Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« The Importance Of...Listening to Ernest | Main | M$ for Choice? - Er, Not So Much »

September 3, 2004

What the Fox Proposes for the Henhouse

Email This Entry

Posted by

We'll likely have some more here @ Copyfight on the Copyright Office's "consensus" draft of the misguided Induce Act, but in the meantime we have a choice quote from Will Rodger (culled from Declan McCullagh's updated CNET piece):

"First it was the Hollings bill, then Induce, now the Copyright Office's bill. They look different, but they all revolve around the same thing: Giving content (providers) veto power over all new technology. Who decided that holders of government-granted monopolies should determine the future of high tech? I don't remember reading that memo."

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Laws and Regulations


COMMENTS

1. Joseph Pietro Riolo on September 5, 2004 9:42 AM writes...


What bothers me the most is that Ernest Miller, as you
claimed the importance of listening to him, thinks
that he is helping us by giving a better version of
Induce Act but actually, he is helping the fox looking
better. No form of Induce Act is safe for any users.
Senator Hatch cleverly trapped us by forcing us to
give him any version of Induce Act, no matter how weak
it is. Once Induce Act becomes a law, there is no more
turning point and in future, the law will keep on expanding.

If Ernest Miller is supposed to be a copyfighter, he is
supposed to oppose Induce Act in any form.

I may be guilty of ad hominem but so be it.


Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

Permalink to Comment

2. Mike on September 5, 2004 11:54 AM writes...

I am not usually a conspiracy theorist type, but I think a lot of the emphasis on DRM -- and it failing -- is deliberately scripted by the copyright hellhounds to spur on the passage of such laws as the Induce Act.

Let me explain.

DRM, as we all know, is trivial to defeat, if for no other reason that at some point, the signal always must be converted to analog (where it then can be captured, and re-digitized).

Knowing this, content "providers" attempt to introudce more and more draconian forms of DRM, which because no one wants restricted content, not many people purchase it, and which inevitably fail for one reason or other. Then the "providers" look to Congress to alleviate their problems with their falling sales and these horrible "pirates."

I think this is quite a deliberate ploy to seek tougher legislation on the part of organization like Microsoft, Real, the MPAA, RIAA, etc., who would all benefit from the lockdown on technology and the stranglehold control that would give them.

However, what they don't know is that this will only hurt them in the end, perhaps at most be an 8-quarter benefit, as it will cause major economic problems, and ensure, pretty much, the economic dominance of Asia.

But these organizations have shown time after time they'd be willing to pretty much destroy the economy and the Bill of Rights to make a bit more profit, and this is no exception.

Permalink to Comment

3. Alexander Wehr on September 6, 2004 7:40 PM writes...

"No form of Induce Act is safe for any users."

let us not become moronic zealots here.

What if INDUCE were actually completely rewritten as say... a defense appropriations bill and the acronym stood for something completely different.

Let us not confuse the name with the intent.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
That Sound You Hear is the Anti-Neutrality Dam Breaking
Having (Mostly) Failed with Authors, Amazon Makes a Pitch for the Readers
And No Kill Switches, Either
Uncle Amazon Knows What's Best for You (and Itself)
Duplitecture
Muddying the Natural (Patent) Waters
Congress Restores Bulk Unlock Rights
When is a Game a Clone?