|
Search
CRA TumbleLog
Archives
April 2007
March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004
Archives by Category
American Competitiveness Initiative (45)
CRA (38) Computing Community Consortium (CCC) (6) Diversity in Computing (9) Events (8) FY06 Appropriations (13) FY07 Appropriations (32) FY08 Appropriations (8) Funding (135) Misc. (42) People (67) Policy (179) R&D in the Press (56) Research (45) Security (20)
Recent Entries
NY Times on Women's Interest in Computing
Time on GENI Innovation Briefing Event NSF Reauthorization Eugene Spafford Honored with ACM President's Award Innovation Bill Moves Forward CRA's Hiring Innovation Funding Featured in House Budget Resolution Announcing the Computing Research Policy TumbleLog Innovation Press Conference and Hearing
CRA Links
Computing Research News
CRA-Bulletin Computing Data and Resources CRA in the News Computing Research in the FY05 Budget
What We're Reading
Computational Complexity
CNSR Online Danger Room Defense Tech Freedom to Tinker InsideHPC Lessig Blog Nothing is as simple... Reed's Ruminations Schneier on Security Techdirt UMBC eBiquity Blog USACM Tech Policy Blog
Advocacy Materials
IT R&D One-pager (pdf)
DARPA and University Research One-pager (pdf) Cyber Security R&D One-pager (pdf) Current and Requested IT R&D Funding Charts (pdf)
Recent Testimony
|
September 17, 2004Congress Should Slow Down on New Copyright Regs, USACM SaysThe U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM -- one of CRA's affiliate organizations -- has joined a broad coalition of groups who have written (pdf) to the members of the US Senate urging them to "slow down" their efforts to pass legislation (called INDUCE) that would create a new form of secondary liability for copyright infringement. The Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to act on recommended language prepared by the U.S. Copyright Office 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. In an earlier letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, USACM rightly cautioned "that the legislation's flawed approach of restricting technology rather than focusing on individual acts of infringement could have serious unintended consequences which could undermine continued innovations in software and digital computing and introduce new liabilities for technology developers." In the latest letter, the coalition -- which includes Google, Yahoo!, Public Knowledge, Intel, IEEE-USA, Sun Microsystems, Consumer Electronics Association, Verizon, Radio Shack, Earthlink, the Association of American Universities, Texas Instruments, and the National Venture Capital Association -- raises concerns about the Copyright Office recommendations: The Copyright Office's most recent approach would create a new form of strict copyright liability for a large class of providers of hardware, software and services used in conjunction with the electronic or physical dissemination of goods, services and information. These companies and institutions could be found liable without regard to their knowledge, intent, or relationship to the infringer, simply for providing a product, service, facility or financing. All it takes to be found liable is to meet one of the three vague criteria proposed by the Copyright Office, which are to be applied to some undefined subset of a defendant's products or services. As a result, anyone involved in the dissemination technologies could be strictly liable when it unknowingly derives revenue that may be small in relation to its own provision of goods and services. Perhaps most troubling, entities that participate in the Internet and other electronic space would have no way of structuring their activities to anticipate and avoid -- or even minimize -- these risks. You can read the whole thing here (pdf). The USACM has a bit more background, including the previous letter, on their home page. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation has more detail here. Posted by PeterHarsha at September 17, 2004 08:06 PM | TrackBack Posted to Policy |