It's bad. "Intentional Inducement of [Copyright] Infringement"???
But then, you knew that.
As a more original comment, I'll inquire regarding that it actually doesn't look like patent law. Rather, the text:
(1) In subsection (g), "intentionally induces means intentionally aids, abets, induces, counsels, procures, ...
Seems almost cut-and-pasted from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2.html
Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
The section as revised makes clear the legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who ''aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures'' another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know where this all fits
Oh, regarding the chilling effect:
By Seth Finkelstein | posted in copyblight | on June 17, 2004 09:01 AM (Infothought permalink) | Followups
There are more examples. What of the cryptography researcher who publishes a paper or gives a lecture on the vulnerabilities of a particular type of DRM? Must Prof. Ed Felten of SDMI fame and the Freedom to Tinker fear penury?