Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004
Grok Headline matches for Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004
"Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act
of 2004"
"Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act
of 2004"
06/25/2004 02:02 AMthe INDUCE Act .. bill
lessig.org/blog/archives/COE04694_LC.pdf
track
this site | 4 links
Update on "Inducing Infringement of
Copyrights Act of 2004"
Update on "Inducing Infringement of
Copyrights Act of 2004"
06/24/2004 09:33 PMDan Gillmor
Congress Goes After Peer to Peer
UPDATED
I hadn't been taking some proposed new copyright legislation very
seriously, mainly because it's logically absurd on its face. But the
"Inducing
Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004" (PDF) seems to be moving
so quickly that we have to pay attention now.
It's
basically a bill that can make the creation of technology that could
possibly be used for "piracy" illegal. More on Dan's blog. Please take
a look. It's quite absurd and dangerous. If it's moving quickly, I
think we need to mobilize against it as soon as possible. Japan always
gets hand-me-downs of ugly US bills so please stop it!
UPDATE - a scenario of what would be illegal:
Boing Boing
Here's EFF's
hypothetical complaint against Apple (for making the iPod) C|Net
(for reviewing the iPod), and Toshiba (for supplying hard drives for
iPods).
Are TV Networks Inducing Infringement?
Are TV Networks Inducing Infringement?
07/28/2004 04:53 PMErnest Miller writes
"Techdirt has already noted the copyr
ight controversy over JibJab's version of "This Land is
Your Land." Some say the flash animation is protected
parody, others infringing
satire. Now the Home Recording
Rights Coalition points out that when the television news
broadcasters promoted the humorous animation, they were likely inducing
copyright infringement. This would make the television
broadcasters potentially liable for millions of infringing downloads
under the INDUCE
Act, which Techdirt has mention
ed a few
times previou
sly. Bonus: The HRCC's press release mentions
Techdirt."
Inducing stuttering
Inducing stuttering
03/15/2003 09:40 AM Stuttering In 1937, Professor Wendell
Johnson, a stutterer, designed an experiment to induce stuttering in a
group of normal youngsters. Things didn't quite work out as planned.
An interesting longish read from the NY Times magazine.
Gadgetgasm-inducing new products from
Sony
Gadgetgasm-inducing new products from
Sony
11/05/2003 03:35 PMSony announces 2005 launch of an all-in-one handheld gaming device:
digital music player, video player, mobile phone. An iPod rival is
also in the works for 2005 release, with a projected street price of
as low as $60 US.
Link,
pic via
Gizmodo,
Sony PDF presentation which includes
detailed specs. (
via unwired)
Panic inducing airline emergency
information card
Panic inducing airline emergency
information card
09/15/2004 06:58 PM
Mark Frauenfelder:
Paul sez:
"Handy advice (from one of those airline folders in the back of the
seat) on what to do if your Tajik Air flight is hijacked. Apparently,
it has a great deal to do with fondling space aliens, mutant airplane
doors that eat people, but definitely not drinking. I'm guessing from
the pictures. Last few lines of each section are in English. Sort of.
Do not express you angry, do not wipe in voice, our cough. Close
your eyes and do not stir them. "
Link
Copyrights in the Blogosphere
Copyrights in the Blogosphere
01/06/2005 03:17 PMTerry Heaton raises an important issue: Many of us tend to be, um, lax
about copying copyrighted material onto our own servers so that we can
make it more broadly available. At some point, we're going to get
sued. Just in case you were looking for something else to worry
about......
In A World Without Copyrights
In A World Without Copyrights
12/04/2003 02:25 PMNothing particularly new, but a nice summation of why
our
current copyright laws are obsolete. Basically, they were
designed to prevent copying in the age of the printing press, and
technology has changed drastically since that time. Trying to wedge
current digital intellectual property issues into obsolete copyright
laws is just part of the reason why we've been having so many problems
lately. The article suggests that their must be a better way, and
talks about using ideas like copyleft or the Creative Commons to
rewrite copyright law to bring it up to date.
Pre-Emptive Strikes Copyrights
Pre-Emptive Strikes Copyrights
03/19/2003 10:27 PMMichael O'Connor Clarke just mailed me to say that a
fellow Toronto blogger of his intends (but not really) to sue
the US Government over their mis-appropriation of the name they're
giving to Gulf War II, The Vengeance, to be known forthwith as
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
He casually
coined the term in an earlier blog entry, thinking nothing of it. Now
it turns out that this may indeed be the chosen 'nom de guerre' for
Dubya's illegal and unjust pre-emptive military
campaign.
Any bets on what Gulf War III, when Jeb
Bush goes back to honour his brother and father, will be
affectionately known as?
Actually, I wonder if a bunch of
high google ranking anti-war bloggers 'hi-jacked' the name for the
operation, if that would constitute negative, unpatriotic behaviour?
