-----Forwarded Message-----
> From: Tom Adelstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [Gov-list] [Fwd: TIME VALUE: Please Sign INDUCE Act letter today]
> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:59:41 -0500
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> From: Will Rodger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: TIME VALUE: Please Sign INDUCE Act letter today
> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:27:22 -0400
>
>
> Friends, Members:
>
> Below is a letter being circulated for signatures by OSAIA and others in
> opposition to S. 2560, commonly known as the INDUCE Act. It is difficult to
> overstate the need for swift action against this bill. We therefore ask you
> to add your name to this letter.
>
> As you likely know, S. 2560 would create a new legal standard known as
> "inducement of copyright infringement". This new theory, in effect, would
> hold liable anyone whose product or service, in the view or a "reasonable
> person," could be expected to be used to make illegal copies. If passed,
> INDUCE will almost surely lead to regulation of software, PCs, VCRs,
> general-purpose optical drives and countless other hardware and software
> products. Under this bill, ISPs would likely be forced to police their
> networks for infringement. Indeed, it is fair to say that the entire
> Internet could be open to redesign in court. Digital rights management
> technologies, as controversial and difficult to implement as they are,
> would almost certainly become mandatory. Small innovators, faced with the
> legal hurdles in from of them, would likely cease innovating.
>
> In short, S. 2560 would give Hollywood and the record companies a direct
> voice in how IT is done in this country. Not reaching agreement with the
> content industry before introducing a new product or service would, in our
> view, invite litigation on a massive scale. This bill, in our view, will
> force jobs and revenue out of the US, yet do nothing to stop actual
> infringement today. It is, unfortunately, on the verge of passing a major
> committee. S. 2560 will likely pass the Senate quickly unless Senate
> leadership hears from us immediately.
>
> A copy of the latest discussion version of the measure is attached to this
> email.
>
> Given the weight that signatures by individual companies carry, we urge you
> to join the list of signatories below by close of business Tuesday Sept.
> 28. The presence of individual companies willing to oppose this measure
> will add significantly to the impact of the letter.
>
> Please call me at ext. 105 or Dan Johnson at ext. 106 if you have further
> questions about the letter.
>
> best regards,
>
> Will Rodger
> Director Public Policy
> CCIA/Open Source and Industry Alliance
> +1 202 783 0070 x-105
>
> ----------------------------------------
> September 27, 2004 The Honorable Bill
> Frist The Honorable Tom Daschle
> Majority Leader Minority
> Leader U.S.
> Senate U.S. Senate
> Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC
> 20510
> The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch The Honorable
> Patrick J. Leahy
> Chairman Ranking
> Member Committee on the
> Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary
> U.S. Senate U.S.
> Senate Washington, DC
> 20510 Washington, DC 20510
> cc: Members of the Committee on the Judiciary
> Dear Senators Frist, Daschle, Hatch, and Leahy:
> The undersigned companies and organizations write to express our amplified
> concerns over both the process and the substance pertaining to what we
> understand to be the current draft of "inducement" legislation. Although a
> fourth good-faith attempt, this version appears no closer to meeting what
> we understood to be S. 2560's original objectives: (1) to differentiate
> between objectionable and legitimate conduct; (2) to preserve the essence
> of the Betamax holding; and (3) to avoid an unmanageable flood of
> litigation that would tie up innovators and chill investment.
> The new draft, like the original S. 2560, relies on a vague and
> indeterminate "totality of circumstances" standard of intent. Like the
> first Copyright Office draft, it predicates liability on undefined
> "affirmative acts" but unlike that draft, is not limited to the
> "dissemination" of works. Rather, the draft is addressed to the very
> introduction of products and services into commerce, and equates
> "inducement" with the foreseeability of any significant infringement, no
> matter how positive the potential economic and social contribution of the
> product or service may be. This extends well beyond any concept that the
> Copyright Act or the Supreme Court has yet embraced; it would effectively
> expand copyright monopolies and, correspondingly, devalue patent
> grants. It thus implies a fundamental realignment of our intellectual
> property system.
> The draft contains a number of apparent exceptions, but all are easily
> avoided by a plaintiff who divides his allegations into a number of
> separate "acts." The "affirmative acts" creating liability under the bill
> could simply be the (1) design and (2) making available of a multiuse
> product. In sum, there seems no clear rationale by which it can be
> interpreted as applying only to the bad actors cited by Senator Hatch, upon
> introduction of S. 2560, and not to legitimate businesses, individuals, and
> institutions.
> The standard for potential liability action one could "expect to result
> in widespread violations" is entirely novel in the copyright law, and
> seems considerably easier for a plaintiff to satisfy than that of the
> Betamax case or even the standard suggested in the dissent in the Betamax
> case. It would seem to subject all who invest, manufacture, or "traffic"
> in legitimate home, personal recording, and Internet products to a new and
> unquantifiable risk of litigation. There seems a substantial likelihood
> that staple hardware and software products that are considered legal today
> would be found illegal tomorrow. Moreover, the provision mentioning the
> Betamax holding explicitly invites judges to "evolve" its doctrine a
> concept that met with universal dismay when advanced on July 22 by the
> Register of Copyrights.
> That these vulnerabilities and uncertainties remain, even though the
> drafters have recognized and attempted to address many of our concerns,
> underscores the fact that adding any new cause of action to the Copyright
> Act is a daunting undertaking that requires carefully nuanced drafting to
> prevent adverse impacts on the many sectors of the economy that copyright
> law reaches. The present "induce" attempt, like those previous, requires
> reflection and comment, via hearings, so that the many new terms and
> concepts may be discussed and vetted publicly. We hope you will respect
> our concern, as entities participating constructively in this process, that
> the present draft is not ready for passage out of the Judiciary Committee.
> Respectfully submitted,
> Association of American Universities American Association of Law Libraries
> American Library Association Association of Research Libraries California
> ISP Association Computer & Communications Industry Association Consumer
> Electronics Association Digital Future Coalition Electronic Frontier
> Foundation Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) Home Recording Rights
> Coalition Information Technology Association of American (ITAA) Institute
> of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States of America
> (IEEE-USA) Matsushita Electronics Crop. of America
> MCI National Venture Capital Association NetCoalition Open Source and
> Industry Alliance Public Knowledge Radio Shack
> Samsung Electronics America
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. Telecommunications Industry Association
> Uniden America Corp.
> USACM - US Public Policy Committee of the Association for Computing
> Machinery Verizon
>
>
