I lead teams at the intersection of strategy and design. Autodidact. Polymath. Barbecue acolyte. I start fires (the good kind).
Susan Crawford presents a compelling case to bring the INDUCE Act to a hearing on the Senate floor in her article Overstatement and IICA. She addresses both sides of the issue on three fundamental questions:
This is just a quick post with some informative perspectives on the INDUCE Act. Sadly, I do not have the time to comment on all of them at present, though I do hope to post about select articles when my schedule allows. Anyway, here are the links:
Ernest, provides additional insight into the ramifications of the INDUCE Act on his site( The Importance of…) in a new article titled The INDUCE Act and the Right to Prepare Derivative Works. His perspectives on this issue and many others in the realm of copyrights are extremely informative for those of us who are just now learning of the issues. Yet again, Ernest points out the details and effects that may not be obvious on first blush. Well, at the very least, they were not obvious to me:
Most of the commentary on the Act and what technologies, creativity and innovation it threatens have focused on two types of infringement, those of the right of reproduction (the right to make copies) and the right of public distribution. We should remember, however, that there are other exclusive rights that can be infringed. The intersection of the INDUCE Act with these other exclusive rights will create an even broader swath of technology and acts that Hollywood will have an effective veto over. Let’s consider one of these other rights and the technologies that might be affected.
According to 17 USC 106, the second exclusive right is the right “to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.”
That is a very scary proposition on a number of fronts as it could lead to so many more lawsuits, and legal bullying by large companies, driving innovators and fans into hiding, if not apathy. Ultimately, the INDUCE Act could prove harmful to the U.S. economy as we will lose ground to other nations who do not place such strict controls on innovation and product evolution.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has created a Fake Complaint against Apple, Toshiba, and C-Net for Inducing Infringement of Copyrights to demonstrate the potential damage of the INDUCE Act should it pass. Scroll down to page three of the PDF version to read the actual complaint.
I think the complaint provides the best perspective of any coverage of the issue for those of us who aren’t directly involved in copyright law as it breaks it down into specific, real world acts that could set off litigation and crush our rights and future innovations.
The EFF also provides an easy to use method to write your senator about the issue. All you have to do is fill in your name and address. You aren’t locked into the letter that they provide you either, if you want to modify the letter to suit your needs, you can.
Senator Hatch’s INDUCE Act is gaining more coverage as each day passes, though I have yet to spot anything from the major media outlets. Are you surprised? No, I didn’t think so. I’m not. Wired has posted a story this morning covering the backlash titled File-Trading Bill Stokes Fury and other sites have started to report the Senator’s plans to fundamentally change copyright law in favor of the media conglomerates. Ars Technica has also published a piece: Induce Act seeks to eliminate innovation.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently broke the story about the latest rights-constricting work of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): the INDUCE Act. As the EFF put it:
It’s the Hollings Bill by other means — an over-reaching new form of indirect liability that will force technology companies of all kinds to “ask permission” before innovating for fear of ruinous litigation if they don’t.
And so another front in the copyright wars opens, with the aggressors waving the bloody flag of file sharing, but really aiming at a much bigger target.
INDUCE stands for “Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act of 2004”. Go ahead, read that again. Yeah, that’s right, copyright laws, and ultimately your rights to make use of media that you have legally purchased will be directly affected by a law meant to protect children from exploitation. By hiding the new restrictions in a child exploitation law, he can try to crush the opposition by painting anyone against the proposed changes as not wanting to protect children. Utterly despicable, though not surprising coming from a politician who has received substantial contributions from the TV/Movies/Music industry, and advocated the idea that media companies should have the right to destroy the computers of people downloading copyrighted media – while his very own Web site was using unlicensed software. Brilliant.
Professor Susan Crawford has posted the draft text of the bill (PDF) and provides additional insight into the matter:
The Act (to be proposed tomorrow by songwriter Sen. Hatch and others) amends the copyright law to say that anyone who “induces” copyright infringement is himself/itself an infringer.
“Induce” means intentionally aids, abets, counsels, or procures. So you can’t even hire a lawyer if you’re doing something risky.
If we don’t put a stop to this now, your VCR may well be illegal in the near future. I am going to follow this issue and post more news as I find it. For now here are some other sites discussing the matter: