Bill prepared to ban p2p, possibly VCRs

[Grojlach]

Antipiracy bill targets technology

A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes.

The proposal, called the Induce Act, says "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations, a prohibition that would effectively ban file-swapping networks like Kazaa and Morpheus. In the draft bill seen by CNET News.com, inducement is defined as "aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures" and can be punished with civil fines and, in some circumstances, lengthy prison terms.

The bill represents the latest legislative attempt by influential copyright holders to address what they view as the growing threat of peer-to-peer networks rife with pirated music, movies and software. As file-swapping networks grow in popularity, copyright lobbyists are becoming increasingly creative in their legal responses, which include proposals for Justice Department lawsuits against infringers and action at the state level.

Originally, the Induce Act was scheduled to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, but the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed at the end of the day that the bill had been delayed. A representative of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a probable co-sponsor of the legislation, said the Induce Act would be introduced "sometime next week," a delay that one technology lobbyist attributed to opposition to the measure.

Though the Induce Act is not yet public, critics are already attacking it as an unjustified expansion of copyright law that seeks to regulate new technologies out of existence.

"They're trying to make it legally risky to introduce technologies that could be used for copyright infringement," said Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law. "That's why it's worded so broadly."

Litman said that under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights. Web sites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients like the Morpheus software are also at risk for "inducing" infringement, Litman warned.

Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, declined to comment until the proposal was officially introduced.

"It's simple and it's deadly," said Philip Corwin, a lobbyist for Sharman Networks, which distributes the Kazaa client. "If you make a product that has dual uses, infringing and not infringing, and you know there's infringement, you're liable."

The Induce Act stands for "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act," a reference to Capitol Hill's frequently stated concern that file-trading networks are a source of unlawful pornography. Hatch is a conservative Mormon who has denounced pornography in the past and who suggested last year that copyright holders should be allowed to remotely destroy the computers of music pirates.

Foes of the Induce Act said that it would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case, often referred to as the "Betamax" lawsuit. In that 5-4 opinion, the majority said VCRs were legal to sell because they were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." But the majority stressed that Congress had the power to enact a law that would lead to a different outcome.

"At a minimum (the Induce Act) invites a re-examination of Betamax," said Jeff Joseph, vice president for communications at the Consumer Electronics Association. "It's designed to have this fuzzy feel around protecting children from pornography, but it's pretty clearly a backdoor way to eliminate and make illegal peer-to-peer services. Our concern is that you're attacking the technology."

News.com

Full text of the bill:
http://scrawford.net/courses/INDUCE%...0of%202004.pdf

[ 06-20-2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[philip]

The only thing you could say to ban p2p networks and in defense of video recordes is that the scale at which p2p networks are exchanging music and thus screwing up artists is a lot (well a really awful lot) than the loss of money on films. And of course everything copied with VCR just isn't as good quality as the original ones. I've yet to hear the first film maker/company complein about VCRs whereas a lot of bands do have trouble with copied music and p2p networks.

There are like countless of possibilities to make p2p networks not needed anymore, cause some people seem to like false arguments as sales getting higher because of it. All those options have the disadvantage (in many peoples opinion) that people need to pay for what they listen.

And well if the technology shouldn't be attacked becasue of what it's used for most of the time, it's time to change the technology so that this doesn't happen anymore.

I wouldn't mind having p2p-networks away but banning the VCR at the same time is just overdoing it.

[promethius9594]

well, if we didnt pay sickening amounts of money to a bunch of predominantly uneducated and mostly untalented nits, then i could see "sticking it to em" by downloading as harsh.

while i dont download music, i dont disagree with it either. so what if brittney spears can't afford to buy a second private jet. and i dont care if metalica wants another set of gold plated toilets... what they take and waste is disgusting.

[philip]

I'm not saying it's bad that stuff you mentioned gets downloaded. If they can't make anything original and good sounding and can't hit a single note correct live, they're obviously in the wrong business. However I don't download that stuff (I don't buy it either), if something's worth listening too I often listen it a lot and if I look at the price I've paid per hour listeningin say a month it's like already getting really small.

