June 17, 2004


The INDUCE act is the copywrong du jour, story from EFF / Fred von Lohmann (via Copyfight / Donna Wentworth and commentary from Susan Crawford, thanks to Copyfight / Ernest Miller)

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.

And http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2.notes.html

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:

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?

Or a censorware researcher who wants others to be able to verify his research against companies lies and knows he won't receive any press defense (sigh ... I know, I'm not a lovable hero).

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in copyblight | on June 17, 2004 09:01 AM (Infothought permalink) | Followups
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage