D.C. showdown looms over file swapping

Technology companies and the record industry are nearing a last-minute showdown on Capitol Hill over a controversial bill aimed at quelling file swapping.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and dubbed the "Induce Act," was introduced earlier this year, in large part as a response to court rulings that have said that file-sharing software companies were not liable for copyright infringement by their customers.

A round of negotiations between the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and technology organizations closed this week without reaching compromise, according to people familiar with the talks. Hatch's Judiciary committee was scheduled to vote on a version of the legislation Thursday, but adjourned without taking up the bill. The issue is now most likely to be taken up when Congress returns for a short session in November, participants in the negotiations said.

The prospect of a vote on Thursday had prompted a flurry of last-minute protest letters from technology and consumer organizations.

News.context

What's new:
After a round of negotiations failed to reach a compromise, tech companies and record labels face a showdown over a controversial file-swapping bill.

Bottom line:
The Senate Judiciary is scheduled to vote Thursday on the bill, which many tech companies fear will have impact well beyond the file-swapping world.

More stories on this topic

"The recording industry (proposals) would effectively put at risk all consumer electronics, information technology products, and Internet products and services that aren't designed to the industry's liking," read one letter sent Wednesday and signed by lobby groups representing technology companies, including News.com publisher CNET Networks. "We urge you not to move forward now."

The issue has become a key rallying point for many in Silicon Valley who fear that the legislation might have impact well beyond the file-swapping world. The result has been a relationship between technology and content companies at its most tense since bitter battles over Hollywood-sponsored antipiracy proposals in 2002.

The RIAA is taking a conciliatory approach toward the technology industry, saying it is solely interested in stopping file-swapping companies that profit from copyright infringement. The group has said it is open to changing the legislation in whatever way necessary to achieve that goal.

"In a short period of time, there has been remarkable progress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said. "A coalition of groups and members of Congress have coalesced around the core proposition that the 'bad actors' deserve to be held accountable. No one is defending the parasitical business model of the illegitimate peer-to-peer networks. The remaining issues are definitional and we continue to work through those."

Rolling back Betamax?
At the core of the RIAA's push--and of much of the technology industry's fear--is an effort to change the way that a 20-year-old court decision affects copyright law.

In 1984, the Supreme Court said that the Sony Betamax videocassette recorder was legal to sell, despite being widely used to copy movies and television shows. The court reasoned that the device could not be banned outright because it had a number of uses that did not involve copyright infringement. That rule, later known as the Betamax doctrine, now protects virtually all products that can make copies as long as they too have "substantial noninfringing uses."

This has proven a key part of the legal defense for peer-to-peer software companies such as Grokster and Streamcast Networks against charges of copyright infringement by the record industry and Hollywood studios. They've said, and federal courts have agreed, that the file-swapping networks can be used for legal purposes despite the widespread song and movie piracy they allow.

However, judges in those cases said that if content companies didn't like those decisions, they should take it up with Congress--and that's just what the RIAA has done.

Hatch and the record industry group have said they want to focus heavily on behavior, rather than on specific technology. They say that the file-swapping companies are "inducing" illegal behavior on the part of their customers and should be held liable for that action.

Technology companies and consumer advocates say this threatens to roll back the Betamax doctrine and expose to liability a wide variety of companies--from Web browser makers to iPod maker Apple Computer.

The senator outlined his goals for the bill in a letter to Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters, who has supported the bill. In the letter, Hatch wrote that he wants a "technology-neutral bill directed at a small set of bad actors, while protecting our legitimate technology industries from frivolous litigation."

Reports from the participants in negotiations this week were mixed. Recording industry sources said that substantial progress had been made, although the parties remained split on how to define peer to peer. Consumer groups said the gap remained wide.

The technology groups pressed Hatch on Wednesday to put a hold on the bill's progress, citing the need for more public scrutiny of the bill's language, which remains in flux.

"Every one of the half-dozen drafts proposed would make fundamental changes to copyright law, with potentially enormous impact on innovation, creativity, and competition," the Center on Democracy and Technology wrote in a letter to Hatch on Wednesday. "Given the short period over which (the bill) has been discussed, the absence of hearings on the new language, and the overall lack of opportunity for the public to comment, we believe it would be in the best interests of all parties to allow a more orderly process to go forward."

If the bill faces a vote as scheduled on Thursday in the Judiciary Committee, it still could be changed before it faces a full vote in the Senate. Participants said that the vote could be delayed at the last minute, however, given the fluidity of the situation.

Congress will return in November to vote on budget bills after the election, and most observers expect the bill to be taken up again then.

In the meantime, technology executives are rallying people to contact Congress to express their displeasure over the bill, which was a hot topic of conversation at the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco this week.

HDNet founder and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban summed up the fears of many of the event's attendees. "If you're at this conference, your livelihood is at risk if the Induce Act passes," he said.

[Steven N]

Induce is so wide...

How about guns? They can be used to kill people.
How about a crowbar? They can be used to break locks.
How about zerox machines? They can be used to make copies of anything
How about cars? Tend to kill people too

Record labels are using the wring tactics here. They should make sure a CD is worth buying for the whole CD, not just for a song or two. If it isn't then lower the price.

sounds good

Your answer sounds quite nice in theory. However what you are talking about is a matter of personal taste. You might think rap music sounds good and would pay 20$ for a cd, while I on the other hand would pay 20$ not to hear it. The real problem here and it is happening not only with the RIAA but with other big business players in the US. They use their enormous wealth and political influence to stifle the growth of technology. The people need to take back OUR government from the pockets of big business. The people stand idley by as law after law gets passed with nothing in it other than to make big business interests happy. Wake up America, this is our country, our laws, WE are the majority. Call your congressmen and tell them to wake up.

[Fray9]

November news

In an unusual turn of events today, the District Attourneys office has brought up the entire internet and every technology company in the United States up on charges claiming they violate the induce act which went into effect yesterday. In a completely unrelated story, the DA showed up for the hearing in a 2005 lamborgini. Congress was not available for comment because they are all vacationing in Fiji. No one is certain when or if they will return.

[sloflyer]

Why not outlaw radar detectors?

How can Congress, in good conscience, even consider a bill like this when they've done nothing at all to outlaw the manufacture and posession of portable radar detectors, whose sole purpose is to allow people to violate the speed limit laws? That would be more than a little hypocritical.

We need this to pass now!

What we need is for this law to pass and pass as quickly as possible. Then once it is in place we need to force the government to go after every company that makes a product that can "induce" people to steal. This would include ISP's, cable TV companies (I want to steal the shows I watch), sat. TV companies, sat. radio companies, MP3 player makers, PDA (I want to pirate the software for it), VCR makers, DVD video recorder makers, TV makers including HDTV makers (if I couldn't watch the programs I would want to steal them), car companies (if it wasn't for the cool stereos and such in them I wouldn't want to steal music to play in them), Radio stations, Stereo makers, record companies (they make the stuff I want to steal they are inducing me to steal from them), movie studios, the porn makers, Tivo like device makers, and so on.

Once Hollywood and Record companies start getting in trouble for inducing people to steal and once all of these other businesses are put out of business or it looks like they will be put out of business either the goverment will drop it or law suites will be filed and finally and the best part of all Mr. Hatch will loose his job for starting the whole mess with his half assed bill.

We need this law passed and passed now. Then as citizens of this country we need to force the goverment to use it. They will also be wasting time and money on this crap instead of going after real crooks. Once all of this happened I think you will find that people will be much more care about the laws they try to pass. At the very least they will keep them from being so open and loose and vague. This means when they tighten them up and make them specific there will be loop holes which will make them next to worthless.

Robert