The good thing of the a big organisation like the RIAA moving in is that they can probably accomplish more than a few local bands who do have trouble with downloading. I know enough bands (even more known bands over here) that have to work besides being a musician to survive. And then I think every CD is one and helps them.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I personally disagree with anti-P2P legislation for a number of reasons. First of all, if I want to share a file or copy a file from someone else - and we are both willing to share those files - then that should be allowed (IMO, of course). Secondly, I'm not worried about the legislation outlawing VCR's - but I'm extremely worried about it outlawing PC's!!!! CDRW drives are standard equipment on ALL PC's being manufactured today. That - coupled with the availability of P2P software - makes your basic home computer FAR more likely to be targeted as a "dual use" device that has the potential for copyright infringement.

I personally think the impact of P2P sharing is blown greatly out of proportion by the RIAA and others. I admit I could be wrong because I base this on personal experience. I've downloaded many music files in order to make "compilation" CD's. The files include songs by various artists (and sometimes specific artists to create a "Best Of" type album) and it also includes different genres of music.

The plain fact is that I would have spent around $200 or more to get these songs off the original CD's because there were usually only 1 or 2 songs on a specific CD that I wanted or liked. And that is another thing that P2P could accomplish. It could force artists to start producing better quality music and including a larger number of good tracks on a CD rather than putting the one or two tracks they expect to make it as singles and then just putting "filler songs" on the rest of the CD.

Sadly for me - but happily for the supporters of P2P regulation - I lost ALL of my files when I had a new HD put into my machine. So I no longer have the files nor do I have the software to obtain them. Because of all the spyware associated with ALL of the P2P software (even KaZaa Light), I am seriously considering NOT downloading ANY of the P2P programs.

Of course, I downloaded more than just music files. I also downloaded several music videos (especially from the 80's) because I never got to watch MTV very much growing up (our local cable system didn't carry it). So I really enjoyed watching some of those videos I never got a chance to watch when they were new or "hot".

I'll have to abide by whatever decision is reached, but I'll never agree that anti-P2P is a good thing - because I believe it violates the privacy of each of us as individuals, but again, that's just my opinion. YMMV.

[philip]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I personally disagree with anti-P2P legislation for a number of reasons. First of all, if I want to share a file or copy a file from someone else - and we are both willing to share those files - then that should be allowed (IMO, of course). Secondly, I'm not worried about the legislation outlawing VCR's - but I'm extremely worried about it outlawing PC's!!!! CDRW drives are standard equipment on ALL PC's being manufactured today. That - coupled with the availability of P2P software - makes your basic home computer FAR more likely to be targeted as a "dual use" device that has the potential for copyright infringement.

You could as well share those files on a site or via messenger if you know each other. And if you compare the files someone wants to share to the copyrighted files that are shared there for free without the author allowing it is small.

But just as VCR it's too much to also make computers illegal. But just the p2p networks helps in any case.

I personally think the impact of P2P sharing is blown greatly out of proportion by the RIAA and others. I admit I could be wrong because I base this on personal experience. I've downloaded many music files in order to make "compilation" CD's. The files include songs by various artists (and sometimes specific artists to create a "Best Of" type album) and it also includes different genres of music.

Well I don't know if you have kazaa or another p2p-network but you can often see how many users are online. If there are 3 million users online (tested myself with my brother's kazaa)

The plain fact is that I would have spent around $200 or more to get these songs off the original CD's because there were usually only 1 or 2 songs on a specific CD that I wanted or liked. And that is another thing that P2P could accomplish. It could force artists to start producing better quality music and including a larger number of good tracks on a CD rather than putting the one or two tracks they expect to make it as singles and then just putting "filler songs" on the rest of the CD.

There are other ways to get those tracks. There are online services from which you can download mp3s for money. Does quality songs equal songs you like? Cause that would be the wrong way around. Instead of the artist choosing what he wants to make you choose :/ (of course in some genres this won't go up cause it's the record company writing and overproducing everything. But I stay away from those [img]smile.gif[/img] )

Sadly for me - but happily for the supporters of P2P regulation - I lost ALL of my files when I had a new HD put into my machine. So I no longer have the files nor do I have the software to obtain them. Because of all the spyware associated with ALL of the P2P software (even KaZaa Light), I am seriously considering NOT downloading ANY of the P2P programs.

