Invitation to Litigation?

The Washington Times ^ | 10/1/2004 | Invitation to litigation?

[TChris]

If Hollywood's pampered millionaires, their trial attorney cronies and some pandering politicians have their way, innocent third parties could be held legally liable for the criminal acts of others. Such is the intention of legislation pending in the U.S. Senate, S. 2650 the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004."

This misguided legislation would hold manufacturers of computers, software, TiVO, MP3 players and other technologies criminally liable if their legal products were misused to reproduce copyrighted material. Under the legislation, the mere production of such technologies would be regarded as an "inducement" to copyright infringement.

[TChris]

Sounds like Orrin Hatch might need freeping? I'm amazed to see this kind of thing coming from him.

[Bikers4Bush]

I'm not, hatch is a traitorous rino moron.

[2banana]

How about copying machines?

[big'ol_freeper]

Ping

[ShadowAce]

Isn't he the one who advocated remotely destroying computers found to have copyrighted material on them?

[Bikers4Bush]

He has also advocated re-writing the constitution to allow foreign borns to become president. He's a senile nutjob.

[pabianice]

This misguided legislation would hold manufacturers of computers, software, TiVO, MP3 players and other technologies criminally liable if their legal products were misused

Gee. Just like gun manufacturers, huh?

[ShadowAce]

...manufacturers of computers, software, TiVO, MP3 players and other technologies criminally liable if their legal products were misused to reproduce copyrighted material.

Hmm. Pencils, Pens, Typewriters, Cameras, video cameras, dictaphones, copy machines, magic markers, white out, scissors, ISPs, telecoms, cable manufacturers, software companies (for allowing their software to be reproducible), TVs, radios, radio stations, TV stations, satellites, NASA, Universities, high schools, vocational techs, paint, hardware manufacturers, hammers, screwdrivers, saws, drills, newspapers, magazines, newsletters, e-mails, shovels.

Did I miss anything?

[SAJ]

SHOVELS???

ROFL!

[rit]

The bill states:

Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.

(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer.
---------------
So if I say "here, use my new P2P to swap files such as your word docs" I hardly doubt that a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement. Of course, that is subject to how one would define a reasonable person...

[TChris]

If only those who "intentionally induce" are in violation, then the law is redundant. Aiding and abeting any criminal activity is already illegal. Is it not?

[rit]

It is not clear if the intent is to promote contributory infringement to that of direct infringement....

[SAJ]

OK, I'm puzzled. All I did was get a good laugh out of Ace's post -- made no comment at all on the bill's merits or demerits (although, statistically, since this is the product of the Regress, it's a heavy favourite to be a turkey).

Thanks for your analysis. Concur generally.

[rit]

My mistake. I inadvertently addressed it to you when it was meant as general discussion point.