Print

[Griffen37]

Some new language was circulated by the copyright office yesterday to be added to S2560.  

Basically the language is attempting to find "those who induce copyright infringement" liable.  The aim is to get at P2P developers (Morpheus, Grokster, etc. ) who have been found not guilty thus far.  This would be a bad blow to copyright law as we understand it right now, where the "inducers" are only liable if the intent of the product was copyright infringement not if the product could be used for copyright infringement.  

It is relevant to XS because this could make it easier for the government to go after chip developers, emulator developers, and potentially even XS itself.  

I stress that this is not yet the law and there is a good chance it won't become law, but now is as good a time as any to get involved and make sure your Congressmen and Senators know your stance on issues like this.  Write to them at http://www.senate.gov/ or www.house.gov and make your voices heard.  

And to all the non-citizens or residents of the District of Columbia (like myself) this is still an interesting debate to watch as it could have WTO implications at some point in the future.

[Griffen37]

The text is now publicly available at:
http://i.i.com.com/c...4/copyright.pdf

and the write-ups can be found at CNET and the following sites:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/
http://techlawadvisor.com/induce/

Also, to provide some additional information, the draft is the Copyright office's attempt to change the language of the INDUCE Act.   It is a new development in the INDUCE Act debates.  The Copyright Office's language would leave devices like the iPod alone, but could still be far over-reaching.

[chefelf]

That is particularly worrisome, however, we'll have to wait to see how it shapes up.  While the DMCA is bad enough, this may be pushing the boundaries of what can be put into law and still be constitutional.

I'd like to think that this sort of thing is not possible in this country but if the direction in the past 5-7 years are any indication it does stand a fair chance of going through.

[Griffen37]

Agreed, but espcially since this is the actual Copyright Office's stance and isn't just some random congressman or senator trying to get his/her name added to a bill, I'm a little worried.