LettersSeptember 06, 2004 An Open Letter to the Senate: The INDUCE Act Would REDUCE Technological Innovation and AdvancementDear Senator:
On behalf of the 350,000 members of the National
Taxpayers Union (NTU), I write to offer our views on the Inducing Infringement
of Copyrights Act (a.k.a. INDUCE Act) sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch
(R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Specifically, we urge you to vote against S. 2560 should it
come to a vote.
We understand the Senators' well-intentioned
desire to fight copyright infringement. However, the INDUCE Act is
the legislative equivalent of trying to rid a house of termites by burning
it to the ground. The legislation's exceedingly broad language, which
is really intended to stop copyright infringement via peer-to-peer (P2P)
internet file sharing, could easily be misconstrued to apply to any electronic
device that utilizes copyrighted material such as MP3 players, CD and DVD
rewritable drives, and computers themselves. One can only imagine
the flood of lawsuits from unscrupulous lawyers and the resulting cost
burden on the technology sector this legislation would create.
The INDUCE Act would be an unnecessarily
harsh weapon employed against an act of illegality that can never be completely
eradicated given the realities of the Internet. Therefore, the better
alternative would be for content providers to continue fighting against
copyright infringement within the current legal framework. At the
same time, content providers should continue restructuring their business
models and distribution methods to account for the dynamic Internet environment. Further,
content providers should expand partnerships with private industry to develop
anti-pirating technologies. Heavy-handed government intervention
would only hinder the incentive for content providers to pursue these more
reasonable (and ultimately more effective) avenues.
Concluding comments from the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals' recent ruling in favor of peer-to-peer software technologies
(MGM v. Grokster) are particularly cogent:
"The introduction of new technology is always
disruptive to old markets and particularly to those copyright owners
whose works are sold through well-established distribution mechanisms. Yet
history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium
in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano,
a
copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke
machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise
caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of
addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent magnitude."
Similarly, it would be prudent for the Senate
to exercise caution--and restraint--when drafting legislation to combat copyright
infringement in these times of technological progress. In this regard,
the INDUCE Act is a premature and imprudent legislative effort. Thus,
we believe the INDUCE Act should be shelved, before it has a chance to induce unnecessary
damage to our economy.
Sincerely,
Tad DeHaven
Economic Policy Analyst
Related Links: |
|
|
