ARTICLE : COPYRIGHT
By Fred von Lohmann EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney
The humble Betamax machine is the starting point in this article by Fred Von Lohmann as he comments on the US Senate’s debate on bringing into place new laws to make the ‘inducement’ of copyright infringement an act of copyright infringement itself – in effect outlawing software and hardware which has both infringing and non-infringing uses.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, responding to the hail of brickbats that greeted Senator Hatch’s (R-UT) “Induce Act,” asked the US Copyright Office to propose alternative wording that would be more popular with the technology community. Here’s the heart of what it came up with:
“Whoever manufactures, offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in any product or service, such as a computer program, technology, device or component, that is a cause of individuals engaging in infringing public dissemination of copyrighted works shall be liable as an infringer where such activity: (A) relies on infringing public dissemination for its commercial viability; (B) derives a predominant portion of its revenues from infringing public dissemination; or (C) principally relies on infringing public dissemination to attract individuals to the product or service.”
In other words, for all wireless and networked (e.g.,”dissemination”) technologies and services, the tried-and-true “Betamax” defence would be replaced with the new 3-part test in the paragraph above. This reminds me of the bill introduced in 1906 at the behest of music publishers, which would have given them the exclusive right to make machines capable of reproducing sound. In essence, the Copyright Office is proposing that copyright owners get a new exclusive right over a certain subset of machines that are capable of “disseminating” copyrighted works. If this isn’t about using copyright law to squash disruptive technological innovation, I don’t know what is.
Transport yourself back to 1976, substitute the word “reproduction” in place of “public dissemination,” and you would see the VCR and the cassette recorder banned. Today, because any effort to ban those kinds of private copying technologies would result in public outcry, the Copyright Office takes aim at the technologies of the future: wireless and networking. Some try to justify this arbitrary line between past and future by arguing that “mass distribution is different.” Of course, that’s what the entertainment oligopolists said about “mass reproduction” and “mass broadcasting” back in the day. Only because they were not able to stop those technologies did they discover the new business opportunities that they enabled.
So let me tell it like it is: The Copyright Office proposal is profoundly and fundamentally anti-innovation. Were it to become law, it would be very bad news for creator and consumer alike.
For the original version of this piece online : http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001900.php
EFFector Vol. 17, No. 34 September 17, 2004; A publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
For an examination of the law relating to this area which examines the legality of technology and services which can be used for both infringing and non-infringing purposes see “Don’t Shoot The Messenger: Copyright Infringement in the Digital Age” by Ben Challis – http://www.musicjournal.org/03dontshootthemessenger.html