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...

« Hatch's Hit List #39 - Peer-to-Peer Software Development Kits | Main | The Copyrightability of Messages from Extraterrestrials »

September 01, 2004

More on the "Don't" INDUCE Act (IICA) from Some New Suspects

Posted by Ernest Miller

I've done a couple of posts dedicated to commentary on the "Discouraging Online Networked Trafficking Inducement Act of 2004" or "Don't Induce Act" ('Don't Induce Act' - an Alternative to the INDUCE Act (IICA) and Other News and (Don't) INDUCE Act (IICA) Round-up and Other News). The Don't Induce Act is a response from a number of technology companies and organizations to the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA, née INDUCE Act). Discussion about the proposed alternative continues. has a decent mainstream media report on the issue (Industry groups propose alternative to copyright bill).

However, of more interest are the commentaries from a new group of law students blogging as part of Prof. Lawrence Solum's IP Seminar at the Univ. of San Diego's School of Law. The seminar blog is called Copyfutures: The Future of Copyright. Good stuff!

The students have already posted some interesting comments concerning the Don't Induce Act.

Jeff King believes that the proposed alternative is only the beginning of finding a resolution (DONT Induce Act Proposes Narrows Liability that Would be Imposed by Induce Act):

Expect a lot more debate on this issue before any sort of final resolution to this issue. The need for digital protection of copyright is not going to go away. The Induce Act and the DONT Induce Act are polar opposites in the burgeoning debate over digital protection of copyright. Neither of the bills is likely to make it into law in its present form. The media industry has too much money at stake, and consumers have too great a thirst for digital content for either of the current drafts to meet with widespread approval by both factions in this debate.
Yip Yu argues that the Don't Induce Act isn't much of an improvement over the INDUCE Act itself (Nobody is Better Off with INDUCE/DON'T INDUCE):
An argument can be made suggesting that DONT Induce is actually worse off than the Induce Act because DONT Induce requires at least two judicial determinations and the Induce Act requires at least one judicial determination. Under DONT Induce, the courts have to decide whether the infringement is the predominant function of the defendant’s software and whether it is the distributor’s predominant source of revenue. The Induce Act only requires a judicial determination whether the defendant intended to induce infringement.
I look forward to reading more from the Copyfutures blog.

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. Alexander Wehr on September 1, 2004 06:12 PM writes...

"The need for digital protection of copyright is not going to go away."

the need for compatibility and increasing interoperability is much more pressing, and any law that protects "content protection measures" from circumvention dooms the development of integrated technology to stagnation.

there never was a "need for digital protection of copyright", it is not going to go away because it was never there in the first place. The idea that digital copyright somehow needs to be more stringeant is an invention of hollywood lobbyists.

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