Save Betamax
The good folks at Downhill Battle have organized a call-in campaign re the Induce Act. Check it out here.
| Permalink | technorati
« Gilmore v. Ashcroft | Main | The Wired CD »
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1427
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Save Betamax:
» 二十二歳を機に from 「ガッコの先生」BLOG:なっちぃにスキに言わせて(((((
■:::::))))).....)))))ブログ王ランキング〜今日の順位(((((.....(((((:::::■
Blogarama
今日は何位でしょう////////////
何位でしょう:::::::::::
九月二十二日で私は二十二歳になります。
来... [Read More]
» a curve ball from yodogawa
it is a dizzy Sunday. I took a nap for a... [Read More]
Comments (12)
Larry -
Can you say more about what you find troubling about the Copyright Office's version of the Induce Act? As I read it, their proposal is incredibly balanced and represents the exact kind of thoughtful law-making you and I favor. The remedies section is the heart of the accomplishment, in that the statute as proposed would almost never result in cash damages and would instruct courts to carefully tailor any injunctive relief so as to preserve possible non-infringing uses.
I understand that this is not the strong, blanket immunity that you and others think Sony stands for. But as Stacey Dogan has pointed out, even Sony emphasizes the need to *balance* copyright concerns with the needs of new technologies and industries. Does not the Copyright Office proposal rise up to that challenge?
It seems a shame to respond to this attempt at thoughtful legislation with an analysis-free call-in campaign. At a minimum, arm your callers with some substance about what a better compromise would look like. Because from where I sit, it looks like the Copyright Office did a great job.
Their proposal is here: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/S2560.pdf
APOLOGIES.
The link was dead when I tried it; I now see that you do point us to a bunch of information about why one might oppose the Copyright Office proposal.
My error. Sincere apologies.
Ok - I am now having a full conversation with myself; how I miss the days of face-to-face discussions! That said:
I just followed all the links on that page, and it can't be that you agree with their analysis. For one thing, almost none of it addresses the actual Copyright Office proposal. The link to Ernie Miller, for instance, goes to town on an old version, which the Copyright Office rightly revised. For another, much of the rest is just plain wrong. The inflamatory stuff about iPods, for example; no way iPods are illegal under the new statute, given that iPods have very real commercial viability for perfectly legitimate uses.
So I guess I am back where I was at the start: can you explain why you are opposed to the new compromise draft? It is not the full immunity of Grokster, but it seems to be a genuine, thoughtful, balanced attempt to show a little respect for copyright law while still offering flexibility for innovation. Is full immunity really the only acceptable outcome in your view?
To Doug Lichtman,
It may be a comfort to see that the new proposal
is more balanced than the original proposal.
However, the history of Congress indicates
that what is balanced at one time can be tilted
toward the interests of authors, artists and
copyright holders and away from the interests
of users in the future. Just look at how
enthusiastic Marybeth Peters is to get the bill into
law. Keep in mind that she strongly supported
copyright term extension.
In other words, I don't trust Congress.
It is the plan of Senator Hatch to get anything,
even if it is well balanced, to become a law to
add the another layer of infringement. Once it
is written into a law, there is no more turning
point and in the future, Congress will say, "Induce
law is not enough and we need to strengthen it more".
The best prevention to such abuse of the law is
not to let it become law at the first place.
Authors and artists have enough legal tools to
punish the infringers. We should not give them
any more weapons and we should not let them
rule our lives.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
Lawrence Lessig,
I started reading your blog when Richard Posner was guest blogging, so I am new and unaware of all the IP latest. Would the Induce Act really ban mp3 players, DVD-RWs, etc?
While they're at it, they should really rename Carbolic Smoke Ball...
no way iPods are illegal under the new statute, given that iPods have very real commercial viability for perfectly legitimate uses.
OK, so the iPod is permitted under (1)(A). What about (B) and (C)?
Interesting that the Office's accompanying memo stated that iPods are not covered by the draft, but for a different reason -- the distinction between copying and dissemination. "Liability, if any, for conduct related to such personal reproduction technology remains the province of existing copyright law, and is not affected in any way by this new form of liability."
I find deeply troubling the lack of any means to determine what "predominant" means. A binary test of revenue (infringing dissemination-causing revenue, vs. other revenue) is one thing, but it will have to be weighted. What if most users are acting unlawfully, but most uses, bandwidth, or ad revenue, occurs as part of legitimate sharing? Is the product or service spared or banned?
I have a nutty question about Induce. Please, please, please answer it.
How will it affect the Recording Companies' ability to create and use copy technology?
Won't they also have to obey the law. If the technology to burn CD's becomes illegal for me, won't it be illegal for each and every one of the record companies as well? Do they get an exemption?
To Jarinero1,
Because the recording companies are themselves
the copyright holders, they can use any available
copy technology to sell the copies of their
copyrighted works. It is the manufacturers that
are at the risk. If a manufacturer does not
honor the wishes of the recording companies
(for example, making a device that refuses
to recognize the copy protection in the CD's),
we can expect that the manufacturer will be sued.
If there is an analogy to describe the relationship,
the recording companies want to be like king that
can subject the manufacturers to his wishes.
Else, the king can order the manufacturer to be
executed.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
Joseph Pietro Riolo,
Thanks, but I am still confused. What if I am an inventor/manufacturer of copy technology as well as an owner of copyrighted works like Sony; where does that put me. Can another company, say Microsoft, tell Sony not to use or develop such technology because it can be used to circumvent Microsofts copyrights. Can Sony tell Microsoft not to invent or use any technology which they may use to reproduce their own stuff. Help me with this? It looks like this is as big a quagmire for copyright holders as it is for copy technology makers since they are often the same entity.
To Jardinero1:
Very good point.
The scenario that you described could happen. This
reminds me of the old saying, "Be careful what you
wish for".
What could probably happen is that Sony and Microsoft
will work together to develop copy technology that is
satisfactory to both of them. But then, they will be
in a catch-22. Who will buy their products if their
copy technology is too restrictive?
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
Joseph,
"What could probably happen is that Sony and Microsoft
will work together to develop copy technology that is
satisfactory to both of them."--I am thinking now we could get into anti-trust issues.
The more I think about INDUCE, the more I can hardly wait for it to pass. It seems like such crappy law, I think the best strategy for the anti-INDUCE crowd would be to push hard for an even more restrictive INDUCE act, get it to pass and then watch the sparks fly.
This strategy is not without precedent. In the sixties, certain southern Congressmen made Civil Rights legislation even more progressive in the hopes that it would not pass. The strategy backfired on them, obviously. A super restrictive INDUCE act would certainly cause enormous friction between the big media companies and be doomed to failure in the courts.