The Abridged RIAA Letter on the INDUCE Act

Grok Headline matches for The Abridged RIAA Letter on the INDUCE Act

The Excessively Annotated RIAA Letter On
The INDUCE Act

The Excessively Annotated RIAA Letter On
The INDUCE Act 07/14/2004 08:57 PM
Ernest Miller writes "Techdirt has already brief ly discussed the RIAA's letter defending the INDUCE Act. Now, you can read the RIAA's ori ginal letter, the abridged version, or the excessiv ely annotated version." No offense to Ernest, who put a lot of work into the excellent annotated version, but if you only have time for one, check out the abridged version.

RIAA Sends Letter to Senate Supporting
INDUCE Act

RIAA Sends Letter to Senate Supporting
INDUCE Act 07/15/2004 11:51 AM

EFF's Letter to the Senate on INDUCE

EFF's Letter to the Senate on INDUCE 07/30/2004 08:31 AM
Slashdot Jul 30 2004 12:19PM GMT

RIAA's INDUCE Act letter deconstructed

RIAA's INDUCE Act letter deconstructed 07/15/2004 05:31 AM
The RIAA has sent a letter to Congress, calling on it to pass the iPod-criminalising INDUCE Act. Ernest Miller has deconstructed the letter line by line, countering its claims.

That taking has consequences, human and creative. [Some of the consequences are good, some are bad. Separating them, however, is a pain and may not be possible.] My companies make money almost exclusively from the sale of our creative product. [And they still can, they will have to make some adjustments to their business model.] We don't have a performance right on radio and therefore derive no income from radio play. [Welcome to the wonderful world of "when Congress tries to dictate business models." And so, the RIAA proposes a sequel.] We don't make money from artist tours or merchandise. [And why is that? Is there a law against it? If so, I would recommend it be repealed.] We don't make money from endorsements of other products. [Is someone stopping them from doing that?] We just sell recorded music. [You're free to structure business however you like.]

We take profits from sales – when we're good and lucky enough to get them - and plow money back into the search for that next great talent who will thrill music fans around the globe. [I guess the industry must have been bad these last few years.] When we think we have found that talent, we invest huge amounts to sign, nurture, promote and distribute their creative product. [And the RIAA is the only way talent can be found and promoted, because?] Our economic vitality is based on generating hits – finding special talents that enjoy strong commercial appeal. [And we should care about the hit-maker mentality, because?]

Link (Thanks, Ernest!)

RIAA defends Induce act and is on the
offensive

RIAA defends Induce act and is on the
offensive 07/14/2004 05:17 AM

Techdirt has a great article about the ridiculous INDUCE Act that was penned by Senator Hatch. It seems that the RIAA under a lot of pressure as a lot of major players are against the ACT have sent all 100 senators a letter telling them how this law will not affect the Betamax decision.

Buzz on over to Techdirt for all the links great coverage [Techdirt]

RIAA Defends INDUCE Act; Explains Why
It's No Betamax

RIAA Defends INDUCE Act; Explains Why
It's No Betamax 07/14/2004 03:43 AM
It's not surprising that the RIAA would come out in defense of the INDUCE Act from Senator Hatch. They practically wrote the bill themselves. They had hoped to sneak it through without any debate, but a bunch of tech companies have stood up and pointed out how ridiculous this is. Meanwhile, plenty of others are showing what kinds of technology would be banned by the law. Realizing this might not sail through Congress as smoothly as they had hoped, the RIAA has now gone on the offensive. RIAA head Mitch Bainwol has sent a letter to all 100 Senators defending the bill, and saying that, contrary to the claims of others, it wouldn't overturn the famous Betamax decision (which allowed technologies that could be used for infringement, if they had substantial non-infringing purposes as well). Bainwol claims that "intentional inducement" is a much higher standard than was used in the Betamax ruling. However, as Ernest Miller points out in his INDUCE Act rebuttal, the only reason that's a higher standard is because there was no law against "inducing infringement" when the Betamax decision went to court.

Induce No More

Induce No More 08/09/2004 09:08 AM
I have tremendous respect for the scholarship of Professor Larry Lessig, and I am honored to be asked to host his blog this week. I hope that over the coming 5 days, we will have a series of thought-provoking conversations. Your views and suggestions will be helpful to me as...