Does the US Miltary control the web? No. Isn't it ironic that they
invented it in the first place? Yes. I'm not suggesting that we all
blog negative stuff about Operation Iraqi Freedom, perish the thought,
but wouldn't it be interesting if the top 100 searches returned by
Google were pointers to negative coverage? I'm sure we'll see....
Flexible Copyrights Hop the Pond
Flexible Copyrights Hop the Pond
04/18/2005 04:53 AMThe BBC and other media groups unveil new Creative Commons-inspired
licenses that will allow the public to use footage from the archives
as raw material for new creative works. By Katie Dean.
Copyrights on Contributed Content
Copyrights on Contributed Content
01/04/2005 11:04 AMSimple question with a can-o-worms for an answer.
McBride's New Open Letter on Copyrights
McBride's New Open Letter on Copyrights
12/05/2003 12:59 AMdtfinch writes "An open letter was posted today by Darl McBride, where
he restates his claim that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution,
patent laws, ...
Microsoft to sue Mike Rowe for
Copyrights
Microsoft to sue Mike Rowe for
Copyrights
01/19/2004 09:34 AMNovell Registers Unix Copyrights
Novell Registers Unix Copyrights
12/23/2003 12:25 AMNew York Times Dec 22 2003 11:15PM ET
TiVo to lead fight on copyrights
TiVo to lead fight on copyrights
07/22/2004 08:12 PMDirect and Related Links for 'TiVo to
lead fight on copyrights'
(Requires free registration to read the linked article) Hollywood
studios and the National Football League are freaking out about
TiVo’s plan for expanding it’s service so that users could
watch copies of shows and movies on other devices outside of their
homes. The filings made against TiVo state that this technology will
violate the copyrights of TV shows that broadcasters air in their
digital form. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I…
Labels win ruling on longer copyrights
Labels win ruling on longer copyrights
04/06/2005 12:21 PMBlog: A New York State Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that
protects record companies' copyrights– at least in that state –...
TiVo Battles Hollywood Over Copyrights
TiVo Battles Hollywood Over Copyrights
07/23/2004 01:08 AMAP via Los Angeles Times Jul 23 2004 5:20AM GMT
TiVo Battles Hollywood Over Copyrights
(AP)
TiVo Battles Hollywood Over Copyrights
(AP)
07/22/2004 10:05 PMAP - A plan by TiVo Inc. to let its users transfer recorded TV shows
to other devices is running into opposition from Hollywood studios and
the National Football League, which fear their copyrighted content
could get loose on the Internet.
Red Cross wants all its volunteers'
copyrights and patents
Red Cross wants all its volunteers'
copyrights and patents
06/17/2005 03:34 PMCory Doctorow:
Every volunteer for the American Red Cross is
requ
ired to sign on to an agreement that covers things like proper
conduct, confidentiality, and includes a requirement for all
volunteers to sign over all copyright/trademark/patent rights in any
work-related writing, art and inventions come up with during their
term, and for a full year afterward. Why the hell does the Red Cross
need to own the copyrights in the work-related blog postings you make
for a year after you stop spending your free evenings handing out
cookies to blood-donors? If you write a novel and include some
real-life details gleaned from volunteering in a disaster-relief
efforts, does the Red Cross really deserve to take all rights to it?
Disclosure and Ownership of Intellectual Property. I (i) shall
promptly and fully disclose to Red Cross any and all Intellectual
Property, (ii) agree that all Intellectual Property shall be
owned by Red Cross, (iii) agree to and do hereby assign, transfer
and convey to Red Cross the entire right, title and interest in
and to all Intellectual Property, (iv) will execute and deliver
any and all documents, take all actions and render any and all
assistance reasonably requested by Red Cross, during or at any
time after Volunteer Service, to establish Red Cross’ ownership
of, or to enable Red Cross to obtain patents to or register
copyrights of, any Intellectual Property, and (v) acknowledge
that all Intellectual Property that is copyrightable subject
matter and that qualifies as a "work made for hire" shall be
automatically owned by Red Cross. In the event Red Cross is
unable for any reason whatsoever to secure my signature to any
document required to apply for or execute any patent, copyright,
or other applications with respect to Intellectual Property, I
hereby irrevocably appoint Red Cross and its authorized officers
and agents as my agents and attorneys-in-fact to execute and file
any such application and to do all other acts to further the
prosecution and issuance of patents, copyrights, or other rights
with respect to Intellectual Property with the same legal force
and effect as if executed by me. As a reminder, Intellectual
Property shall only include intellectual property created by me
(y) in the course of Volunteer Service or using Red Cross time,
equipment, information or materials, and (z) within one (1) year
after termination of Volunteer Service and relating directly to
work done during Volunteer Service.
80K PDF Link
(
Thanks, Bruce!)
