[Fsfe-france] Un article du WSJ décrypte la pos ition de bush et de kerry au sujet du P2P

[tariq KRIM]

Article intéressant autour de l'induce, le P2P s'invite dans la campagne US:

Bush semble prendre des positions plus pro P2P que Kerry (démocrate et donc
supporté par l'industrie de l'entertainement)

"...The presidential campaigns have even taken notice of the debate,
although they aren't taking clear positions on the Induce Act.
President Bush's campaign says Mr. Bush isn't in favor of banning
peer-to-peer technology because it has legitimate uses, though he wants to
vigorously enforce copyright law. John Kerry's campaign says he also
supports copyright law, and a spokesman says that "widespread sharing and
downloading of music, movies and software undermines the incentives of
individuals and companies to create new content..."

L'article

Antipiracy Bill Divides Studios and Tech Companies

The Wall Street Journal
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Monday, September 27, 2004

By Sarah McBride

FIGHTING A LOSING battle against music and movie pirates, the entertainment
industry is trying a fresh tack: seeking new laws that would make it easier
to prosecute people who illegally trade songs and films over the Internet.
Copyright holders are stepping up the drive toward new antipiracy
legislation in the wake of a stinging federal appeals-court ruling that
would allow creators of Internet file-sharing software to stay in operation,
despite piracy by their users. Unless it's overturned by the Supreme Court,
the ruling may make it difficult for the industry ever to get satisfaction
from the courts when it comes to file-sharing.

With that as a backdrop, movie studios, music companies and other copyright
holders believe they need stricter laws that would allow them to sue people
who they think encourage copyright violation by creating technologies that
enable piracy. Congress is poised soon to revisit a controversial bill,
known as the Induce Act, that takes direct aim at makers of the peer-to-peer
software used in the illicit online trade in copyrighted songs, movies and
other material. The bill's high-profile supporters include much of the
entertainment industry, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But companies in a wide range of other industries -- consumer electronics,
technology and even financial services -- worry that the Induce Act could
ensnare them as well. The companies fear they would face liability if their
products -- CD and DVD burners, for example -- were used by people making
illegal copies of entertainment products.
Even manufacturers of components for those products fear they could face
lawsuits if the proposed law takes effect. Among the companies that have
come out against the act are Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc.

The upshot is another Hollywood versus Silicon Valley standoff of the kind
that has dogged the piracy debate for years. While it's far from clear that
the Induce Act or any of the other copyright-related bills will become law
this session, the debate sets the framework for future intellectual-property
deliberations. And it underscores how six years after the passage of the
landmark Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- which was supposed to create
workable copyright standards for the digital era -- advances in digital
distribution continue to leapfrog the law.

Opponents of the law have said there's little point in trying to legislate
an evolving field, because in a few months or years the technology is
outdated. But change "doesn't mean you shouldn't do something," says Owen
Sloane, an entertainment lawyer at Berger Kahn in Los Angeles. "Any
legislation in a rapidly developing area is always going to need to be
tweaked" later.

A new version of the Induce Act is expected to incorporate input from a wide
range of groups, including the Consumer Electronics Association, which
represents makers of TV sets, DVD players, music systems and game players.
The industry group is seeking to narrow the scope of the law by drawing a
distinction between electronics companies and peer-to-peer firms. The CEA
wants the law to target only those computer programs that exist primarily
for "indiscriminate, mass infringing of copyrighted works," and whose
commercial viability depends on that infringement.

The U.S. Copyright Office has gone in the opposite direction, seeking a wide
scope for the proposed law. Instead of restricting liability to people who
distribute computer programs, the Copyright Office wants to extend liability
to those who distribute technology, devices and components. It has
established guidelines for liability that are intended to gauge how much a
product's commercial viability or sales rely on copyright infringement.

Such a wide net is exactly what has technology and electronics makers
worried. Users of Apple Computer Inc.'s iPod, for example, might store
significant amounts of illegally downloaded music on the device -- which,
according to that theory, could make Apple liable. A trade group called the
Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition, including Apple and also big
chains like Best Buy Co. and Circuit City Stores Inc., has come out against
the current version of the bill. An Apple spokesman noted Apple is a member
of the Consumer Electronics Association, which drafted the narrower version
of the bill.

Supporters of a wide Induce Act "want to create a broad new spectrum of
copyright law," says Sarah Deutsch, associate general counsel for Verizon
Communications Inc., which is worried that Internet-access providers such as
Verizon also might become liable. "As a result, they are catching every
technology company in their net."

Even companies that have seemingly little to do with online piracy fear they
could end up in court fighting nuisance suits. A pornography Web site
operator called Perfect 10 Inc. recently sued companies including Visa
International Service Association and MasterCard International Inc.,
alleging they contributed to copyright infringement by providing financial
services to sites that published Perfect 10's material without permission. A
U.S. district judge in Northern California threw out the case last month.

In addition to entertainment companies, some artists are calling for tougher
laws against piracy. Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of
America, says, "We need to have a fix on [piracy], and the Induce Act is a
fix." Noting that some artists have given up their careers or been fired
because of declining income that in part stems from piracy, he says, "By the
time this gets through the courts, we'll all be in other jobs."

The presidential campaigns have even taken notice of the debate, although
they aren't taking clear positions on the Induce Act.
President Bush's campaign says Mr. Bush isn't in favor of banning
peer-to-peer technology because it has legitimate uses, though he wants to
vigorously enforce copyright law. John Kerry's campaign says he also
supports copyright law, and a spokesman says that "widespread sharing and
downloading of music, movies and software undermines the incentives of
individuals and companies to create new content."

The bill has created some unlikely bedfellows. The American Conservative
Union, an Alexandria, Va., lobbying organization, has been running
advertisements in publications like the Hill and the Weekly Standard showing
a movie marquee that calls the bill, "Chilling!" The fine print says the
legislation would threaten personal property rights and create a bonanza for
trial lawyers, concluding, that "this is one bill that shouldn't play
anywhere."

That position puts the group on the same side of the aisle as the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group known for liberal views on
copyright, and the peer-to-peer companies themselves.
The Distributed Computing Industry Association, which represents
file-sharing organizations, obtained a video-recording of the Senate
Judiciary Committee's July hearing on the bill and is encouraging people to
use peer-to-peer services to view and share it. The group created a Web
site, P2Pcongress.org, that explains how people can file-share their way to
a copy of the debate. "Tragically," write the site creators, "the Induce Act
is designed to outlaw the very P2P networks that have the collective power
to promote learning and democratic participation."

--
Tariq KRIM :address@hidden
www.utopeer.com: bandwitdh and soul