Another Alt.Induce.Act

Another Alt.Induce.Act 08/06/2004 06:18 PM
Here's another alternative to the Induce Act, and there are others out there....

PK on the INDUCE Act

PK on the INDUCE Act 06/24/2004 09:59 AM
Nicely put.

Other News: INDUCE Act

Other News: INDUCE Act 06/29/2004 10:41 AM
This copyright crackdown bill looks vague and nasty....

Stop the INDUCE Act

Stop the INDUCE Act 09/12/2004 03:26 AM
Save Betamax .. Sign up

savebetamax.org
track this site | 3 links

Siva on INDUCE

Siva on INDUCE 07/24/2004 04:16 PM
Siva's got a great piec e in Salon on the INDUCE Act. Just remember, he was a guest blogger here first.

Induce Act Refuses to Die

Induce Act Refuses to Die 09/14/2004 11:00 AM
Last month, insiders in Washington felt the Induce Act, which would outlaw technology that could contribute to copyright infringement, was history. According to music activist organization Downhill Battle, a year-old organization dedicated to bringing balance to a debate often dominated by the RIAA and large music labels, this is no longer the case. "We were told by people on (Capital) Hill that it is less likely that the bill will come to the floor by itself and have a nice debate and vote," says Nicholas Reville, Downhill Battle Co-Founder. "More likely the Induce Act is going to be snuck through a back door in legislative procedure. The only supporters in any industry or interest group are in Hollywood. From their perspective (the Induce Act) is not going to happen if it gets full airing."

Other News: "Induce" Act

Other News: "Induce" Act 07/22/2004 09:39 AM
A copyright control bill gathers steam, and it's radical enough to kill the iPod, critics say.

INDUCE vomiting

INDUCE vomiting 06/23/2004 01:53 PM
Orrin Hatch thinks of the children. As a convenient lever for shutting down P2P networks.

Musicians on the INDUCE act

Musicians on the INDUCE act 08/06/2004 01:14 PM

There's a bill currently being debated in the US Senate, called the INDUCE act (here's a good background on it), that aims to criminalize P2P networks, programmers, software compnaies, and anyone else that can be shown to help "induce copyright infringement."

There are a lot of problems with the act's broad language, but the Future of Music Coalition surveyed musicians to get their opinions on the target of the act, P2P networks. The final product of the survey is a letter to the senate committee debating the bill. The key points are illuminating and worth restating here: artists don't feature in discussions of the bill (just large music labels and technology companies), the bill assumes all copyright owners do not want their works shared on P2P networks (35% of musicians they surveyed saw value in P2P sharing for them), and the bill doesn't allow market-based (like licensing) solutions to occur. Former Creative Commons featured commoner Scott Andrew highlights the survey, the letter, and his problems with the bill in this post.

INDUCE to vomit

INDUCE to vomit 06/25/2004 03:39 PM
Senator Orrin Hatch introduced the INDUCE bill earlier this week with broad, vague limits on who could be sued for copyright infringement. No longer limited to just companies producing programs or those hosting programs, this bill intends to criminalize anyone that aids in copyright infringement. The EFF have produced a mock complaint against Apple for the iPod, since it can play illegally obtained mp3s just as easily as legally purchased ones. Ernest Miller has broken down Hatch's entire "for the children" speech that introduced the bill, in excruciating detail. Those who own mp3 players, TiVos, and other sorts of disruptive technologies should watch this one closely, it could get really ugly.

Fasttracking Induce

Fasttracking Induce 08/20/2004 06:23 PM
So will MGM v. Grokster fasttrack the Induce Act, as many (here Seth F.) think? Hard to say, but there are some reasons, both from theory and history, to think that it won't. First, the Grokster decision, by creating a Circuit split, actually creates legal uncertainty that may slow down...

The Innovator's Induce Act

The Innovator's Induce Act 08/06/2004 02:46 AM
So what would an Induce Act look like that actually balanced the interests of copyright owner and technological innovators? Here's what: the "Inducing Innovation Act." Commentary below, comments and suggestions very welcome, and thanks to those who helped with this....

