Loaded Gun Theory - More On the Induce Act

[gitreel]

Is Your Computer A Loaded Gun?
Posted by Tom Barger on July 21, 2004 at 11:39 PM (printer friendly)

http://salon.com/tech/feature/2004/07/22/induce/index.html

Is your computer a loaded gun?

At a Senate hearing on Thursday, defenders of the Induce Act -- which would ban technologies that encourage copyright infringement -- will try to explain why their bill isn't the stupidest idea they've ever come up with.


By Siva Vaidhyanathan

July 22, 2004 | The torrent of unauthorized file sharing through peer-to-peer Internet services has generated a barrage of panic, overreaction and reckless attempts to change the cultural and technological behavior of some 60 million Americans.

The most recent and most reckless comes from the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, and the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont. It's awkwardly named the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act, or the Induce Act. It would subject to civil penalties anyone who "intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures" a copyright violation by a third person. In other words, the photocopier in your office could be contraband, as could the computer on which I am typing this column.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Thursday, July 22, on the bill. Testifying will be representatives of the entertainment industries and the consumer electronics producers.

The bill is so broadly conceived that it could undermine the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sony Corp. vs. Universal City Studios, commonly called the 1984 "Betamax case." That 5-4 decision ensured that the videocassette recorder would be legal and ultimately made the world safe for home recording and archiving of all kinds.

More fundamentally, the bill reflects a serious misunderstanding of peer-to-peer technology specifically and the effects of technology generally. It is the worst kind of policy intervention: destined to cause more trouble than it solves and certain to stifle technological innovation. It will make lawyers richer while failing to help the copyright holders it is supposed to save.

The bill is aimed at a handful of companies that provide interface software for peer-to-peer file-sharing services such as Kazaa and Grokster. Millions of people offer hundreds of millions of music files in the popular MP3 format over the Internet. These companies, which help people find the files they seek, have found a legal safe haven because a federal court concluded last year that they are designed in such a way that they cannot be responsible for how their clients use the system.

In a previous case involving an early MP3 player, a federal court ruled that playing technology itself can't be illegal under the standards the court set in the Betamax case: The technology is capable of "substantial non-infringing uses" and thus should be allowed.

While industry lobbyists swear they would go only after the proprietors of peer-to-peer services, they don't have much credibility. After all, they have already taken the makers of videorecorders and MP3 players to court. Why wouldn't they do all they could to fix other technologies to behave as they wish?

"Enabling technologies have nothing to worry about as long as they are not inducing other people to violate the copyright law," David Green, a vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America, told the Washington Post. And Mitch Bainwol of the Recording Industry Association of America told the New York Times that his organization would not go after what he called "neutral technology" like the personal computer.

Here's the problem: No technology is neutral.

The idea of technological neutrality is most succinctly expressed by the slogan "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." The slogan may be simplistic, but the theory is pretty powerful. It influences many of our debates about technology and policy, from guns to automobiles to encryption.

The problem with technological neutrality is that people create technologies and people use technologies. And people are not neutral. They have cultures and values and expectations.

Technologies reflect ideologies. They reflect the values embedded in them. They alter the environment in which they operate. They enable people to imagine using them in particular ways. There is nothing deterministic about technologies. A gun in the first act need not go off in the third.

But technologies offer possibilities. And possibilities guide options. The bumper-sticker version of this theory of technology goes something like "To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail." The man might not ever slam the hammer. But he thinks about it.

The peer-to-peer software is but one necessary part of an elaborate system that enables people to share millions of files. Kazaa does no copying. It's just a search engine. The entire system of unauthorized distribution implicates the personal computer (which, after all, is a very powerful copy machine), the high-speed modem service, and the protocols that underpin the Internet itself.

Each of these technologies contributes to the menu of potential uses that such a system enables, and thus the "technological imagination" of users. For the past four years, hundreds of millions of connected people around the world have been able to say, "What if I could search for music like never before?" or, "Imagine contributing to a vast library of both odd and obvious cultural choices." It's not surprising that many of those empowered by these technologies choose to use them.

All these technologies -- especially the personal computer -- are much more powerful and customizable than any previous communication technologies. And they are all designed to foster irresponsibility. That does not mean all users are irresponsible, just that those who do not wish to be held responsible for their expressions most likely will not be. Internet users understand this intuitively. So they misbehave.

Because all the elements of the system are basically anarchistic, irresponsible technologies, the only way to address this phenomenon technologically is to do so systematically. That means re-engineering every step in the process, every device in the flow.

If we don't want to radically alter the personal computer and the Internet itself, there is not much the Senate or the entertainment industry can do about file sharing. Users who are accustomed to this new technocultural environment will simply find another way. They will migrate en masse to other services like Gnutella, ICQ, FreeNet, and BitTorrent.

Recently the civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation worked up a mock complaint that might be issued if the Induce Act becomes law. The complaint makes it clear that Apple would be liable for selling the popular iPod music player.

Remember: When iPods are illegal, only criminals will have iPods.

Why doesn't hatch just git rid of all technology, while he is at it?

[BobV]

It's what's wrong with people these days. No one takes responsibility. A wooden spoon could be used to smack some poor childe's bottom, so lets out law spoons.

[smearbrick1]

The interesting thing is; those in congress are all old-school dinosaurs who have never even seen an IPod or ever used Peer 2 peer. They probably have not one clue how it works. As long is the entertainment industry keeps financing their campaigns and stupid little fund raising initiatives, you will continue to see uninformed, ignoramous crap like this law. What is really funny is how congress jumps on board to pass these ridiculous laws and never really considers the ramifications. Can you say Patriot Act?

