Richard Koman of Anywhere Books and O'Reilly interviewed me concerning what is wrong with the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA, née INDUCE Act) (Ernest Miller on What's Wrong with the Induce Act). It seems a bit egotistical but, go, read. :-)

About a week ago, the New York Times ran an editorial, In-House Advice, condeming the INDUCE Act (The NY Times Against the INDUCE Act (IICA) and a News-Leader Op-Ed). Today, head of the RIAA Mitch Bainwol responds in a letter to the editor (Music Downloading and Congress):

If there are concerns about the Induce Act's scope, let's work constructively to address them. We, too, want to see technology flourish. But what of the legitimate online entertainment services forced to compete against stolen copies of the same product offered for free? That's a decidedly unbalanced playing field.

Speaking of suggestions, I spoke to a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff today and they have yet to schedule any meetings regarding the INDUCE Act despite a report being due from Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, on September 7th (Senators Put Copyright Office in Charge of Finding INDUCE Act (IICA) "Consensus" by Sep 7). However, they did confirm that all the organizations that were invited to the Senate hearings (Protecting Innovation and Art while Preventing Piracy) would be invited to participate in meetings: Consumer Electronics Assoc., Business Software Alliance, IEEE-USA, NetCoalition and the RIAA. A consumer group will also be invited, but which one has yet to be determined.

Now, I've given Hiawatha Bray a hard time for being one of the most consistently wrong tech reporters out there (in his case, for the Boston Globe). However, recently, he has been writing stuff I actually agree with more or less. In his latest article he acknowledges what the Grokster decision means for the music industry, but opposes the INDUCE Act (A swan song for the music industry and PDF):

But I changed my mind [about the INDUCE Act] when Marybeth Peters, the chief of the US Copyright Office, praised the Hatch bill because it would undermine the Betamax case. If that happened, the next generation of digital marvels would be buried in an avalanche of injunctions, depositions, and discovery motions. No thanks, Marybeth. We'd rather learn to live with digital thievery.

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.