About this Author
Ernest Miller Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @

Listen to the weekly audio edition on IT Conversations:
The Importance Of ... Law and IT.

Feel free to contact me about articles, websites and etc. you think I may find of interest. I'm also available for consulting work and speaking engagements. Email: ernest.miller 8T

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

The Importance of...

« Technorati Goes to the Democratic National Convention | Main | Hatch's Hit List #10 - 3D Scanners »

July 21, 2004

Fmr Intel VP and CEI Oppose INDUCE Act (IICA)

Posted by Ernest Miller

Two significant editorials against the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA, née INDUCE Act) were published today. Ed Felten points to a Wall Street Journal op-ed (alas, behind a subscription wall) by former Intel VP Les Vadasz (Vadasz Attacks INDUCE Act):

Sen. Hatch and others argue that the bill will protect kids from porn and punish those who "intentionally induce" piracy. In reality it will do neither. But it will do serious harm to innovation.
Arnold Kling also points to this op-ed and asks, "What would be the social costs and benefits of Microsoft, Intel, or Google taking over one or more of the large music publishers (Technology Innovation vs. Government, July 21, 2004)?" He also provides the following quote from Vadasz' essay:
The more we attempt to provide government protection to the old ways of doing business, the less motivation we provide to the entertainment industry to adapt and benefit from new technology. ...

Most importantly, what we need are legislators who can curb their urge to legislate in areas where their actions are likely to do more harm than good.

The other piece comes from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. George Pieler, attorney and former Deputy Counsel to Sen. Bob Dole, has penned a 4-page attack on the bill (Send Me No Files: Senate INDUCEs a Threat to the Future of Information Technology [PDF]):
The INDUCE Act’s supporters claim they are just aiming at “bad actors”—flagrant facilitators of copyright offenses, mainly in the area of P2P sharing of music and video files. If so, they went to the wrong lawyer to draft the bill. This bill may be directed at infringement P2P file downloads, but it is far more sweeping. S. 2560 creates a new cause of action that would strike at any technology—new or old— that might be used in a manner unapproved by the copyright holder....

Indeed, the sweeping new legal concept behind INDUCE would establish a de facto permitting process for any business or technology that enables transmission or copying of copyrightable material. The potential for inducement would have to be weighed before the introduction of a new technology or device. Government standards would likely define “inducement” and require a sort of “inducement impact statement.” In essence this constitutes a “precautionary principle” for technology, such that no new technology or product can be marketed until it can be proven, in advance, that it will never do harm to anyone anywhere (a virtual impossibility since one cannot prove a negative). The chilling effect on the American economy would be substantial. [italics in original]

Indeed. Read the whole thing.

Want to know more about the INDUCE Act?
Please see LawMeme's well-organized index to everything I've written on the topic: The LawMeme Reader's Guide to Ernie Miller's Guide to the INDUCE Act.

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: INDUCE Act


1. Crosbie Fitch on July 21, 2004 11:39 PM writes...

The greatest hope for those against INDUCE is not to attack it, but to reinforce it. The more clauses, amendments and exceptions that are added to it to make it less chilling will simply lengthen its lifetime.

Support INDUCE! If anything, claim it is too lenient, too weak, too mild. It needs more teeth, greater penalty, harsher strictures.

INDUCE is a stalking horse created by the RIAA, they do not expect it to succeed - it would not serve their purpose to do so. It has been created as a greater extreme in order to make lesser extremes appear reasonable.

If passed INDUCE will expedite the disintegration of copyright law. Please support this act!

Permalink to Comment


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 23
Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 22
Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 21
Kitchen Academy - The Hollywood Cookbook and Guest Chef Michael Montilla - March 18th
Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 20
Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 19
Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 18
Salsa Verde