Nortel sues Arbinet over copyrights
Nortel sues Arbinet over copyrights
07/20/2004 04:15 PMNortel Networks Corp. has sued a client, Arbinet-thexchange Inc.,
alleging copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets
through the unauthorized use of Nortel Networks proprietary software,
Nortel announced Tuesday.
China launches Web site on copyrights,
patents
China launches Web site on copyrights,
patents
02/11/2004 12:10 PMSiliconValley.com Feb 11 2004 2:34PM GMT
Congressional Budget Office Studies
Copyrights
Congressional Budget Office Studies
Copyrights
08/11/2004 06:51 PMcontinuing congressional confusion on
copyrights (ie, not just (c), or (cc),
or even (ccc) but (cccc))
continuing congressional confusion on
copyrights (ie, not just (c), or (cc),
or even (ccc) but (cccc))
07/07/2004 02:51 PMWord has it that the regulators in Washington are enamored of
Professor (in the School of Computing) Hollaar's recent paper,
So
ny Revisited, and that it is in part responsible for Congress'
current infatuation with the
Induce
Act. Professor Hollaar is a smart guy, and his paper is an
interesting and well-researched examination of secondary liability in
the context of copyright law. But if Congress thinks this justifies
the Induce Act, then there is some deep confusion somewhere. I suspect
there are two possible sources for this confusion.
(1) Hollaar discusses the scope of "inducement" liability in the
context of patent law. There are some in Congress who seem to think
that the Induce Act "merely" carries the same idea to copyright law.
This is just a mistake. The scope of the Induce Act as written is far
broader than the scope of inducing patent infringement as interpreted.
And if "all" Congress wants to do is extend patent inducement to
copyright law, then it should amendment the Induce Act to state
precisely that. That would be a vast improvement over the existing
proposal -- not enough to justify it in my mind, but it would make the
harm it will cause much much less significant.
(2) Hollaar discusses the purpose and meaning of the
Sony case. While his discussion is technically
correct enough (though the idea that copyright is the right to protect
a "business model" is really not right at all), imho, the Professor,
and in turn, the supporters of the Induce Act, are really missing the
point of Sony.
As everybody knows, Sony set the rule that when a new technology has
the "potential" to support "substantial noninfringing use" of
copyrighted material, the maker of the technology would not face
secondary liability for copyright infringement.
But what no one (in Washington, at least) seems to understand is
why Sony set that standard. It was not because the Supreme
Court is filled with copyright infringers who wanted to encourage
copyright infringement. It was instead because the Supreme Court was
filled with judges not eager to engage in the complex balancing
required to judge whether a technology creates more benefit than harm.
As the Court stated:
Sound policy, as well as history,
supports our consistent deference to Congress when major technological
innovations alter the market for copyrighted materials. Congress has
the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to
accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that
are inevitably implicated by such new technology.
This is not an opinion about copyright law alone. It is an opinion
about separation of powers -- about which branch is best able to do
the necessary balancing that copyright law demands, "
within the
limits of the constitutional grant." Sony says, in effect, when a
technology is not simply a technology for violating the law, then it
is left to Congress to decide whether and how that technology is to be
regulated. Congress, not the courts.
Why is that a great idea? Because (isn't this obvious to Republicans?)
courts are awful, expensive, and slow institutions for judging
the economic effect of new technology. Soviet planners with better
lighting. And rather than bury innovators in years of litigation
before their innovation gets to market, the Sony rule says: let the
innovation go, if there is a potential for a substantial noninfringing
use, and if Congress wants to regulate it more, then let Congress
weigh the benefits of the technology against its costs.
Ignoring this extremely sensible separation of powers principle has
already cost Silicon Valley dearly. See, e.g., ReplayTV. ReplayTV is
the digital equivalent of the VCR. It does the job more efficiently,
and it promised to do some things the VCR couldn't do, too. But under
the principle of Sony (innovate first, regulate later), it should
plainly have been allowed into the market without intervention by the
courts. Yet precisely the opposite happened. Content owners sued
ReplayTV. It was dragged into federal litigation for many many months
defending its new technology. And before the case could be resolved,
the company effectively declared bankruptcy.
Is this the future Senators Hatch and Leahy want for all new
technologies that impact copyrighted material? Will every Apple be
forced to defend its innovation in a federal court? Will federal
judges become the arbiters of good technology? Will technology firms
be forced to spend more on lawyers than on R&D?
Whatever the lobbyists say about this bill, this is the single most
important fact that we should not forget: It is a lawyer employment
act. It will force technologists into court before they get to enter
the market place. It will shift responsibility for striking the
balance in copyright law from Congress to unelected federal judges.
That's not a bad thing for me, or my kind. I, after all, think the
courts have some role here (in setting the limits of copyright), and
I, after all, make lawyers for a living. But for an already
overregulated Silicon Valley, it is another nail in the coffin by the
regulating-obsessed in Washington.