Techies Blast Induce Act

Techies Blast Induce Act 07/23/2004 04:34 AM
Technology executives testify that the Induce Act would kill innovation and could make some popular consumer electronics illegal. Regardless, the bill's sponsor says he's determined to crack down on copyright piracy. By Katie Dean.

Group Wants to Induce Downloads

Group Wants to Induce Downloads 08/04/2004 04:43 AM
A coalition of techies and free-speech advocates distributes videos of Senate hearings about the Induce Act to prove two points: that the law would be very damaging to the tech industry, and that peer-to-peer networks can serve the public. By Xeni Jardin.

Will The INDUCE act change the iPod?

Will The INDUCE act change the iPod? 08/10/2004 09:07 AM

INDUCE Act: Ipecac for Fair Use

INDUCE Act: Ipecac for Fair Use 06/28/2004 11:18 AM

I have an admission to make. Until about 5 minutes ago, I had never given money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Although I have advocated their support for years, encouraging others to donate -- even on Gizmodo -- my cheap bastardness kept me from digging out my wallet, which is terribly lame, and I apologize. Now, though, I've cleared out my Paypal account and joined -- and I didn't donate a lot, either. Just $25 -- but now I feel like I can go ahead and write the rest of this post without being a total hypocrite.

Ernest Miller brought to my attention something called the INDUCE Act, a bit of proposed law spearheaded by Senator Orrin Hatch that could possibly be used by record companies to sue companies that "induce infringements of the Copyright Act," meaning portable music stalwarts like Apple and Toshiba could be penalized for providing iPods (and the drives that power them) because they encourage users to download music. If by my description the proposed act seems too vague and indefinable, that's because, basically, it is. The INDUCE Act would be another weapon in the music industry's fight against its own customers -- you and me.

Anyway, the EFF, as usual, does as much better job explaining the cause for alarm, including a mock complaint against Apple and Toshiba that the INDUCE Act, if passed, could make possible. If you think they maybe have a point, you should throw them a little cash, too. Think of it as a tax on all that free music you've downloaded or traded with your friends (don't tell them I said that, though).
Read [EFF]

Tuesday is INDUCE call-in day

Tuesday is INDUCE call-in day 09/14/2004 03:48 AM
Xeni Jardin: As my colleague Cory blogged last week, Tuesday September 14 is "Save Betamax National Call-in Day."

Why Save Betamax? The short version: We're organizing a call-in day to Congress on September 14 to oppose new legislation that would undermine the Betamax decision (INDUCE Act). Here's why: The Betamax VCR died more than 15 years ago, but the Supreme Court decision that made the Betamax and all other VCRs legal lived on. In Sony vs. Universal (known as the Betamax decision) the Court ruled that because VCRs have legitimate uses, the technology is legal—even if some people use it to copy movies. Of course, the movie industry was lucky it lost the case against VCRs, because home video soon became Hollywood's largest source of revenue. And the freedom to use and develop new technology that was protected by the Betamax decision set the stage for the incredible growth in computer technology we've seen in the last few decades.

Link

Hatch's Induce Act comes under fire

Hatch's Induce Act comes under fire 07/06/2004 09:59 AM
Congressman Boucher weighs in, guns blazing

Indepth Rebuttal of INDUCE Act FUD

Indepth Rebuttal of INDUCE Act FUD 06/24/2004 06:03 PM
Ernest Miller writes "As noted previ ously on Techdirt, the INDUCE Act or Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act, whichever you prefer, has been officially introduced. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), provided an extensive floor speech in support of the proposed legislation that lays out the most common arguments in favor of the bill. I've gone through that speech and rebutted it line-by-line." Worth reading, though it may upset you that this sort of crap has already gotten as far as it has, and may continue to move forward.

