U.S senate out to ban VCRS...

[jhessel]

Orrin Hatch out to ban...VCRS

Summary of Article:
A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes. Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law, said that under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights. Web sites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients like the Morpheus software are also at risk for "inducing" infringement, Litman warned.

 

[crazyfingers]

Orrin Hatch out to ban...VCRS

Summary of Article:
A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes. Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law, said that under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights. Web sites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients like the Morpheus software are also at risk for "inducing" infringement, Litman warned.

Hard to see how they could ban VCRs given that the Supreme Court has already ruled that consumers have the right to time-shift - record a TV show now to watch later.

 

[burrow_owl]

Hard to see how they could ban VCRs given that the Supreme Court has already ruled that consumers have the right to time-shift - record a TV show now to watch later.

Unfortunately, it's not quite so simple - the court ruled that time-shifting via VCR was protected by the fair use doctrine, which is a weird mixture of first amendment jurisprudence, common law, and federal statute. By altering the statute, Hatch would be trying to (once more) shrink the contours of fair use itself, and he might be able to get away with it, since justices seem pretty wary of rooting fair use in the first amendment. Why? Well, two reasons: first, justices are generally wary of rooting law in the Constitution when they don't have to.

The more important reason for present purposes is that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution is prima facie in tension with the first amendment. So there are two clauses of the Constitution opposed to one another, which makes a definitive free speech argument pretty hard to conjure up.

So, since the Copyright Clause grants Congress near-plenary power to legislate, and since fair use is largely a statutory creation, Congress can probably get away with an awful lot of legislation - including this rotten, terrible wreck of a bill.

As we saw in Eldrich v Ashcroft, there are Constitutional limits to Congress's power, but the Constitutional threshold has been set scandalously low by the Court. In practice, Congress has plenary power.

 

[Andy D]

LOL

I am glad I dont live in America. Banning VCRs?? Are they going to enter every single person's homes to check if they have a VCR connected to their TV?? What if you want to watch video cassettes of a school play you were in when you were a kid?? Are they going to pay for the transfer of all videos in someone's library to dvd??

Good thing I dont watch TV much anyhow...

Andy

 

[crazyfingers]

By altering the statute, Hatch would be trying to (once more) shrink the contours of fair use itself,

One more reason for my already low regard for Hatch.

 

[burrow_owl]

I am glad I dont live in America. Banning VCRs??

You're missing three things: first, it's almost certainly not going to pass. Second, it's not aimed at VCRs; it's aimed largely at peer-to-peer networks, and a full bill would probably be riddled with exceptions and caveats exempting things like VCRs. Third, the american copyright system, while flawed in a number of important respects, is far, far better than the European system (based as it is on the French concept of moral rights, in which no one can even alter in the slightest a work without the author's express authorization).

By contrast, Americans at least give lip service to free speech, so a moral rights-based system wouldn't fly here.

One more reason for my already low regard for Hatch.

Have you ever heard Hatch's songs? As hard as it may be to believe, they'll drop your regard even lower.

 

[crazyfingers]

Have you ever heard Hatch's songs? As hard as it may be to believe, they'll drop your regard even lower.

I don't think that I want to know...

 

[opus_dei]

is it time for a discussion about how a bil becomes a law???????

i thought not as we all realize that this bill in entirely irrelevant.

next, kidddies?

 

[jhessel]

LOL

I am glad I dont live in America. Banning VCRs?? Are they going to enter every single person's homes to check if they have a VCR connected to their TV??

RIIA wanted to send police teams to invade peoples homes and take their computer if they were known to have mp3s.

 

[armed2010]

Isnt Hatch the same person who wanted to give the RIAA or some other organization the right to remotely destroy a persons computer if they were downloading copyrighted content?

 

[I'ddie4him]

As if these already overpaid idiots don't have anything else to do.....Give em a foot and they'll take a mile.

 

[SUNSTONE]

I don't like it when people steal things from other people. Just because it is easy to do, it doesn't make it right.
I don't know if the numbers could justify a law like that, but if they do, I would support it.

 

[JPPT1974]

No way since I am reluctant to use the DVD!!