Senate bill could shut down blogs

I read about this over on MyDD.  Go - read - write your senators.  (Levin & Stabenow just got my email.)      

Excerpt -

Critics say the bill would effectively outlaw peer-to-peer networks and prohibit the development of new technologies, including devices like the iPod. The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (S. 2560) was introduced last month by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would hold a company liable that "intentionally induces" a person to infringe copyright.

more...

From Markham Erickson, counsel for NetCoalition, a public policy group that represents Internet companies like Google, Yahoo and ISP's.  

"This takes an objective standard and replaces it with a subjective one that allows a copyright holder to try and determine the intent of a company when producing a product," Erickson said. "It's not outside the realm of possibility that you would be placing the entertainment industry in charge of technological innovation if this law were passed."

I believe this bill is ridiculous.  I was disappointed to see that it is co-sponsored by Orrin Hatch, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, and Barbara Boxer.  

Because some people are using technology illegally, we have to get rid of it all?!  Just because some people use guns illegally doesn't mean that the US will ever ban all guns.  I wouldn't support that bill, and I don't support Senate bill 2560.  

(Apologies if this was a duplicate post - I didn't see anything recent.  Clyde posted this back on July 8th here at dKos, and this over at MyDD.)

•  Another brick in the wall of bit slavery

  As long as people are happy being slaves for their picts, tunes and shows, it will only get worse.

  by Stirling Newberry on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:39:31 PM PDT

•  Am I missing something?

  How does banning P2P networks have anything to do with blogs? (There may be an answer at the MyDD article, but I can't read it due to my firewall blocking the site, so my apologies if this is the case.)

  by CaptUnderpants on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:40:23 PM PDT

  •  Excerpts

    From the Wired article -

    The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider a bill Thursday that would hold technology companies liable for any product they make that encourages people to steal copyright materials.(...)
    "We think this is a recipe for disaster for the Internet," said Markham Erickson, general counsel for NetCoalition, a public policy group that represents Internet companies like Google, Yahoo and Internet service providers. "The bill as it is currently drafted is extremely broad and not entirely clear. It would, at a minimum, undermine the Sony Betamax decision."

    In the Betamax decision, the Supreme Court ruled that any technology that people use for legal purposes would be legal -- even if the device could be used for illegal purposes, like content piracy. Because of the ruling, the consumer electronics industry and Hollywood went on to develop a thriving market in home video and DVDs.

    "This takes an objective standard and replaces it with a subjective one that allows a copyright holder to try and determine the intent of a company when producing a product," Erickson said. "It's not outside the realm of possibility that you would be placing the entertainment industry in charge of technological innovation if this law were passed."

    Chris Bowers from My DD - In addition to its widespread impact throughout the technology sector, this law could potentially be used to sue several existing blogger platforms, including moveable type and typepad, out of existence. Don't think for a minute that large media conglomerates wouldn't at least entertain the thought of putting their new competitors, on both the right and left, out of business.

    by spyral on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:46:33 PM PDT

•  heh

  copyright law is a joke, how can you 'own' a bunch of 1's and 0's...?

  by brandonp on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:41:52 PM PDT

  •  Hey!

    You're using my ciphers without my permiss... oh, sorry, I have my zero right here.  

    by ultrageek on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:55:07 PM PDT

•  Title is an overstatement

  I am 100% against this bill, but the idea that it would be used to shut down blogs is an overstatement to the extreme.  It requires several leaps of logic and the assumpsion the the more horrific interpretation of this law (which would undoubtably go much further than even its sponsors would forsee and probably much further than the the letter of the law would allow) will prevail in court.

  Yes, it is a stupid, stupid, stupid bill, but lets not make the case against with dire predictions with little basis in fact.  The bill is bad enough on its own without predicting the downfall of blogs on top of it.

  by BStu on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:43:24 PM PDT

  •  yah

    I'm not really trying to be Chicken Little, but I'd rather try to do something now, than wait until it's too late.  I used the attention-grabbing title so people would just pay attention.  

    by spyral on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:48:55 PM PDT

  •  It could shut down some blogging

    for example anonymous blogs.  The DLC has had a position paper for quite a while proposing requiring ID to be able to use the internet, because of the possibility of copyright infringement.  The INDUCE Act would set the stage for such a measure.  Public wifi hotspots, and possibly anonymous blog comment capabilities, would have to be shut down.  

    Of course that goes directly against  the various Supreme Court decisions protecting the right to anonymous speech (e.g. McIntyre vs Ohio Elections Commission).  It used to be that speech could be restrained only if it presented a clear and present danger to the nation's security, like revealing troop movements.  When these guys are done, speech will be regulated if it presents even the mere possibility of copyright infringement.  If you liked the war on drugs, you'll love the war on copying.

    The INDUCE bill's immediate direct target is peer to peer networks, which are the most economical way for people to circulate large amounts of data.  Sure, most of us can afford to run a text blog, which doesn't need much bandwidth; but what if you want to publish the video that you shoot at the DNC convention, or your home-made documentary on the latest corporate outrage?  The simplest way is to put it on BitTorrent, and INDUCE aims to shut that down.  

    More generally, this bill is an attempt to beat back public access to mass communications in general.  Its real motivation has little to do with stopping unauthorized copying; the goal is to make it difficult for the non-corporately-anointed to publish their own original materials.  This is clear from the legislative history (Hatch and the MPAA's earlier efforts) and from the history of the copyright lobby in general.  

    For some more info, see the book Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig (available in fine bookstores, or freely downloadable from that link).

    by clyde on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 06:06:31 PM PDT

•  this sounds

  suspiciously like thoughtcrime.

  The legislation would hold a company liable that "intentionally induces" a person to infringe copyright.

  what exactly does that mean? obviously they're going after something like an mp3 player. but what about having a person use a photocopier at work? i mean they might get dangerous ideas about copying books on that copier.

  also, how could you know what you product will make someone do? all kinds of stuff gets used in ways different from the way it was intended to be used. it's called innovation and its kind of important to our continued economic vitality.

  for all the energy that's been focused on shutting down digital media pirates i think we can reasonably conclude that the media conglomerates pretty much have congress intheir collective pocket.

  and as a californian i'd like to know why in god's name barbara boxer is signed on to this. isn't she supposed to be the liberal senator? this is an election year for her, though, maybe she needs to count on the campaign donations. i dunno...that's disheartening...

  by scottesposito on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:47:27 PM PDT

•  I guess the VCR's days are numbered (n/t)

  by lapis on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:47:40 PM PDT

•  Well, freedom of speech was getting old anyway.

  And, you can't have a good fascist state when people can complain about it "anonymously".  Much better to be able to force the radicals to the streets where they can be more easily rounded up.

  Yep.  

  Well, what were we expecting?  We're getting powerful, and powerful people don't like sharing power (if they did, this week would be the Howard Dean show in Boston).

  by ultrageek on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 05:53:13 PM PDT