Senators
Invite Copyright Input On INDUCE Act
[WASHINGTON (Tuesday, Aug. 17) – The bipartisan authors of the Inducing
Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 have asked officials from the U.S.
Copyright Office to participate in discussions of changes to the proposed
legislation, which takes aim at intentional copyright infringement. The
sponsors of the bill, including U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the
ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have been
working with interested parties in the anti-piracy debate to find consensus
solutions to the growing problem. The text of the letter is below.]
____________________
August
13, 2004
Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights
United States
Copyright Office
James
Madison Memorial Building
101
Independence Avenue, SE
LM-403
Washington, DC 20540-4000
Dear
Register:
Thank
you for agreeing to assist our efforts to find a technology-neutral,
behavior-based solution to the problems of rampant on-line piracy of
copyrighted materials. We request that you play a leadership role as we
meet with the interested parties designated by our offices during the next
few weeks in order to identify proposed solutions to any legitimate
concerns raised about S. 2560, the “Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act
of 2004.”
Specifically, we would like your assistance in identifying key concerns
that have been raised about S. 2560 and serving as our principal copyright
adviser in a series of meetings designed to resolve any remaining issues.
There
is little dispute that entities intentionally encouraging and promoting
widespread infringement should be held secondarily liable for the
infringement that they intend to induce. The imposition of such liability
is particularly appropriate given that much filesharing software automates
the redistribution of infringing files so effectively that people making
hundreds of works available for distribution to millions of persons across
the globe can testify that they had no idea that they were engaged in the
massive, global redistribution of those protected works.
We do
recognize, however, that some technology companies are concerned that
claims for intentional inducement of infringement might be misused
frivolously against entities who distribute legitimate copying devices or
programs such as computers, CD-burners, personal video recorders, email
services, etc. We are open to any constructive input on how Congress can
best frame a technology-neutral law directed at a small set of bad actors
while protecting our legitimate technology industries from frivolous
litigation.
We
continue to believe that the existing law of secondary liability provides
considerable protections against potential abuses of a cause of action for
intentional inducement of copyright infringement. Indeed, we suspect that
many concerns about such claims may be resolved by making explicit
principles already present in the body of law against which this cause of
action would operate. Nevertheless, we remain open to other approaches.
When possible, we would like you to attempt to achieve consensus proposals.
As
noted at the Judiciary Committee hearing, we intend to resolve this serious
threat to artists, consumers, and the development of safe, lawful Internet
commerce as soon as possible. As a result, we request that you present us
with any recommendation you may have no later than the close of business on
September 7, 2004. Thank you again for your efforts to
assist Congress in addressing the many difficult issues related to
transitioning our system of copyrights into a networked, digital age.
Sincerely,
BILL
FRIST
TOM DASCHLE
ORRIN
HATCH
PATRICK LEAHY
# # # #
#
