Could the Induce Act become, Swan-like, balanced and beneficial copyright legislation? Two copyright scholars have donned the scrubs:

Ernie Miller's nip: "In any case, the problem cited that the INDUCE Act is meant to solve is not the making of copies, or of derivative works, but of the distribution of these works. If you have 100 copies of a work at home, what is the harm? The real problem is when those copies are distributed. Thus, the first change narrows the INDUCE Act to target the wrong-doers, and not someone who might suggest making mashups at home.

The second change addresses what the proponents of the INDUCE Act claim is the purpose of the Act. They claim that they wish to address the commercial inducers, those who are making 'millions of dollars while attempting to avoid any personal risk of the severe civil and criminal penalties for copyright infringement'....By including a 'financial benefit' clause, only commercial inducers will be targeted."

Tim Wu's tuck: "The point of the Act is make it as clear as possible to innovators what they can do to steer clear of copyright liability. It strikes a balance: persons and companies may not serve as intentional accomplices to infringement, but are otherwise free to design legitimate, neutral devices and services without undue liability concerns."