Comments on: Online Speech http://peteashdown.org/journal/2005/11/10/online-speech/ Fast Forward the Future Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:08:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Lee Hollaar http://peteashdown.org/journal/2005/11/10/online-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-76 Lee Hollaar Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:23:32 +0000 http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=32#comment-76 I'm well aware of Senator Hatch's floor statement, but what you wrote was "INDUCE referred to 'P2P' technology without bothering to define it." and it didn't. If you are going to criticize a bill, or use it as an example of something, at least try to be factual about what the bill actually says. And again, what Senator Hatch (along with a number of other senators, including Leahy, Daschle, Boxer, and Clinton) was trying to do with the INDUCE Act is exactly what the Supreme Court did in its unanimous Grokster decision: recognize that one who intentionally induces copyright infringement is liable as an infringer. I’m well aware of Senator Hatch’s floor statement, but what you wrote was “INDUCE referred to ‘P2P’ technology without bothering to define it.” and it didn’t. If you are going to criticize a bill, or use it as an example of something, at least try to be factual about what the bill actually says.

And again, what Senator Hatch (along with a number of other senators, including Leahy, Daschle, Boxer, and Clinton) was trying to do with the INDUCE Act is exactly what the Supreme Court did in its unanimous Grokster decision: recognize that one who intentionally induces copyright infringement is liable as an infringer.

]]> By: Pete Ashdown http://peteashdown.org/journal/2005/11/10/online-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Pete Ashdown Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:58:12 +0000 http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=32#comment-75 Lee, read <a href="http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/floor.pdf" rel="nofollow">Senator Hatch's floor statement</a> in regards to the bill. Its apparent that INDUCE was intended as a shoehorn for further attacks on technology. You argument is correct in that the Supreme Court upheld the idea of inducement in the Grokster case, but what Hatch tried to do with INDUCE before that was established was paint with the previously described "broad brush". The text of the bill is limited, but the intent was clear by his statement. Lee, read Senator Hatch’s floor statement in regards to the bill. Its apparent that INDUCE was intended as a shoehorn for further attacks on technology. You argument is correct in that the Supreme Court upheld the idea of inducement in the Grokster case, but what Hatch tried to do with INDUCE before that was established was paint with the previously described “broad brush”.

The text of the bill is limited, but the intent was clear by his statement.

]]> By: Lee Hollaar http://peteashdown.org/journal/2005/11/10/online-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-74 Lee Hollaar Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:52:45 +0000 http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=32#comment-74 There is a very good reason why the INDUCE Act did not define "P2P" technology. It never uses that term, or any related term, anywhere in the bill. There is nothing in the bill that is specific to P2P technology. But don't take my word for it. Go to thomas.loc.gov and look it up yourself. It's S. 2560 during the 108th Congress. And it's only a few paragraphs long, so it shouldn't be hard for anybody who wants the facts to see what it says. As for "email, instant messaging, and legal file transfers" being "made illegal" by the INDUCE Act, I guess they have been illegal since June 27th, when a unanimous Supreme Court said one who intentionally induces copyright infringement is liable as an infringer. Which is just what the INDUCE Act said. It would be nice if candidates did understand what they're talking about. There is a very good reason why the INDUCE Act did not define “P2P” technology. It never uses that term, or any related term, anywhere in the bill. There is nothing in the bill that is specific to P2P technology.

But don’t take my word for it. Go to thomas.loc.gov and look it up yourself. It’s S. 2560 during the 108th Congress. And it’s only a few paragraphs long, so it shouldn’t be hard for anybody who wants the facts to see what it says.

As for “email, instant messaging, and legal file transfers” being “made illegal” by the INDUCE Act, I guess they have been illegal since June 27th, when a unanimous Supreme Court said one who intentionally induces copyright infringement is liable as an infringer. Which is just what the INDUCE Act said.

It would be nice if candidates did understand what they’re talking about.

]]> By: Bob http://peteashdown.org/journal/2005/11/10/online-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Bob Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:16:41 +0000 http://peteashdown.org/journal/?p=32#comment-67 What makes me wonder about using the term "web log" with no definition is this: Let's say that, instead of calling this a "Campaign Journal," this was a personl journal. Someone (including the government) could then say that this is a "Journal" not a "web log." -Bob What makes me wonder about using the term “web log” with no definition is this: Let’s say that, instead of calling this a “Campaign Journal,” this was a personl journal. Someone (including the government) could then say that this is a “Journal” not a “web log.”

-Bob

]]>