PC-GUY
1
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Internet service providers and other technology firms are proposing to soften a bill in Congress that they claim will make them targets of frivolous entertainment industry copyright lawsuits.
The group, which includes Verizon Communications Inc., SBC Communications Inc., MCI Communications Corp., submitted their alternative to the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act to lawmakers Tuesday, said Sarah Deutsch, Verizon's associate general counsel.
The companies behind the alternative to the so-called Induce Act want to restrict the scope of the proposed bill, which would essentially make companies liable if their software or technology encourages users to violate copyright laws.
The Induce Act was introduced this summer by U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, among others.
Hollywood movie studios and the recording industry are the bill's principal backers. They see it as their best hope for shutting down companies behind online file-sharing software, who by and large have escaped liability for the rampant distribution of movies and music by users of their programs.
Although the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent copyright protection systems, the entertainment industry has largely failed to persuade courts to hold file-sharing companies legally liable.
If it becomes law, Induce would make it easier for the entertainment firms to sue file-sharing companies.
But the Induce Act has alarmed many critics, who claim it would also endanger many other companies.
Among those companies and organizations seeking changes in the Induce Act are business groups such as the Consumer Electronics Association, which counts Microsoft Corp. and Apple Computer Inc. as members.
Critics of the Induce bill have argued that, in its current form, it could be used as the basis of a copyright infringement case against a company like Apple on grounds that its popular iPod digital music player encourages owners to copy music, perhaps without permission.
``The way it's written it would basically grant a hunting license to every copyright owner to go after companies,'' Deutsch said. ``Even if you're an innocent company, you're going to be forced to go through lengthy court proceedings to prove your innocence.''
The tech firms' alternative Induce bill narrows the scope of the bill to target P2P software companies by specifying the grounds under which a firm would be found to be encouraging copyright infringement, Deutsch said.
The alternative Induce bill would apply only to companies that distribute a computer program created specifically for the purpose of mass distribution of copyright works. The program's commercial success would have to depend on that large-scale unauthorized distribution of media and the company would have had to encourage someone to redistribute the works on a massive scale.
``Under this kind of test, you wouldn't find the manufacturer or TiVo or an ISP or the Apple iPod (liable),'' Deutsch said. ``It would be much less likely you would have frivolous lawsuits.''
In a letter to Hatch, Leahy and other congressional leaders, the tech firms asked the lawmakers to consider the draft a basis for negotiations on a compromise bill, Deutsch said.
A spokeswoman for Hatch said he welcomed the input on the Induce Act, but had no comment Wednesday. A Leahy spokesman said he was not aware of the tech firms' draft.
A spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America said the trade group had no immediate comment. The Motion Picture Association of America had yet to review the alternative bill, spokesman Rich Taylor said.
``We're pleased that a broad array of groups recognize a need for legislation that will punish bad actors who induce often unsuspecting consumers to engage in unlawful behavior,'' Taylor said.
TECH NEWS
The group, which includes Verizon Communications Inc., SBC Communications Inc., MCI Communications Corp., submitted their alternative to the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act to lawmakers Tuesday, said Sarah Deutsch, Verizon's associate general counsel.
The companies behind the alternative to the so-called Induce Act want to restrict the scope of the proposed bill, which would essentially make companies liable if their software or technology encourages users to violate copyright laws.
The Induce Act was introduced this summer by U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, among others.
Hollywood movie studios and the recording industry are the bill's principal backers. They see it as their best hope for shutting down companies behind online file-sharing software, who by and large have escaped liability for the rampant distribution of movies and music by users of their programs.
Although the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent copyright protection systems, the entertainment industry has largely failed to persuade courts to hold file-sharing companies legally liable.
If it becomes law, Induce would make it easier for the entertainment firms to sue file-sharing companies.
But the Induce Act has alarmed many critics, who claim it would also endanger many other companies.
Among those companies and organizations seeking changes in the Induce Act are business groups such as the Consumer Electronics Association, which counts Microsoft Corp. and Apple Computer Inc. as members.
Critics of the Induce bill have argued that, in its current form, it could be used as the basis of a copyright infringement case against a company like Apple on grounds that its popular iPod digital music player encourages owners to copy music, perhaps without permission.
``The way it's written it would basically grant a hunting license to every copyright owner to go after companies,'' Deutsch said. ``Even if you're an innocent company, you're going to be forced to go through lengthy court proceedings to prove your innocence.''
The tech firms' alternative Induce bill narrows the scope of the bill to target P2P software companies by specifying the grounds under which a firm would be found to be encouraging copyright infringement, Deutsch said.
The alternative Induce bill would apply only to companies that distribute a computer program created specifically for the purpose of mass distribution of copyright works. The program's commercial success would have to depend on that large-scale unauthorized distribution of media and the company would have had to encourage someone to redistribute the works on a massive scale.
``Under this kind of test, you wouldn't find the manufacturer or TiVo or an ISP or the Apple iPod (liable),'' Deutsch said. ``It would be much less likely you would have frivolous lawsuits.''
In a letter to Hatch, Leahy and other congressional leaders, the tech firms asked the lawmakers to consider the draft a basis for negotiations on a compromise bill, Deutsch said.
A spokeswoman for Hatch said he welcomed the input on the Induce Act, but had no comment Wednesday. A Leahy spokesman said he was not aware of the tech firms' draft.
A spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America said the trade group had no immediate comment. The Motion Picture Association of America had yet to review the alternative bill, spokesman Rich Taylor said.
``We're pleased that a broad array of groups recognize a need for legislation that will punish bad actors who induce often unsuspecting consumers to engage in unlawful behavior,'' Taylor said.
TECH NEWS