Another RIAA law

The RIAA and its friends are trying to push a new bill through Congress that says "'whoever intentionally induces any violation' of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations." The bill enjoys widespread, bipartisan support in the Congress. Why is this law necessary? The story of Napster proves that the existing laws are sufficient to drive an offending service off the air.

If the existing laws work, why add a new one to muddy the waters? Simple. Second generation P2P services learned the legal lessons of Napster and responded accordingly. As a result, courts have determined these services are legal. The courts have realized that these services can be used to distribute material that does not violate copyright restrictions as well as the MP3 files the recording industry is concerned with. So since existing laws make Kazaa and the like legal, they need to change the law to get what they want.

I'm all for protecting copyrighted material. But the digital age seems to be producing poorly considered laws that give far too much power to the big companies. Look at what's happening to 321 Studios. They are a small company that makes software to allow a user to make a backup copy of a DVD or video game. This is legal under fair use laws. This software can, of course also facilitate piracy by allowing copies to be made of a DVD or video game that could then be distributed via the internet. This triggers provisions in the DMCA about circumventing protections. The movie and video game industry has hammered 321 Studios almost to the point of bankruptcy, even though they have not had their day in court for the video game case. The DMCA essentially allows the big companies with vast reservoirs of money to launch law suit after law suit against much smaller companies, bludgeoning them into submission.

The big companies have the power to hammer through legislation that tailors the law to whatever suits them, even at the expense of the consumer. This new proposal to give the industry what the courts would not is yet another example. Congress should reject this bill and let existing laws function. If the industry cannot win with the existing laws, maybe they should accept that and get down to the business of making and distributing a product that users want and will pay for.