[fritzi93]

A tendentious argument at best. The underlying premise seems to be that technological advance can (should?) be planned and/or controlled. The human factor in the equation will throw the calculations off every damn time. 8)

Well, at least it's more intelligent than most of the drivel I've read on this subject. The trouble is, the writer claims to oppose the Induce Bill, but he loses his way with his musings on technology. He essentially has no position, and what he says all cancels out. Needless to say, I disagree entirely.

I like Bob's attitude, at least it's clear where he stands.

[DeleriumMDK]

They gunna go after phone makers next? You know, I can use the phone, call up a friend and tell them about Kazaa or WinMX, its a dangerous piece of equipment that can lead to piracy.

[housepig]

They gunna go after phone makers next? You know, I can use the phone, call up a friend and tell them about Kazaa or WinMX, its a dangerous piece of equipment that can lead to piracy.

well, hell - I can call up a pizza joint, order a pizza, and then murder the delivery guy! so phones are definitely dangerous.... I just thought of it - I can use the phone itself to beat him to death... clearly these weapons shouldn't be in the hands of children, who might beat each other to death with them without meaning to....

[DeleriumMDK]

Oh my god...Housepig is right. PHONES MUST BE STOPPED! Guys write your local representatives, let them know we will not tolerate the evil world phones will create.

[tekkieman]

Oh my god...Housepig is right. PHONES MUST BE STOPPED! Guys write your local representatives, let them know we will not tolerate the evil world phones will create.

If you're going to write, you'd better hurry before pens and pencils are outlwed. Not only can you use them to copy things (thus infringing on copyright), but you could also stab someone with them. They too, are dangerous weapons....

[tlegion]

One thing to keep in mind, of all of the things these idiots have voted to ban, tried to ban, or sued to death (cyclamates, toy guns that look like real guns, original napster, VCR, individual with smart card technology purchases, backup software, mp3 players) the only technology that is designed to cause harm and that they refuse to regulate in any way and that they believe is protected by the constitution is firearms.

Point a toy gun at a cop, ten years.
Point a real gun at a cop, probation.

Toy gun in your carryon luggage, shut down the airport.
Real gun in your luggage, give it to us and try to be more careful in the future.

[enstg8er]

from the article:

It will make lawyers richer while failing to help the copyright holders it is supposed to save.

expect to see this one on the fast track........

[ViRaL1]

It's what's wrong with people these days. No one takes responsibility. A wooden spoon could be used to smack some poor childe's bottom, so lets out law spoons.

Children are shooting people in schools. Let's outlaw children.

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

Remember people, when you read a book or watch a movie, don't tell anybody about it, because you will be spreading copyrighted material, and will be held responsible for it.

Also, your eyes and hands are very dangerous piracy tools, because you can see and copy anything you want with them.

When is it going to stop?, almost anything can be used for wrong. Somebody could choke you while you're sleeping with a pillow, so ban pillows. Somebody may throw a plugged hair dryer in the bathtub, so ban hair dryers...

[ViRaL1]

I find a toaster works better.

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

Maybe, but it's harder to explain to the cops what was a toaster doing in the bathroom!!!

[gitreel]

Ever seen Groundhog Day? The toaster worked for Bill Murray.

[Mr anderson]

yeah, this is stupid! they r a money making company, but people will not put up wiv being walked over anymore! the day when the think of the general public, will be they day tht computers take over mars!

[SilverBlade]

If this Induce Act is passed (I'm confident it won't), these are the people that would be sued:

1) Computer user (for pirating)
2) Microsoft/Linux/Apple (For making the Operating systems for which users use to pirate)
3) Various computer hardware manufacturers (For providing the computer parts)
4) Plastic/Metal companies (for providing the plastic and metal to make the computer parts)
5) CD and DVD Recordable companies (For making recordable DVD's and CD's in which computer users use to watch pirated material)
6) All ISP's (For providing the internet connections)
7) Cable hardware companies (For providing the ISP's with cable's and routers for the internet connections)
8) Governments (For providing the satellites which internet signals travel to go to overseas systems)
9) Parents (For giving birth to the computer user)
10) Phone companies (For providing a way to communicate to tell people about pirating)
11) Electric companies (For providing the electricity in which pirates use to power their computers)
12) Computer stores (For selling the parts to build a computer)
13) Trucking companies (For transporting the computer parts to the stores)
14) The Music/Movie industry (for providing the music and movies which pirates copy)
15) Schools (for teaching people to read, which is later used to learn how to pirate)
16) All electronics companies (for providing hardware to copy, watch, or listen to pirated material)
17) Construction companies (For providing the houses that computer users live in and for providing the roads in which users travel to get the computer parts)
18) Car manufactures (For providing the cars which computer users drive to the computer stores)
19) Car sellers (For providing the sale of the car)
20) Eyeglass companies (For providing a way for people to see their computer screens)

Have I missed anything? I think I included EVERYONE that could assist pirates in ANY way

[SilverBlade]

Oh, I almost forgot. The Induce act would also make these technologies illegal to use

1) HTTP
2) FTP
3) TCP/IP
4) Oh, lets not forget the human brain, for IT copies information too!
5) Human eyes, people need to see what they are using
6) HTML
7) XML
8) Javscript
9) Java
10) All other internet/programming languages

May as well make air illegal too, pirates breathe in order to live