Over on LawMeme, James Grimmelmann notes my 100th post on the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA, née INDUCE Act) and picks five of his favorite pieces (Ernie Miller's 100th INDUCE Post). Grimmelmann has been doing a great job maintaining an index of my posts: The LawMeme Reader's Guide to Ernie Miller's Guide to the INDUCE Act.

The conservative Heritage Foundation has published a short study on the effects of filesharing on music sales and determines that something should be done, but that the INDUCE Act is overbroad (Internet File Sharing: The Evidence So Far and What It Means for the Future, also available as a 6-page PDF)

Policymakers can help to clarify rights by amending the law so that making copyrighted work available to the general public on the Internet is clearly an infringement and by allowing the Department of Justice to bring civil suits. Any changes in the law should be narrowly targeted, however, and should focus only on those who actually misappropriate protected works. Some current proposals, while perhaps well-intended, appear to swing too broadly.

One bill--S. 2560, introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)--would make liable anyone who "intentionally aids, abets, or procures" a copyright violation. This language could cover a huge range of legitimate activities. Intel pioneer Les Vadasz argues that these prohibited "activities" could even cover the production of microprocessors used to power PCs.

I do take issue with the study's assumption that music producers can't compete with free. Sure they can. They can compete on service. Easy access, open APIs that permit all sorts of functionality, guaranteed good rips, etc., can all make legitimate services more attractive than unreliable free systems.

via The INDUCE Act Blawg (go visit for more good posts)

Finally, InfoWorld has an article on the "Don't Induce Act" (Industry groups propose alternative to copyright bill).