All, While these news items are generally important issues it is always important that each one can research the organization they are asked to endorse.
While names like Tom Adelstein are very recognizable in this industry, I recommend that each person review the documents relating to these initiatives. It is very important to understand who(m) is behind certain movements as well as being aware as to the "spin" that some may be applying. Some of this information can be found at: http://www.osaia.org/ and http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/004563.html Act in a decisive and informed manner. Cheers, Tim Cook On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 14:17, Joseph Dal Molin wrote: > -----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 > > > > >
