Holy crap; today seems to be the day the copyright world goes crazy. Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights at the US Copyright Office, apparently testified before Congress regarding the completely insane INDUCE Act now before the Senate, during which time she not only urged the Senate to approve the bill but argued that a twenty year-old case which found that VCRs were not per se copyright violating tools should be legislatively overturned. No kidding:
While you have carefully crafted this bill to preserve the 20-year-old decision in the Sony case, it may become necessary to consider whether that decision is overly protective of manufacturers and marketers of infringement tools, especially in today’s digital environment. If the Sony precedent continues to be an impediment to obtaining effective relief against those who profit by providing the means to engage in mass infringement, it should be replaced by a more flexible rule that is more meaningful in the technological age, but that still vindicates the Court’s goal to balance effective “and not merely symbolic” protection of copyright with the rights of others to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce.
While that might seem to be a bunch of gobbledygook, it basically indicates Peters’ belief that the Sony decision — which found that the mere existence of a Betamax (and by extension VCR) did not infringe on broadcasters’ copyrights, and became the basis of the long-standing tradition that taping shows off of television for personal use was A-okay — ought to be kicked to the curb. Arguing that such a decision is “overly protective of manufacturers and marketers of infringement tools” a) implies that the VCR is by definition an infringement tool and b) suggests that there should be strict limits and/or penalties on individuals or companies who devise new technologies or innovations regarding the delivery of copyrightable media or content.
Which is far and away the most ridiculously extreme position on copyright a person could take in this day and age. You know those lunatics who argue that the Federal Constitution doesn’t require that you pay income taxes — the ones everyone laughs at, because they’re as nuts as Art Bell‘s audience? Peters’ argument is about as extreme and just as unfounded in reality as theirs.
Read Ernest Miller’s detailed, well-written summary and criticism of Peters’ testimony at Corante.
[all via boingboing, whew!]
