A US Senate bill that would allow copyright holders to
sue creators of products that "induce" copyright violations would
discourage technology companies from offering new media players or
other recording products, said representatives of four technology
groups.
The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 broadly
allows lawsuits against anyone defined as inducing copyright
violations and could be used by the music and movie industries to
sue venture capitalists who invest in new technologies or
journalists who review digital recording products, said Gary
Shapiro, president and chief executive of the Consumer Electronics
Association.
The legislation, which does not exempt makers of technologies
with substantial legitimate uses from lawsuits, would discourage
the creation of new products such as the iPod or TiVO, or home
video and recording equipment, Shapiro said.
"I cannot find any technology company that supports this
legislation as written," Shapiro testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee. "This bill is by far the biggest threat to
personal creativity, new technology, and innovation in 20 years. I
urge you to consider the harm it will engender."
The bill, aimed at peer-to-peer (P2P) software suppliers, would
allow artists and entertainment companies to sue creators of
products that "intentionally induce" copyright violations, based on
what a "reasonable person" would consider an inducement.
Currently, civil penalties for copyright infringement can be up
to $30,000 (£16,000) per act of infringement, or up to $150,000 per
act of willful infringement. Total damages are determined at
trial.
While Shapiro and other technology groups said the bill goes too
far, committee chairman Orrin Hatch challenged the groups to come
up with alternative legislation to curb the unauthorised trading of
copyrighted material online. The bill is not targeted at makers of
legal technologies, Hatch said.
Hatch accused Shapiro's group of opposing all proposals that
would expand penalties for copyright violations. "I would like to
have a great mind like yours help us solve the problem, instead of
criticising," Hatch said.
Hatch accused most P2P suppliers of enticing young people to
trade files illegally and then leaving them to face legal action
themselves, instead of the P2P service providers.
"To implement their schemes, architects of file-sharing piracy
must encourage users to infringe copyright," Hatch said. "Our aim
is stop the for-profit commercial piracy operations that threaten
the futures of artists, legal commerce, and all but their most
cautious and expert users."
Despite opposition from tech groups, supporters of the bill said
it is necessary to stop the billions of unauthorised downloads
every year. About 97% of files traded on P2P services are illegal,
said Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA).
The RIAA has had little choice but to sue users of P2P software
after a California judge threw out a lawsuit against P2P suppliers
Grokster and StreamCast Networks in April 2003, Bainwol said. "They
make a total mockery of intellectual property rights," Bainwol said
of P2P suppliers.
Hatch asked Bainwol if the RIAA would use the Inducing
Infringement of Copyrights Act to sue makers of legitimate products
such as MP3 players. Bainwol promised that the RIAA would not.
But Kevin McGuiness, executive director and general counsel of
the NetCoalition, an internet company trade group, said that
promise was not enough.
"It is a little disconcerting for those of us in the internet
community to sit idly by and watch this legislation go forward
based on presumption of good intentions forever on behalf of
lawyers for the entertainment community," McGuiness said.
The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act could harm the
progress of the internet while not stopping unauthorised file
trading, McGuiness said. "The internet is basically one big copying
machine," he said.
Grant Gross writes for IDG News Service