Table of Contents
Letters/Testimony/Statements
None
Bill proposed in response to H.R. 3261.
Energy and Commerce committee report to H.R. 3872, March 17, 2004 [PDF]
Letters/Testimony/Statements
None
Letters/Testimony/Statements
ARL joins Shared Legal Capability letter endorsing S. 1621 [PDF]
Report together with Dissenting Views, Committee on Judiciary, February 11, 2004 [PDF]
Commerce Committee's adverse report to H.R. 3261, March 17, 2004 [PDF]
Letters/Testimony/Statements
ARL joins others in a letter to Rep. James Sensenbrenner of the Committee on the Judiciary and Rep. Billy Tauzin of the Committee on Energy and Commerce opposing H.R. 3261, January 15, 2004 [PDF]
Shared Legal Capability press release expressing opposition of library community to H.R. 3261, October 20, 2003 [PDF]
Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Committee on Energy and Commerce, September 23, 2003:
ARL and other library associations letter expressing concerns re H.R. 3261, September 4, 2003 [PDF]
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) letter to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce urging opposition to H.R. 3261, September 15, 2003
NetCoalition letter to Rep. Sensenbrenner and Rep. Tauzin urging opposition to H.R. 3261, September 8, 2003 [PDF]
Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) letter urging opposition to H.R. 3261, September 8, 2003
American Council on Education (ACE), Association of American Universities (AAU), and National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) letter urging opposition to H.R. 3261, September 10, 2003 [PDF]
H.R. 107 was introduced on January 7, 2003, and heard in front of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on May 12, 2004.
Letters/Testimony/Statements
Press release "Personal Technology Freedom Coalition Created," June 23, 2004 [PDF]
ARL, ALA, AALL, SLA, and MLA statement supporting H.R. 107, June 23, 2004 [PDF]
ARL, ALA, AALL, SLA, and MLA testimony supporting H.R. 107 [PDF], presented at the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommiteee hearing on May 12, 2004.
American University Law Professor Peter Jaszi's testimony supporting H.R. 107 [PDF], presented at the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommiteee hearing on May 12, 2004.
Hearings
Second hearing before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection,
May 12, 2004 [TXT] | [PDF]
First hearing before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Subcommittee on Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, September 23, 2003
Letters/Testimony/Statements
None
S. 2560, Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004, introduced by Sen. Hatch (Chair, Senate Committee on Judiciary and R-UT), Sen. Leahy (D-VT), Sen. Frist (R-TN), Sen. Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Boxer (D-CA) on June 17. The bill would impose copyright liability for any person for any activity "intentionally inducing" copyright infringement. The goal of the legislationis to tackle the concerns of legislators and others with peer-to-peer file sharing software and to reverse a recent court decision, MGM et al. v. Grokster et al. But many in the public and commercial sectors, the consumer electronics manufacturers and online service providers in particular, express serious concerns that the provisions in S. 2560 go well beyond P2P issues and will thwart the development of new technologies.
The Committee on Judiciary has not yet scheduled a hearing on S. 2560. But the legislation is a priority for Chairman Hatch and others in the Senate so there is the expectation that there will activity on this legislation.
On July 6, 2004, ARL joined others in the public and private sectors in a letter to Sen. Hatch (Chair, Committee on Judiciary, R-UT) requesting a hearing on S. 2560 [PDF].
Library Concerns
Over the past 20 years, the library community has benefited from the Supreme Court’s decision in Sony v. Universal, 464 U.S. 417 (1984)(Betamax). In Betamax, the court held that the manufacturer of a device with a substantial non-infringing use could not be held liable for contributory copyright infringement. Betamax’s bright-line rule encouraged the development and distribution of a wide range of digital products by protecting the developers and distributors of these products from copyright liability. These products, including personal computers, scanners, and digital storage devices, have enabled libraries to access and store more information than ever before, without consuming more physical space.
S. 2560 threatens the continued growth of the information technology industry, thereby endangering libraries’ access to affordable digital technology. In an effort to prevent infringement over peer-to-peer systems, S. 2560 creates a new form of secondary copyright liability: intentional inducement. The bill’s fundamental problem is the elasticity of the definition of intentional inducement. Under this definition, a jury is permitted to infer that a manufacturer intended to induce infringement, even in a situation where the technology is capable of a substantial non-infringing use. Thus, S. 2560 imposes significant risk and uncertainty on the manufacturers of products that are capable of being misused by some of their consumers.
Manufacturers will respond to this risk and uncertainty in one of two ways: they will decide not to manufacture the potentially infringing products; or they will increase the cost of the product so as to cover the increased risk of copyright liability. Either alternative is harmful to libraries. For this reason, the library community opposes S. 2560.
For more information about this legislation, please contact Prue Adler prue@arl.org, 202-296-2296.
Letters/Testimony/Statements
ARL and others sent a letter to Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy of the Committee on the Judiciary asking them not to bring up S. 2560 at the scheduled Executive Business Meeting on October 7, 2004 [PDF].
ARL and others sent a letter to Senate Committee on the Judiciary expressing their concerns with the Copyright Office's recommended language for a new form of secondary liability for copyright infringement, September 17, 2004 [PDF].
On August 24, 2004, ARL, ALA, AALL, and others submitted a letter to members of Congress [PDF] accompanied by a draft alternative to S. 2560, the INDUCE Act [PDF].
Letters/Testimony/Statements
ARL joined library community in letter expressing concern, July 24, 2003 [PDF].
S. 2237 was approved by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on April 29, 2004, and the full Senate on June 25, 2004. Provisions in the bill would grant power to the Department of Justice (DoJ) to seek civil and criminal penalties for willful copyright infringement and directs the DoJ to develop a civil enforcement program. Key supporters of S. 2237 include Sen. Hatch (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, R-UT), and Sen. Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Committee. The bill will be considered by the House of Representatives.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) introduced the Public Domain Enhancement Act of 2003 (H.R. 2601) in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 25, 2003.
Letters/Testimony/Statements
ARL letter in support of H.R. 2601, June 24, 2003 [PDF]
Share
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Flickr
Assessment Blog
Policy Blog
E-mail
RSS