Heather Green has a great piece in this week’s issue of Business Week on the chilling effect of copyright legislation on research. Here’s a snippet:

Scientists like to probe the unknown and pioneer useful technologies. But in the spring of 2001, Edward W. Felten discovered that such efforts aren’t always welcome. A computer scientist at Princeton University, Felten took part in a contest sponsored by the Recording Industry Association of America to test technology for guarding music against piracy. He and his students quickly found flaws in the new antipiracy software and prepared to publish their results. But when the RIAA learned of the plan, it threatened to sue under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Congress passed it back in 1998 to block hackers from breaking copy protection. And they wisely included a provision designed to let researchers such as Felten carry out their important work. Still, the RIAA deemed Felten’s line of study too sensitive.
Ultimately, faced with Felten’s countersuit, the RIAA backed off. But by that time news of the confrontation had rocked the tech community. The lesson many scientists drew was that copyright protection takes priority over research. “The legal tools that are being used to rein in bad behavior are so blunt that they block a lot of perfectly benign behavior,” Felten says. “That worries me.”
It’s a concern that reverberates broadly in tech circles at a time when Congress is considering tough new antipiracy legislation. Most people agree that the music and film industries have the right to defend themselves against illegal copying. But society needs to consider the potential impact on innovation. Many high-tech business leaders fear that new laws could hobble researchers who are trying to come up with inventions such as next-generation TV systems or even the electronic components for those inventions.

It’s a good read. Check out the whole thing. Felten has some additional commentary here, too.

 

No Compromise Reached on INDUCE, But Its Still Moving

Thanks to David Padgham (and USACM’s spiffy new blog) for pointing out this Wired story with the latest on sputtering talks to reach a compromise on the Induce Act.
It appears the tech community and the entertainment industry are still far apart on consensus language for the bill — originally designed to create a new form of secondary liability for copyright infringement that would hold technology makers and service providers liable for copyright violations by end users even if they never knew, contemplated, or intended to facilitate user infringement. Nevertheless, the Senate Judiciary Committee is still scheduled to consider the legislation at markup this morning.
We’ve covered this bill previously, but we’ll have more details as they emerge.
Update: Postponed again.
Another Update: Ernest Miller says it’s dead (for now) and has some additional commentary and links….