A proposed digital copyright bill—the Omnibus Copyright Package—being marked up in the House of Representatives in mid-June 1996 could expose U.S. Webmasters to lawsuits if it becomes law. The proposed bill, backed by IBM, Microsoft, the Software Publishers Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, Cox Cable, Time Warner, Times Mirror, and Viacom would impose fines of up to US$1000 per violation if links are forged to sites that include material that infringes another’s copyright.
Current copyright law doesn’t address the transmission issues that take place on the Internet, such as when a copyrighted story from a publication is distributed to associates via email over a public network. In addition, current law makes any copyright infringement the responsibility of the infringer, regardless of whether or not they were aware of the infringement. By contrast the first draft of the National Information Infrastructure Copyright Protection Act (H.R. 2441) holds Internet service providers responsible for any copyright infringement that takes place on its servers. Subsequent changes to the proposed bill would give Internet service providers an opportunity to rectify any unwillful infringement without penalty.
Some content providers want to see the legislation pushed even further, redefining hypertext links as “publications.” These content providers, such as Viacom who has been the most vocal in its position, claim that when a link is created to a document owned by another, the creator of the link derives benefit from the external link. Viacom representatives believe that if you “showcase” an external site by creating a link to it, you should be held responsible for that external site’s content.
More reasoned copyright holders hope emerging technology—such as IBM’s Cryptolope, which provides a secure digital wrapper for content—will provide a solution.
Opponents to the legislation argue that Internet service providers, like telephone companies, act as common carriers (information conduits, nothing more) and can’t be held responsible for copyright infringements of their users.
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.