attempt at mixing.
Now lets’ test drive the "new and improved" Induce Act on this "dissemination technology"*. (The key word is "overt acts" which is extensively defined in the Induce Act.)
Now, inducing infringement is:
Section 2 sub section (2), (A): distributing technology which automatically infringe on copyrighted works without the user making a specific, informed decision, for each copyrighted work at issue.
While I’m mixing, I’m not going to stop and read the fine print on every song. If I had to read it, I wouldn’t want to buy the record nor play it in the club.
Section 2 sub section (2), (B): actively interfering with copyright holders’ efforts to detect infringing uses…
I’d love to see them try and put DRM on vinyl for the sampler not to work.
Section 2 sub section (2), (C): offering an incentive to users…
As a DJ, the only thing that would keep me going is people on the dance floor. But in this case poeple would be liable as infringers.
Section 2 sub section (2), (D): failing to take reasonably available corrective measures.
This would give a whole new meaning to the job description of "Bouncers" at a club.
Section 2 sub section (2), (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.
So let’s just close the club altogether.
But before we do that, let’s see who they caught:
The DJ, The Bouncers, The Club-owner and everybody on the dance floor.
* "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.
Raymond Blijd - fk2w
September 7th, 2004 at 4:40 am
I couldn’t agree more!!!!!!!!!!!
September 7th, 2004 at 4:52 pm
So basically they’re ADMITTING they have no interest whatsoever in making a decent law. Rather, they’re just trying to slap one together with elmer’s glue in 24 hours *just* so they can put specific rival companies that the big bad entertainment industry doesn’t like out of business?
God damn, can we sue Congress under Anti-trust and anti-competition laws?
September 7th, 2004 at 9:17 pm
Don’t know what club you worked for, but in the late eighties and early nineties I worked more than 25 clubs between Chicago and Milwaukee. Every single club had an ASCAP and BMI license that covered the music I turned (yes this would include samples and beats whether done by the original artists or not.)
When we did tie-ins with radio broadcasters over stereo phone lines, we were redundantly protected by BOTH parties licenses.
If you were spinning unlicensed parties, open to the public, charging fees or not (not merely family gatherings like weddings, house parties, etc.) I can see your point.
But, as a professional DJ, it’s YOUR job to make sure the proper licensure is in place before you spin to a public audience.