Copyright Crackdown, Part XXXVII

|

The INDUCE Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Sens. Leahy and Hatch, is a sweeping measure to punish people who "induce" copyright infringement as though they commited the infringement themselves. George Pieler explains just how bad an idea that is.

NEXT: Do Bears Have Knuckles?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Somebody ought to tell this Leahy character to f*** off.

    Why is Orin Hatch always in on these supergoofy restrictive copyright bills?

  2. I can?t help but think this bill is headed for sound defeat. The technology sector of business is larger than the copyright owners one. And it has much more lawyer money.

    Furthermore, it can be easily proven that any US law won?t stop the proliferation of P2P software. Move all downloading offshore, and you?ll make it even harder to stop.

    The entertainment industry should just do with P2P as they did with DART ? collect $5 per subscriber, to cover any incidental loss. I?m sure Kazaa can make enough legit money to pay $5 per person, and still make a profit.

    But again, over broad laws have a way of being shot down. (Usually.) At least over broad laws that will cost billions of dollars to a large trade group. I’m sure even Micro$soft would oppose this bill.

  3. As writers Nir Boms & Erick Stakelbeck reported recently in National Review Online, ?Since 9/11, over a dozen privately owned, pro-democracy radio stations have emerged in freedom-starved countries like North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Cuba.? Will support for these efforts, which clearly may use copyrighted material, have to stop for fear of prosecution for inducement?

    Boms and Stakelbeck mean well, but it is the height of hubris to think that American laws apply to North Korea, Syria, Iran, Cuba or any other sovereign nation. And if US lawmakers think this will help fight worldwide piracy, perhaps someone should explain geography, and national borders.

  4. Douglas Fletcher,

    Perhaps the Honorable Senator Hatch likes the $159,860 contributed to his campaign by the TV/Music/Movies industry. Also, because of the increase in lawsuits this legislation is likely to cause, the $451,751 given by lawyers and law firms doesn’t hurt. Oh, and it’s for the children.

  5. kmw–

    The way I read the article, I thought Pieler’s point was that the legislation would allow any American contributors to or investors in these stations to be prosecuted as “inducers”, not necessarily the stations themselves (see the preceding paragraph in the article). Clearly the stations aren’t subject to U.S. law, but if they depend on support from Americans to keep going, as they may well do, this could be a problem.

  6. Come on Jesse, it’s for the kids. And who knows better what’s good for your kids than a bunch of glorified lawyers who can’t even sufficiently fund education or do anything about juvenile recividism other than create wards of the state?

    The rhetoric is getting rather thin these days. Look through the smokescreen and there’s our vaunted members of Congress, bent over for the RIAA while the MPAA gives the reacharound.

    Once there was a bill that read if Congress was decimated the state governors would pick our Senators. Fuck that, I say we have a party.

  7. And again, Paul Sarbanes is in on some crummy legislation. Hooray for Maryland. *sigh*

  8. An interesting read! I’ll consider what you said over my christmas holidays. I want Volcanoes for Christmas!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.