For very obvious reasons, when one considers the impact that the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA, née INDUCE Act) will have on technology, thoughts generally turn to digital technologies first. Digital technology will continue to grow in importance and be the substrate upon which much innovation over the next few years will take place. However, analog isn't going away entirely and will remain important in a variety of applications.

This is why it is important to recall that the MPAA has long had its eye on controlling not only digital technologies but analog as well. In a press release from February 2002, the MPAA made its goals clear, goals that have not changed since then, to my knowledge (If You Cannot Protect What You Own, You Don’t Own Anything!). The press release notes three goals:

1. To create a "broadcast flag" which would prevent broadcast programs exhibited on over the air TV stations from being re-distributed on the Net, which is a form of thievery.
2. To "plug" the "analog hole."
3. To stop the avalanche of movie theft on so-called ‘file-sharing" Web sites, such as Morpheus, Gnutella, etc. (the more accurate name would be ‘file-stealing’ sites).

Let's take a closer look at "Goal Two":

This is technical jargon. Let me sort this out in plain English. All digital protection designs can only work in a digital environment, which is the environment of the Internet. When a digital signal comes down to a TV set in the consumer home, that TV set in 95% or more of American homes is an "analog" set. This means the digital signal is immediately transformed into an analog signal in order for the consumer to watch it. If the analog signal is then converted back to digital, it cannot be protected by any known protection device. This is called "the analog hole." One way to ‘plug the hole’ could be through a ‘watermark detector.’ The ‘watermark’ is an ingenious design, which commands the signal converter in the TV set to respond to the instructions on the movie. This can be accomplished through a concord agreed to by the Information Technology, Consumer Electronics and Movie industries.

Action: To reach this goal, Congressional assistance will be necessary. [emphasis in original]

The INDUCE Act doesn't contain a "no mandate" clause. If content producers and some consumer electronic manufacturer's begin to produce devices that respond to watermarks in new analog outputs, wouldn't the INDUCE Act be used against those manufacturers who design non-watermark responding devices? Wouldn't devices that permit the analog hole to continue be "inducing infringement"?

Looks to me like the MPAA would be getting a two-fer with the INDUCE Act, ostensibly accomplishing two of their goals with one piece of legislation.

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.