Bad Law, Bad Senator
Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, who makes money as a song writer but still chairs the Senate committee with jurisdiction over copyright law, has introduced Senate Bill S.2560, “Intentional Inducement of Copyright Infringement”. It’s bad law. This bill amends Section 501 of Title 17, United States Code, to punish those who produce any tools that can be judged as possessing an “intent to induce infringement” of the “commercial viability” of any copyright. In other words, this bill can make computer manufacturers liable for copyright infringement damages. Your MP3 player, your iPod, your DVD burner, all could make their manufacturers liable for copyright infringement suits.
Think of the chilling affect this could have on computing and the First Amendment.
Over the years, the gun lobby has argued that ?people kill people? and that gun manufacturers were not liable for how their products were used. I believe Mr. Hatch has been a proponent of those arguments. Why is he so willing to hold that line when it comes to guns but throws individual responsibility out the window when it comes to using a computer or electronic music device to download music?
And how far do you carry that argument?
First, if the premise in this law holds, the country needs to demand that not only gun manufacturers but gun sellers be responsible for “inducing infringement” of life, liberty, privacy, or whatever right a gun was used to deprive someone of. And let’s extend the analogy to other areas as well: the automobile dealer that sells a vehicle used in a felony; an author who writes a novel someone decides to enact; a musician who sings a song about an injustice that leads to protests that turn into riots and looting.
Of course, a good lawyer will latch onto the “intent to induce” phrase and put the burden on the government to prove his client’s intent…if we’re still judged innocent until proven guilty, that is, which is something very much in doubt these days.
Write your Senators and urge defeat of this bill. Better yet, I think it’s about time consumers start giving serious thought to organized boycotts of both the movie and music industries. The only way to stop the madness is either through politics or economy, and the latter will have far more impact than any law that can be written.
I’ll begin my boycott right after I see Spiderman 2.
Think of the chilling affect this could have on computing and the First Amendment.
Over the years, the gun lobby has argued that ?people kill people? and that gun manufacturers were not liable for how their products were used. I believe Mr. Hatch has been a proponent of those arguments. Why is he so willing to hold that line when it comes to guns but throws individual responsibility out the window when it comes to using a computer or electronic music device to download music?
And how far do you carry that argument?
First, if the premise in this law holds, the country needs to demand that not only gun manufacturers but gun sellers be responsible for “inducing infringement” of life, liberty, privacy, or whatever right a gun was used to deprive someone of. And let’s extend the analogy to other areas as well: the automobile dealer that sells a vehicle used in a felony; an author who writes a novel someone decides to enact; a musician who sings a song about an injustice that leads to protests that turn into riots and looting.
Of course, a good lawyer will latch onto the “intent to induce” phrase and put the burden on the government to prove his client’s intent…if we’re still judged innocent until proven guilty, that is, which is something very much in doubt these days.
Write your Senators and urge defeat of this bill. Better yet, I think it’s about time consumers start giving serious thought to organized boycotts of both the movie and music industries. The only way to stop the madness is either through politics or economy, and the latter will have far more impact than any law that can be written.
I’ll begin my boycott right after I see Spiderman 2.


0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home