A roundup of The Induce Act Hearing and coverage:
Coverage also at Public Knowledge.
From Ed Felten’s comments at Freedom to Tinker.
Giving the entertainment industry a veto over new technologies would have two main effects: it would slow the pace of technical innovation, and it would create barriers to entry in the tech markets. Incumbent companies may be perfectly happy to see slower innovation and higher barriers to entry, especially if the entertainment-industry veto contained some kind of grandfather clause, either implicit or explicit, that allowed incumbent products to stay in the market as seems likely should such a veto be imposed.
Senate Judiciary Committee. (testimony available) Video here.
Peculiar is this statement from Business Software Alliance President Robert Holleyman—apparently backing off a little from the BSA’s previous support—
If the Committee determines that an additional cause of action, such as S. 2560, is necessary to address the problem of online piracy, we urge that any such bill be carefully crafted and properly balanced to curtail irresponsible and harmful practices while avoiding adverse unintended consequences for legitimate technology companies.
Earnest Miller dissects Sen. Hatch’s testimony, as well as the testimony of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights at the US Copyright Office—who favors stronger legislation—she calls for Congress to overturn the Betamax decision.
The Consumer Electronics Association’s statement opposing the Act-—
“INDUCE ACT WILL ELIMINATE BETAMAX PROTECTIONS, CREATE A HUGE NEW CLASS OF LIABILITY FOR INNOVATORS AND OTHERS, SAYS CEA. Legislation Threatens Technology, Innovation and Consumers Rights.”
From the testimony (PDF) of Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association—
With respect, Mr. Chairman, citing the MPAA and the RIAA as the guides and protectors of the Betamax doctrine would be akin to appointing Fagin as Oliver Twist?s personal protector. In fact it would be worse: Fagin sought to exploit Oliver, not to kill him. Neither the MPAA nor the RIAA has ever agreed that the Betamax case was correctly decided, or that private, noncommercial home recording by consumers is and ought to be legal. Each is on record as wanting to limit the principles underlying the Betamax holding strictly to its narrowest possible set of facts. So of course they see no ?threat? posed by S. 2560
Fax your Senators here.
The responsible parties:
Sen Hillary Clinton [D-NY] [$1,100,390]
Sen Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
Sen Barbara Boxer [D-CA] [$520,910]
Sen Tom Daschle [D-SD] [$385,760]
Sen Bill Frist [R-TN] [$58,550]
Sen Lindsey Graham [R-SC] [$72,523]
Sen Patrick Leahy [D-VT] [$221,950]
Sen Paul Sarbanes [D-MD]
Sen Debbie Stabenow [D-MI]
Notes on Sen. Norm Coleman’s [R-MN] opposition to the Act.
Discussion at Freedom to Tinker here.