Technologies Threatened By INDUCE Act

Technologies Threatened By INDUCE Act 07/09/2004 08:29 PM
Ernest Miller writes "Techdirt has called the INDUCE Act "broad and ridiculously dangerous" and claimed that "it would be disastrous for the tech industry." Both these claims are correct. To prove them, I've started a new feature on The Importance Of... called Hatch's Hit List. Every weekday I will endeavor to provide an example of technologies and devices that are threatened to be killed or crippled by the INDUCE Act. I welcome suggestions for examples from Techdirt readers. "

Latest Induce Act Gets See Through
Whitewash

Latest Induce Act Gets See Through
Whitewash 09/02/2004 09:33 PM
Even as a variety of companies have offered up their alterna tive to the Induce Act, the Copyright Office has continued on their efforts, under the watchful eye of the woman who found the original Induce Act too weak. Today, they came out with their first draft of the revised bill, and it includes a few changes designed to quiet the unruly mob of filthy file sharers who actually took a look at the original bill and realized it would ban an awful lot. So, the new language makes the whole "induce" part "intentionally induce" which is a slight improvement. However, it leaves open plenty of other loopholes, and it looks like plenty of items on Hatch's Hit List will still suddenly become illegal for no good reason other than Senator Hatch feels the need to do somethi ng, even if it causes more problems than it solves.

What got edited out of the Induce
hearings?

What got edited out of the Induce
hearings? 08/02/2004 03:02 AM
Peter was watching the hearings for Orrin Hatch's crackpot, iPod-criminalizing Induce Act, when he noticed an edit in the recording. What did Hatch and the Register of Copyrights say to one another during the gap?

Orrin Hatch (OH) : "During the august recess, I would like your office if they can to assist this committee in the efforts to identify and resolve potential concerns about potential abuses of international and domestic and intentional inducement liability. Could we count on your to help us with that?"

Marybeth Peters (MP) : "Absolutely, I just identified this as the most important question in copyright today. We would be more then happy to assist the comitte in facilitating, umm, and bringing about a hopefully a result that could work"

OH : "Yeah i'd heard that so I was just making sure that you..."

(Edit Start)

MP : "We would never say no to you"

(Edit End)

OH : "We'll that is an interesting comment"

Link (Thanks, Peter!)

BitTorrent of Hearings on the INDUCE Act

BitTorrent of Hearings on the INDUCE Act 07/29/2004 05:18 PM

Lawrence Lessig

no potential for a substantial noninfringing use?

Here 's a BitTorrent file that will get you, p2p, the video of the Hearings on the INDUCE Act, prepared by Tom Barger. Watch, and blog the substantial noninfringing use.

BitTorrent is one of the most efficient p2p systems and is great for distributing movies and other large files. The Induce act is trying to make illegal basic technologies such as p2p which "could induce" people to break copyright.

With more powerful cameras and PCs, video and Flash have become important mediums for free speech. They are increasingly being used for political action. The integration of blogs and p2p technology for sharing these videos like the BitTorrent link above from Lessig are a good example. I believe this is substantial non-infringing use.

Comment - TrackBack

Xeni on NPR: INDUCE Act update

Xeni on NPR: INDUCE Act update 07/27/2004 01:18 PM
On today's edition of the NPR program "Day to Day," I speak with host Madeleine Brand about the Hatch/Leahy INDUCE Act, much-blogged here and there and elsewhere of late. The law seeks to ban technology that would "intentionally induce" copyright infringement. Hollywood and the recording industry back it, seeking new muscle to combat filesharing. Tech companies, digital liberty advocates, and geek activist groups like savetheipod.com say it's ill-conceived and badly written. In its current form, INDUCE would unfairly stifle innovation, they say -- and could outlaw a wide range of gadgets and services we take for granted, from iPods to PDAs to web search engines (et tu, Google?).
Link to online archive for today's "Day to Day" show, available after 12pm Pacific time.

What tech does Induce Act endanger?

What tech does Induce Act endanger? 07/09/2004 01:47 PM
Ernest Miller says:

The INDUCE Act will make "whoever intentionally induces" copyright infringement liable for that infringement. Unfortunately, the definition of "intentionally induces" is extremely broad and the proposed law would give copyright holders (such as the RIAA and MPAA) tremendous flexibility in suing developers of new technology and effectively quashing progress that the copyright holders don't like. To foster reasoned debate on this topic, I'm inaugurating a new daily feature at The Importance Of ..., called "Hatch's Hit List." Each entry will give an actual example of a new and innovative device or technology that would be threatened by the INDUCE Act.

Link

Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act

Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act 07/23/2004 04:51 PM

Orrin Hatch and the INDUCE Act

Orrin Hatch and the INDUCE Act 06/29/2004 03:48 PM

The good Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah is sponsoring a bill that could make possibly any piece of technology (at least the tech that people actually want) illegal. The bill states that if you make or provide a product that 'induces' somebody to infringe on another's copyright you could be held liable.

