|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 30th, 2004 05:17 AM | |
| Spectre X | That's no moon... |
| Jul 29th, 2004 08:50 PM | |
| FS | FROM SPACE! |
| Jul 29th, 2004 08:38 PM | |
| Anonymous | Techies blast Induce Act... WITH LASERS!!! |
| Jul 29th, 2004 06:34 PM | |
| ArrowX | true but according to some bands fans cross the line when they want to listen to their music for free. |
| Jul 29th, 2004 06:03 PM | |
| Matt Harty |
The correct usage of an MP3 players is to copy the music from cd's, not file sharing programs. It doesn't make things any easier than downloading music illegally and burning it onto a cd. 
|
| Jul 29th, 2004 05:41 PM | |
| Jeanette X |
Induce Act Could Outlaw iPods. Source: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0...w=wn_tophead_2 Techies Blast Induce Act By Katie Dean | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1 02:00 AM Jul. 23, 2004 PT The Senate heard strong opposition from the technology industry on Thursday about a bill that would hold tech companies responsible for creating devices that could be used to pirate digital content. But Sens. Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy, the sponsors of the bill, are determined to move forward with the legislation. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony about the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act -- otherwise known as the Induce Act (S. 2560). In its current form, the bill proposes to slap technology companies for making any device that could "induce" or encourage buyers to make illegal copies of songs, movies or computer programs. The bill, introduced by Hatch (R-Utah) and Leahy (D-Vermont), has garnered strong support from Hollywood and the music industry. But technology companies say the bill would kill innovation and potentially outlaw some of the most popular devices, including Apple's iPod. Wireless Hot Spot Directory "Under this bill, who would want to produce a new device that handled copyrighted material without first checking with Hollywood or the record companies, given their history of fighting new business models?" said Will Rodger, director of public policy for the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which submitted written testimony into the record. "Innovation just wouldn't happen." While all panelists expressed interest in working with the committee to halt piracy, four of the five panelists rejected the bill in its current form. The lone supporter was Mitch Bainwol, head of the Recording Industry Association of America. Observers said it was rare that on a panel of five invited witnesses, four would oppose the bill proposed by the committee chairman. Hatch did, however, get a hearty endorsement from Marybeth Peters, the register of copyrights, who also testified before the committee. She said courts have struggled with applying the landmark Betamax case -- which ruled home recorders are legal as long as they are used primarily for legal purposes, or "non-infringing" uses of modern technology -- to peer-to-peer networks. She pointed to the case in April 2003 involving the Grokster file-sharing program, in which the judge ruled that peer-to-peer services were not liable for their users' illegal behavior. The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California and is awaiting a decision from a three-judge panel. "I think the Grokster decision is wrong as a matter of copyright law," Peters said. In contrast, Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Electronics Association, said the group would support codifying the Betamax doctrine into law. He said Betamax is the "magna carta" for inventors and venture capitalists who have built a thriving technology industry. He said the Induce Act would slow down innovation as new products are targeted for litigation. "I take it you don't like this bill very much," Hatch quipped. The Business Software Alliance surprised some observers, as the group initially supported the bill but is now asking for clarifications to the bill to protect innovation. Representatives of engineering group IEEE and NetCoalition, which represents Internet companies and Internet service providers, also expressed opposition to the bill. The RIAA's Bainwol professed his fondness for the iPod (he owns one himself) and said the legislation would not target companies like Apple. He said that 97 percent of transactions over P2P networks are illegal and a law is needed to punish those companies that are profiting by ripping off the music industry. According to Bainwol, thousands of people in the music industry have lost their jobs because of piracy. P2P companies "provide a mechanism for high-tech theft," he said. "They laugh all the way to the bank." Jason Schultz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Hatch and the RIAA failed to make their case for the proposed law. He said they never addressed whether the bill will stop P2P or how the proposed law would affect offshore P2P companies. Schultz also said that although Bainwol said record companies would not sue Apple, other copyright owners certainly could under this law. Leahy and Hatch said they want to work with the witnesses over the next month to address some of their concerns. "We're going to do this, we're going to get this done," Hatch said. Piracy has been "a doggone catastrophe to these artists." Between 1999 and 2004, Hatch has received $159,860 in campaign donations from the TV, movie and music industries, according to opensecrets.org, which monitors campaign donations. In the same period, Leahy received $220,450. They each received less money from the Internet, computer and telecommunications industries. "I do want to solve this problem for the recording industry and the movie industry and the book industry," Hatch said. "We have to give a damn about copyright." If you want to stop this, write tohttp://action.eff.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=esJNJ5OWF&b=124596 your Senator here: |
