There's any number of elements in this analysis of the statements by Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights of the US Copyright Office on how the IICA/INDUCE Act is really a keen thing, even if it doesn't go far enough, which deserve highlighting (and subsequent staring-aghast, eye-roilling, or brickbats toward Ms Peters), but this one caught my eye:

Let me be clear, however, that our concern about its future application should not hold up this bill.

Actually, it's clear from any number of laws that such concerns should lead one to hold up passage. The DMCA is a perfect example.

The IICA would make it illegal not just to violate copyright law (which is, of course, illegal), but to manufacture anything that might "intentionally induce" people to do so (such induction and intent to be at the discretion of prosecutors, courts, etc.). An amusing collection of items that could arguably be considered such verboten contraband can be found here. Other folks have suggested "paper" and "radio" and "TV" (not to mention TiVos and PCs) could fall under its aegis.

Outrageous exagerration? Maybe. But, as another politician (LBJ) who understood the law-making (and law-bending) game a lot better than Ms Kelly does once noted:

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.

(via Stan)

Filed under :: Media Moguls :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G