KaZaA? Not if Congress has anything to say about it..

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-22 04:50pm

CNET

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."

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-22 04:52pm

Oh look it's Orrin Hatch, the whore of the RIAA

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-06-22 04:52pm

This has gone too fucking far. Paper can be used to violate copyrights of books, we should ban trees now.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-06-22 04:52pm

Where's a convenient lightning strike or meteorite when you need it?

God, Sen. Hatch is pissing me off...

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-06-22 04:52pm

kojikun wrote: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.

When will they start banning guns because "they could be used for unlawful purposes"?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-22 04:53pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote: When will they start banning guns because "they could be used for unlawful purposes"?

They've done that in the past. Thank god that that stupid bill expires
in about 90 days and we can have our AK-47s with evil bayonet lugs
and folding stocks back

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-06-22 04:54pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:When will they start banning guns because "they could be used for unlawful purposes"?

Last time I checked, they've been doing that for a while now. See the Assault Weapons Ban.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-06-22 04:55pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:
kojikun wrote: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.
When will they start banning guns because "they could be used for unlawful purposes"?

Haven't you heard? They've been trying for quite some time, now.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-06-22 04:59pm

Fuck those morons. By their logic cars should be banned because they could be used for unlawful purposes. Or how about pens because you might poke someone's eye out? Or pretzels, because someone could make an attempt on the president's life with one. . .

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-06-22 06:19pm

I guess they haven't heard that everyone's moved on to BitTorrent by now.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2004-06-22 06:53pm

The torrent must flow....THE TORRENT MUST FLOW!!!!!!111111

I just wish there are solutions rather than the mess we are left with now....

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-22 07:38pm

Shame that BitTorrent is inferior to the current P2P systems, ey? BT is more a throwback to the original Napster, minus the single convenient centralized database for locations. Now you have to rely on small operations like SuprNova which can easilly get shut down (tho, that's what the flects are for). There's also the problem of BT not being anonymous.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-22 07:45pm

I'm just curious, but isn't the massive and overwhelming use of filesharing networks simply to break copyright laws?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-06-22 07:48pm

Stormbringer wrote:I'm just curious, but isn't the massive and overwhelming use of filesharing networks simply to break copyright laws?

Yes but that is beside the point... The stuff I download, I eventually buy almost 100% of the time.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-22 07:49pm

Stormbringer wrote:I'm just curious, but isn't the massive and overwhelming use of filesharing networks simply to break copyright laws?

Copyright laws are sketchy on the subject tho. And overall, yes, they can. But the laws exist to prevent harm to a companies temporary monopoly granted because it put effort and money into the product. No such harm has been shown to exist. Hell, CD sales in 2003 were the best ever, and every year since Napster first came out sales have gone up.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-22 08:00pm

kojikun wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:I'm just curious, but isn't the massive and overwhelming use of filesharing networks simply to break copyright laws?
Copyright laws are sketchy on the subject tho. And overall, yes, they can.

Frankly, copying stuff you don't own is breaking them. That much is pretty clear.

And I'm not talking about can, so much as what they are. Because I don't know a single file sharing service that isn't used primarly for copyrighted stuff or porn, or both. So I'd be curious to know how much legitimate use there is for things like Kazaa.

kojikun wrote:But the laws exist to prevent harm to a companies temporary monopoly granted because it put effort and money into the product. No such harm has been shown to exist. Hell, CD sales in 2003 were the best ever, and every year since Napster first came out sales have gone up.

I don't really care if it hurts record sales or not. I'm just curious to know if the file sharing services are really being put to primarly legal purposes as their defenders claim.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-22 08:06pm

Well KaZaA's maker, Sharman, has repeatedly gone to the industries to make it legal, but they got turned down.

Now, I can tell you that I personally do indeed use it to download stuff I otherwise shouldn't be downloading, I won't lie about that. I won't say whether it's LEGAL or not for me to do it, but I generally shouldn't be doing it for certain reasons which you can guess. That said, I support it in full; it's the best tactic to fight the less-than-trustworthy companies and get fun stuff to play with at the same time. And porn is, as always, fun.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-22 08:10pm

Good luck enforcing this, Amerika. Another war to go with the amazingly successful War on Drugs and War on Terror. They must like collecting them.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-22 08:12pm

Nothing against porn at all. Just curious because I don't know of any one that uses the file sharing networks totally for legal purposes.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-22 08:29pm

Stormbringer wrote:I'm just curious, but isn't the massive and overwhelming use of filesharing networks simply to break copyright laws?

Yes, but its funny. Recent studies have proven that such massive breaking of the copyright laws actualy improve sales of almost everything being downloaded. For every 150 downloads of a specific song, 1 more album is sold then normal. The same (though to different rates) applies to movies and software. I heard this while listening to XM Radio.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-22 09:04pm

Studies also showed that it took a couple thousand downloads to reduce sales by a single CD among the most serious downloaders (meaning people that download shitloads of songs all the time). So, either way, the impact is thoroughly insignificant. Even if we pretend that downloads only hurt sales, at 1 cd per thousand songs downloaded, theres only, what, 10 million people in the US at most downloading? And lets say each person is downloading an average of 2 songs at any given moment, so thats 20 million songs, or 20,000 cds. thats about 300,000 dollars. Insignificant in the grand scheme of things, when you consider the number of CDs sold. And then you have to consider that most peope dont download entire albums, so they're not using downloading as a replacement for purchasing CDs but rather as a supplement so they can get individual songs. Tho my arguement there is probably fucked.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-06-22 09:29pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Good luck enforcing this, Amerika. Another war to go with the amazingly successful War on Drugs and War on Terror. They must like collecting them.

I was going to say, "Good luck shutting down Gnutella and Freenet."

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-06-22 10:14pm

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.

Ok, those more knowledgable than I in such things...

Does the friggin' title itself sound like a slippery slope to anyone?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-22 10:16pm

I like the way they make it illegal to "counsel" copyright violations. Why don't they just have a little honesty and repeal the fucking First Amendment entirely?

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2004-06-22 10:47pm

Some examples of non-infringing uses:

OverClocked ReMix has their first 1,000 remixes available for download.

Blizzard is experimenting with BitTorrent downloads as well.

And, of course, some software companies have ftp sites.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

KaZaA? Not if Congress has anything to say about it..

KaZaA? Not if Congress has anything to say about it..

Re: KaZaA? Not if Congress has anything to say about it..

Re: KaZaA? Not if Congress has anything to say about it..

Re: KaZaA? Not if Congress has anything to say about it..

Re: KaZaA? Not if Congress has anything to say about it..