A new bill aimed at reducing illegal copyright violations may hurt universities and some technology companies because of broad wording, according to three higher-education groups.
In a July 20 letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges expressed concerns that the proposed law would hold universities liable for providing new computer networks and applications for faculty and staff, such as educational file-sharing software and exposure to high-speed Internet access.
Under the proposed law, the groups say, file-sharing on university networks or university-created technology that enables file-sharing could put universities at risk for lawsuits.
The groups also claim the modified definition of copyright infringement in the bill may chill technological innovation in the private sector by allowing copyright holders to sue the makers of devices used to share files, like Apple Computer's iPod MP3 player and some DVD recorders.
Dubbed the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004, or the "Induce Act" for short, the new legislation allows copyright holders to sue corporations that profit by encouraging or "inducing" children, teenagers and others to commit illegal or criminal acts of copyright infringement, said Margarita Tapia, a spokeswoman for Hatch.
Tapia did not comment on the specific concerns voiced by the higher-education groups, but did say the bill will only target bad behavior that is already illegal.
"Some corporations distributing so-called 'peer-to-peer file-sharing software' have hit upon a truly malicious business model," Hatch said in a June news release. "These corporations know better than to break the law themselves, so they profit from infringement by inducing users of their software to do the 'dirty work' of actually breaking the law. Because about half of the users of this software are children, this for-profit piracy scheme mostly endangers children who are ill-equipped to appreciate the illegality or risks of their acts."
Officials from the higher-education groups acknowledged the need to combat illegal file-sharing in the July 20 letter, but still say the proposed statute is not specific enough.
"Our main concern of the bill is not so much a specific problem that we could put a finger on, but instead general concern of a global nature in some of the terminology present in it," said Richard Harpel, director of federal relations for the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. "It could be interpreted by some court as a violation the way the language reads now - at the very least, it could be a mischievous opportunity for people to make false claims."
Lawmakers in the Senate Judiciary Committee held a July 22 hearing to respond to concerns about the bill and listen for ways to make sure it targets networks that facilitate illegal filesharing.
Hatch said at the hearing the bill only targets bad behavior, and protections afforded to Internet service providers under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act would still stand.
He added that devices that only copy files, such as Apple's iPod, would not violate the Induce Act, and he said he would continue to welcome suggestions or concerns about the legislation.
Angel Cruz, director of Certified Informations Systems Security Professsional at the University, said that he is aware of the bill, but added he will not be able to judge its merit for the University until a final version is made into law.
"I think whether the bill chills innovation and harms the University ultimately would depend on what the actual verbiage is going to do - right now, we have preliminary verbiage that tends to change over time," Cruz said. "Once [the bill] does get approved, we will look at the verbiage and see how it will impact the University. From there, we may or may not include that in compliance or an audit function for oversight."
Be the first to comment on this article!