« CBS Investigation Will Look Into Stonewalling |
Main
| Doc Searls on the iPod Platform »
September 24, 2004
Staff Draft of INDUCE 2.0
Posted by Ernest Miller
The Senate will likely be doing a markup of the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 (IICA, née INDUCE Act), next Thursday, September 30th. The draft they will be working off has just been released. It is much closer to the original version of the bill than the version produced by the Copyright Office a couple of weeks ago.
Read the 4-page staff draft of INDUCE 2.0: Staff Draft S. 2560 - Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 [PDF].
The bill is much more narrowly drafted with carve outs for everything that EFF had in their original mock iPod complaint: iPod, the maker of the hard drives and C|Net for reviewing it are also presumably protected (Prelude to a Fake Complaint).
However, the bill retains many of the provisions, including the incredibly vague "reasonable person" standard, as well as other issues.
In any case, this is not the final draft, but only something that will be futher changed at the markup next Thursday and there may be other drafts released between now and then.
More later...
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: INDUCE Act
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 23
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 22
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 21
- › Kitchen Academy - The Hollywood Cookbook and Guest Chef Michael Montilla - March 18th
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 20
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 19
- › Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 18
- › Salsa Verde
Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
1. Hal on September 28, 2004 10:44 PM writes...
What is the difference in this legislation between a file sharing product, if the manufacturer only tells people how to do legal file sharing (i.e. share only files that the end user has the legal right to share, such as files that he personally created); and a product like an MP3 player, where the manufacturer also only tells people how to use the product legally?
They seem to want to go after the first and leave the second alone, but does the current language succeed in that?
Let's suppose it were shown that the great majority of music on iPods was infringing; and suppose it were shown that the great majority of music on a file sharing network was infringing. But neither manufacturer openly claims that their product is for illegal use, and both make the case that it has substantial non-infringing uses. How does this legislation distinguish the cases?
Permalink to Comment2. Alexander Wehr on September 29, 2004 04:22 AM writes...
I have examined the current draft.. i intend to take time out of my midterms to call my congressman, who is on the senate judiciary.
i refer you to section B, clause iii.
"(iii) any copies or phonorecords resulting fromsuch use are not made publicly available."
this clause is the one which places ALL technology which interfaces with the internet under the gun.
Under the narrowest interpretation, this would place everything with a modem under direct legal threat(and regulatory control) of certain hostile interests we all know too well.
Things which come directly to mind:
-ipod
-itrip/transpod type transmitters
-the vcr (tape shows and give away tapes)
-computers (they host servers, have modems)
-ALL internet providers, especially broadband (the internet is used to make available/distribute copies of phonorecords)
-any program capable of being accessed from the web, from ftp's to webhosts.
-itunes(its network sharing is obviously an inducement to piracy)
-all operating systems, they have utilities built in which allow sharing, and serve as a substrait for installed p2p programs.
-bit torrent (who cares if its used to distribute programs and videos of our hearings, it should die because of a particular use)
in other words, this revision places almost all technology, but particularly the entirety of the internet and everything surrounding it, under the gun, and under direct regulatory control of its most vocally sworn enemies.
That sounds like a recipe for innovation to me, doesnt it?
Permalink to Comment