There are clients that don't have spyware. My brother's kazaa even links to spybot and adawar IIRC. Also I can't disble it anymore by scanning with a lot of different programs. But these programs are hacked versions and thus illegal already.

Of course, I downloaded more than just music files. I also downloaded several music videos (especially from the 80's) because I never got to watch MTV very much growing up (our local cable system didn't carry it). So I really enjoyed watching some of those videos I never got a chance to watch when they were new or "hot".

I don't know if there are any rules for that but that doesn't seem like a bad thing. Artists aren't selling those clips anyway and they're just for promotion. I don't know for old clips but a lot of the new ones can be found on the internet as well. In my case it takes a lot of searching but that's mainly to blame to what music I listen to.

I'll have to abide by whatever decision is reached, but I'll never agree that anti-P2P is a good thing - because I believe it violates the privacy of each of us as individuals, but again, that's just my opinion. YMMV.

I might have totally missed that in what you wrote above but how exactly does anti-p2p violates our privacy?

edit - of course I'm against banning VCRs cd/dvd burners or computers at all

[ 06-21-2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: philip ]

[Morgeruat]

There are clients that don't have spyware. My brother's kazaa even links to spybot and adawar IIRC. Also I can't disble it anymore by scanning with a lot of different programs. But these programs are hacked versions and thus illegal already.

The problem with this is that if you run Spybot or Adaware and remove the spyware, Kazaa, Morpheus, or whatever program you're using stops working (in most cases, I have an older copy of Kazaa that didn't freak when I zapped the spyware)

quote: Of course, I downloaded more than just music files. I also downloaded several music videos (especially from the 80's) because I never got to watch MTV very much growing up (our local cable system didn't carry it). So I really enjoyed watching some of those videos I never got a chance to watch when they were new or "hot".

I don't know if there are any rules for that but that doesn't seem like a bad thing. Artists aren't selling those clips anyway and they're just for promotion. I don't know for old clips but a lot of the new ones can be found on the internet as well. In my case it takes a lot of searching but that's mainly to blame to what music I listen to.[/QUOTE]That's the point; many of these songs (and the vast majority of what I've downloaded in the past) is nearly impossible to obtain, especially the older music videos. In my experience, I've purchased very few CD's recently, (in the past 3 years) and the ones I have purchased have been ones I've listened to at least part of the album, if I don't find several songs (not just one or two singles) that I like, then I don't waste my money, or time, and I have found some really great bands through file sharing, like Reliant K "Christian Punk", very interesting stuff.

[Timber Loftis]

inducement is defined as "aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures"

Congress makes this definition mistake all the time. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

We will see articles like this every congressional session until one passes. Congress will revive the bill to combat piracy in one form or another every year.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by philip: I might have totally missed that in what you wrote above but how exactly does anti-p2p violates our privacy? edit - of course I'm against banning VCRs cd/dvd burners or computers at all

There isn't anything to support the position that it's a violation of our privacy. That is just my own personal opinion.

Morguerat hit on another reason I like P2P. A LOT of the music I download are very OLD clips. I like 80's music and a lot of it - especially the One-Hit-Wonders, are extremely difficult to find. I DO support this with my own money as I have almost 20 different cassettes or CD's featuring compilations of 80's music. The problem I've run in to is that - eventually - I'm just finding more copies of songs I already have on another cassette or CD. And some artists - such as Prince and Madonna - apparantly have not given permission for their songs to be used on these various 80's compilations (although Prince [b]did[/i] speak out in support of P2P software when Napster was being attacked.

The other thing I like to dowload are music videos. This is another argument against legislating against P2P, because even P2P is a "dual purpose" vehicle - since music videos are NOT copyright material (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

As for the argument about it being used to swap child pornography - I wouldn't be surprised if it happens, but I can honostly say I have never seen any child porno clips in any searches done using Morpheus, KaZaa and WinMX. Not that I was actively looking for it, but I DID learn to be very careful about which song titles I typed in, because the Search just focuses on the KEYWORD, and I often got a LOT of unexpected results to Searches I conducted looking for songs. [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] I finally got to the point that I just Searched by Artist instead of title (when I knew the artist). That kept most of my result relevant to what I was actually looking for.

[Timber Loftis]

Music videos are copyrighted.