[DMCA-Activists] Jardin: Induce Act Draws Support, Venom

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: pho: XJ:Induce Act Draws Support, Venom
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:37:57 -0700
From: John Parres <address@hidden>
To: pho <address@hidden>

Induce Act Draws Support, Venom 
By Xeni Jardin

Story location:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64723,00.html

02:00 AM Aug. 26, 2004 PT

Until recently, much of the discussion among tech enthusiasts
about a controversial anti-piracy bill known as the Induce Act
has focused on the proposed law's improbability.

Put forth by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy
(D-Vermont), the bill has been ridiculed by techies as so poorly
written that it could unintentionally ban an infinite range of
everyday tools -- iPods, DVD burners, even paper and pencil.

But since its introduction, nine co-sponsors have signed on, both
Democrats and Republicans.

And significantly, that list of co-sponsors now includes two of
Congress' most influential members: Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist (R-Tennessee) and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle
(D-South Dakota).

Also known as the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act
(SB2560), the bill would punish tech companies and consumer
electronics makers who develop tools that could "induce" or
encourage users to make unauthorized copies of copyright material
such as music, movies or software.

With the present congressional session due to end in October,
time for debate is running out. The coming two weeks may be the
last chance for both proponents and opponents of the bill to make
their voices heard.

Last week's appeals court decision that determined P2P services
Grokster and Morpheus were not against the law has sparked a new
round of attention for the Induce Act.

In an apparent reaction to widespread criticism of the current
draft of the bill, Hatch solicited help in drawing up alternative
language. A number of groups have responded: One coalition
proposed a counterpoint "Don't Induce Act," and a wide array of
technology and free-speech advocates have developed others.

Entertainment industry organizations which back the bill in its
present form, including the Recording Industry Association of
America and the Motion Picture Association of America, have not
submitted alternate proposals.

"There's no way this is passing in its current form -- it can't
go anywhere if you have everyone but content industries against
it," said Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn, whose group was
among those who released alternatives to Induce this week.

"Don't punish technology," said Sohn. "If the intent is to get at
bad actors who know their tools are used for copyright
infringement and promote it for that purpose, with that as their
business model -- the act must be written accordingly."

During Senate hearings over the Induce Act in July, the U.S.
Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters -- an Induce supporter --
said she believed new legislation should modernize the precedent
set in a 1984 Supreme Court decision addressing the legality of
the Sony Betamax. The court ruling, which protected technologies
"capable of non-infringing uses," should be "replaced by a more
flexible rule that is more meaningful in the technological age,"
Peters said.

Four of the Induce Act's co-sponsors have assigned Peters
responsibility for collecting criticism and comments for a new
consensus draft. She is to prepare her recommendations by Sept.
7.

"The idea of overturning the landmark Sony case upsets a lot of
people," said Sohn. "That ruling is a Magna Carta for a wide
range of companies and consumer groups -- it's a guiding
principle behind a great deal of technology development in the
past 20 years."

Tech lobbyist Philip Corwin, who represents Kazaa distributor
Sharman Networks, believes opponents have a good chance of
beating Induce in its current form, but that the outcome is
anything but certain.

"Sen. Hatch has made it clear that he intends to report a bill
from the Judiciary Committee in September," said Corwin. "So
opponents have to take this seriously and oppose it vigorously."

Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Fred von Lohmann,
who successfully argued the MGM v. Grokster case on behalf of
Grokster and StreamCast, describes the alternate versions put
forth this week as an effort to "smoke out" the entertainment
industry.

"The act's proponents have emphasized that they only want to
target 'rogue' P2P companies while leaving the Sony Betamax
decision intact, so the technology associations have drafted a
bill that takes them at their word," said von Lohmann. "Of
course, the RIAA and MPAA will predictably complain that the
language is too narrow, which will then beg the question -- who
else did they want to target with this legislation? How many
legitimate technology companies do they want swept up in the web
of legal uncertainty created by this bill?"

"There is no implication here that the passage of a bill is
inevitable," said von Lohmann. "This is intended to force the
RIAA/MPAA to tip their hand, to show just how radical a change to
copyright they are really after. Once that is accomplished, I
imagine any congressional eagerness to pass a measure will wane."

Others are less optimistic, including Adam Eisgrau of
file-sharing industry group P2P United.

"Powerful political forces under pressure can, and often have,
produced very bad law," said Eisgrau. "There's no doubt that the
combined muscle of the recording and movie industries could well
move a cosmetically changed, but innovation-chilling, version out
of the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the Senate floor with
the help of the bill's influential co-sponsors.

"With the end of this Congress approaching, anything can happen
-- and often does," he said.

End of story

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Pho mailing list.
Help? http://www.pholist.org/help.php