Last Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee took a look at a new bill that was proposed last month by Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican - Utah) and Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat - Vermont) that would basically make any company liable that encourages people to pirate copyrighted material. At first glance one can assume that this bill is a positive proposal that will help stop all the pirating that is currently plagueing the movie, software, and music industry. Upon further inspection of the bill, it seems that it's broad guidelines threaten the tech industry.
Critics are saying that it will outlaw peer to peer networks all together as well as inhibit innovation and new products from being developed like the IPod. The reasoning behind why it's a threat is because this would allow Hollywood, the recording industry, or really any copyright holder to determine what the intent of a companies product is. For instance if I am able to download music from Time Warner cable they would be liable because they provide the means to download music illegally. The bill could be passed and Apple could be sued the very next day because an copyright holder feels that people "may" be harboring illegal copies of theirs product on an Ipod.
Some critics include Markham Erickson, general counsel of Netcoalition a public policy group that represents internet companies like Yahoo and google which has said and I quote "We think this is a recipe for disaster for the Internet," "The bill as it is currently drafted is extremely broad and not entirely clear. It would, at a minimum, undermine the Sony Betamax decision." The Sony Beta-max Supreme Court decision stated that any product that is used legally by consumers would be legal, even if it had the possibility of causing copyright infringment. Thanks to the ruling Hollywood and the consumer electronics industry went on to thrive with home movies and music.
Another critic of the bill is Mike Godwin who has stated "This bill really creates a huge risk that people won't bring new products to market because they will be afraid to be sued out of existence," Godwin also thinks that the reason they are so eager to push this bill so quickly is because a federal appeals court in California is pending ruling on a case that could up hold the April 2003 court ruling that did not make peer to peer companies liable for users copyright infringements.
Many people are citing this as an ineffective answer against piracy that will inadvertenly stifle innovation and it possibly is the most threatening issue the tech industry has thus far seen in the last 20 years. More importantly this would only affect U.S. companies and would be ineffective against offshore peer to peer companies which could theoretically still be used in pirating. What does this mean for the average Joe? Well, if this bill is allowed to pass like it is now it would mean tighter restrictions and companies possibly too afraid to release new products that do not meet the consent of Hollywood.
A few of the current advocates in favor of this bill include RIAA chief Mitch Bainwol which of course earlier this year was cracking down on individual people who where pirating music including a 12 year old girl. Marybeth Peters, the register of copyrights, who testified to the committee citing that companies have had difficulty applying the Beta-max decision.
On a personal note the advocates of this bill are trying to rush it through. Considering this would only affect U.S. companies it might just dent the piracy problem without actually giving a solution. Considering the risks it poses on U.S. companies, internet service providers, data storage companies, home media companies and the like this should be a very closely watched bill which should be under heavy consideration and this should be waited on. There is no need to rush on this and get it solved within 2004 and cause negative side effects.
I leave with a quote from Orrin Hatch, "We have to give a damn about copyright."
resource Link