TiVo's Plans Lead to Fight On Copyrights
TiVo's Plans Lead to Fight On Copyrights
07/22/2004 04:38 PMTiVo's Plans Lead to Fight On Copyrights
(washingtonpost.com)
TiVo's Plans Lead to Fight On Copyrights
(washingtonpost.com)
07/21/2004 11:10 PMwashingtonpost.com - Hollywood studios and the National Football
League are seeking to block the maker of the popular TiVo television
recorder from expanding its service so that users could watch copies
of shows and movies on devices outside their homes.
Web Site On Vietnamese Arts And
Literature Copyrights Launched
Web Site On Vietnamese Arts And
Literature Copyrights Launched
03/24/2005 04:50 PMAntara Interactive Mar 24 2005 7:57PM GMT
New IFPI Boss Vows to Extend Recording
Copyrights
New IFPI Boss Vows to Extend Recording
Copyrights
09/23/2004 11:30 AMTiVo's Plans Lead to Fight On Copyrights
(TechNews.com)
TiVo's Plans Lead to Fight On Copyrights
(TechNews.com)
07/23/2004 09:56 AMEuro-copyrights.org educates Europeans
about new copyright laws
Euro-copyrights.org educates Europeans
about new copyright laws
06/08/2004 03:37 PMEU opens proceedings into collective
licensing of music copyrights for online
us
EU opens proceedings into collective
licensing of music copyrights for online
us
05/04/2004 07:58 AMPublicTechnology.net May 4 2004 12:30PM GMT
TiVo's Plans Lead to Fight On
Copyrights: Technology Would Allow
Transfer of Programs
TiVo's Plans Lead to Fight On
Copyrights: Technology Would Allow
Transfer of Programs
07/22/2004 09:26 AMWashington Post Jul 22 2004 1:31PM GMT
Infringement isn't terrorism
Infringement isn't terrorism
12/04/2003 08:22 PMMy colleague Jason Schultz has blogged some pithy remarks about the
head of WIPO's comparison of copyright infringement to terrorism. God,
how I hate the comparison of all things to terrorism, it's such shoddy
rhetoric. Really: if copyright infringement is like terrorism, does
that mean that our first line of defense against illicit music
downloading shoud be the systematic confiscation of nailfiles and
scissors from business travellers?
Mr Idris described how he had heard of children dying after using
counterfeit baby shampoo and warned of the potentially disastrous
consequences of relying on machines that had been made using an
illicitly duplicated model.
Excuse me, but those aren't intellectual property/piracy problems.
False advertising is a consumer protection issue and a problem that
everyone supports eradicating...
However, there have been several documented instances where WIPO's own
high protectionist patent and data registration policies are actively
hurting patient access to AIDS-related drugs and other essential
medicines in the third world, Africa in particular...
Link"A combination of innovation and
infringement"
"A combination of innovation and
infringement"
07/07/2004 01:08 PMAnnalee Newitz has a great article
in Alternet about Mash-ups, going over the copyright laws involved
and how the laws are viewed in the mash-up scene. It's an interested
clash, where restrictive laws loom over digital musicians armed with
low-cost computers and software that makes mixing easy. In this realm,
Newitz sees mash-ups as a form of protest, where DJs knowingly violate
laws in order to spread their art in the world.
As a masher on [Get Your Bootleg On] recently posted, "Everything is
illegal." Under an I.P. regime where artists feel like nothing goes,
it seems that everything could. The infringement generation aims to
mash up copyright law in pursuit of better music. But it also has a
chance to challenge social divisions more profound than the
distinctions between hip-hop, rock and electroclash.
Company Name in URL Not Copyright
Infringement
Company Name in URL Not Copyright
Infringement
04/05/2005 02:24 PMWall Street Nerves Over Google IPO, EU
Nerves Over E-Music Copyrights, and
Other Cyberspace Breakdowns
Wall Street Nerves Over Google IPO, EU
Nerves Over E-Music Copyrights, and
Other Cyberspace Breakdowns
05/04/2004 03:18 PMAVN Online May 4 2004 7:04PM GMT
IBM faces copyright infringement suit
IBM faces copyright infringement suit
06/09/2004 07:04 PMZero-Knowledge Systems claims Big Blue wrongfully reproduced its
privacy-language specification.
RFID tag firm over patent infringement
RFID tag firm over patent infringement
06/10/2004 08:05 AMComputer Weekly Jun 10 2004 12:31PM GMT
Intel sued for patent infringement
Intel sued for patent infringement
05/20/2004 12:58 PMAllnet GPL Infringement Settled
Constructively
Allnet GPL Infringement Settled
Constructively
02/19/2004 06:40 AMSlashdot Feb 19 2004 10:20AM GMT
Grok Description matches for Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004
GrokA matches for Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004
Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004
