Staff Draft of INDUCE 2.0

What is the difference in this legislation between a file sharing product, if the manufacturer only tells people how to do legal file sharing (i.e. share only files that the end user has the legal right to share, such as files that he personally created); and a product like an MP3 player, where the manufacturer also only tells people how to use the product legally?

They seem to want to go after the first and leave the second alone, but does the current language succeed in that?

Let's suppose it were shown that the great majority of music on iPods was infringing; and suppose it were shown that the great majority of music on a file sharing network was infringing. But neither manufacturer openly claims that their product is for illegal use, and both make the case that it has substantial non-infringing uses. How does this legislation distinguish the cases?

Permalink to Comment

I have examined the current draft.. i intend to take time out of my midterms to call my congressman, who is on the senate judiciary.

i refer you to section B, clause iii.
"(iii) any copies or phonorecords resulting fromsuch use are not made publicly available."

this clause is the one which places ALL technology which interfaces with the internet under the gun.

Under the narrowest interpretation, this would place everything with a modem under direct legal threat(and regulatory control) of certain hostile interests we all know too well.

Things which come directly to mind:
-ipod
-itrip/transpod type transmitters
-the vcr (tape shows and give away tapes)
-computers (they host servers, have modems)
-ALL internet providers, especially broadband (the internet is used to make available/distribute copies of phonorecords)
-any program capable of being accessed from the web, from ftp's to webhosts.
-itunes(its network sharing is obviously an inducement to piracy)
-all operating systems, they have utilities built in which allow sharing, and serve as a substrait for installed p2p programs.
-bit torrent (who cares if its used to distribute programs and videos of our hearings, it should die because of a particular use)

in other words, this revision places almost all technology, but particularly the entirety of the internet and everything surrounding it, under the gun, and under direct regulatory control of its most vocally sworn enemies.

That sounds like a recipe for innovation to me, doesnt it?

Permalink to Comment