Since the merits of this bill are being discussed elsewhere, I won't go into all that. I would however find it amusing and slightly ironic if somebody were to seed a bittorrent file of Orrin Hatch's latest musical offering Orrin Hatch's Christmas Eve (iTMS link) so the world could hear what it is Mr. Hatch is trying to protect. Just a thought.

Click here to comment on this entry

30,000 anti-Induce Act letters sent to
Congress

30,000 anti-Induce Act letters sent to
Congress 07/26/2004 01:59 AM
Orrin Hatch's Draconian Induce Act -- which would criminalize iPods on the grounds that shipping a high-capacity personal stereo practically begs the public to use file-sharing services to fill it -- continues to draw fire from all quarters. Between EFF and SaveTheIpod.com, over 30,000 Congresscritter letters have been sent by voters in every state in the Union, asking government to save America from Orrin Hatch and the cartel that has put him up to this insanity. Click below to send your own letter: Lin k

Copyright Office Suggests Changes To
Induce Act

Copyright Office Suggests Changes To
Induce Act 09/03/2004 10:22 AM

Copyright Office Endorses INDUCE Act

Copyright Office Endorses INDUCE Act 07/22/2004 04:26 AM
Earlier this week, in looking through the list of speakers at the INDUCE Act Hearings, Ernest Miller noted that the first on the list, Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights for the US Copyright Office, has "never seen an extension of copyright she didn't like." Thus, it's not at all surprising that she's going to come out strongly in favor of the bill, according to a copy of her statement that News.com got their hands on. In fact, she's going to stand up there with a straight face and say that the Betamax ruling goes too far and needs to be replaced. Since most supporters of the INDUCE Act have been claiming that it really doesn't impact the Betamax decision this is the first sign that people are admitting they're trying to change the Betamax rule. Others who will clearly lay out misleading claims in favor of the INDUCE Act (as they've been doing for the past couple of weeks) includes Robert W. Holleyman of the BSA (recently shown to have made misleading statements concerning stats about unauthorized software copying) and Mitch Bainwol of the RIAA, whose letter to the Senate about the Induce Act was easily torn to shreds by Ernest Miller. Standing up for the other side will Gary Shapiro from the Consumer Electronics Association, who is usually a strong advocate of promoting innovation and Kevin McGuiness of NetCoalition who is "alarmed" by the bill and "troubled" by the Copyright Office's decision to question the Betamax verdict. Should be a fun time. No one's mind is going to get changed, of course, since we no longer seem to live in a time where changing your mind based on the facts is encouraged, but Senator Hatch has a history of saying the most ridiculous things during these things, so there may be a good quote or two coming out of all of this.

An overseas view of INDUCE act (aka
INSANE act)

An overseas view of INDUCE act (aka
INSANE act) 06/28/2004 11:35 AM
Ernest Miller says:

Dr. Karl-Friedrich Lenz, a professor at Aoyama Gakuin University in Japan, has a different perspective on the INDUCE Act. Of course, there must be something wrong with his translation, as Dr. Lenz believes the Act is named the "Intentionally Stopping Advances of the Nation's Economy," or INSANE Act. Anyway, he is not nearly as opposed to it as many commentators here in the US:

First of all, while it might be true that this legislation will help to make America a technological backwater, with iPods and the Internet being illegal under this legislation, depending on your perspective, that is actually a good thing. It helps Europe and Japan in the global competition with America to have strange American laws strangling research and development there, so from an international point of vie w, I can only say "go ahead".

Lenz notes that the law could use some improvements, and if these improvements were made, then, "it might be better than the Japanese approach of just arresting creators and sort out later if it was actually illegal what they did."

Link

Tech Groups Want Induce Hearings

Tech Groups Want Induce Hearings 09/17/2004 06:02 PM
Wired News Sep 17 2004 8:23PM GMT
Grok Description matches for The Abridged RIAA Letter on the INDUCE Act
GrokA matches for The Abridged RIAA Letter on the INDUCE Act

The Abridged RIAA Letter on the INDUCE Act

The following phrases have been identified by the grok system as matching this entry: