The INDUCE (Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation) act has had a change of name. It is now to be called the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004. Ernest Miller made his own notes on Senator Hatch's justifications for the bill. Extract (Ernest's comments are in brackets bold and italics):

"A secondary-liability rule that punishes only control also punishes consumers: It encourages designers to avoid “control” by shifting risks onto consumers. [Whereas laws that punish control AND intent punish consumers by eliminating types of software many consumers use quite legitimately. It also punishes consumers by taxing innovation and turning technology development over to Hollywood. Another, less drastic solution would be for the government to sponsor a consumer education program, like those "no smoking" ads. Heck, why should government do it? If Hollywood is so concerned with the consumers, let them pay for an education campaign.] For example, Napster incurred billion-dollar liability because it controlled computers housing a search index that located infringing files. Programs like Kazaa avoid Napster’s “control” by moving their search indices onto computers owned by unsuspecting consumers. [Unsuspecting consumers or willful infringers? Which is it, Senator? If the consumers are unsuspecting, shouldn't we be considering a law absolving them of liability as well?] ...

...But a fallacy lurks here: The “direct infringers” at issue are not the traditional targets for copyright enforcement. [Why is "direct infringers" in quotes? Are they direct infringers or not?] In fact, they are children [Will someone please think of the children?] and consumers: They are the hundreds of millions [Hundreds of millions. That is an awful lot of "direct infringers." Certainly a higher estimate of infringers than I have seen before.] of Americans – toddlers to seniors – who use and enjoy the creative works that copyrights have helped create. [Indeed. Perhaps Hatch should pass a law immunizing children and consumers from infringement lawsuits if he is so concerned.]...

...Worse yet, artists must sue their fans for the sin of misusing devices designed to be easy and tempting to misuse. [Yeah, that IM is just totally too tempting. Oh, wait, Hatch is talking about P2P, as he ... well, he actually never defines it.] That is unfair: When inducement is the disease, infringement can be seen as just a symptom. [You're not guilty of infringement - you're just sick. "Hi, I'm Ernest, and I'm an infringer." "Hi, Ernest!"] Yet artists must ignore inducers who profit by chanting, “Hey, kids, infringement is cool, and we will help you get away with it.” [Well, if they are chanting ... oh, wait, the only one chanting is in Palestine, outside of Hatch's reach. The FTC says the ones in the US give adequate warning of the risks.] Instead, artists can only sue kids [Will someone please think of the children?] who succumb to this temptation. They must leave Fagin to his work – and sue Oliver Twist. [The difference being, however, that Fagin has specific knowledge of the specific individuals he is sending out to commit specific crimes. Slightly different case, don't you think?]

Brilliant. I laughed out loud at: You're not guilty of infringement - you're just sick. "Hi, I'm Ernest, and I'm an infringer." "Hi, Ernest!".

With bipartisan support this thing actually has a serious chance of making it into law. The EFF have composed a hypothetical complaint against Apple based on the proposed Act (previously known as INDUCE).

"Apple's iPod music player seemed particularly vulnerable to attack. Any major record label could bring a strong lawsuit against Apple for "intentionally inducing" infringement under this new law with the iPod, both because it's plausible to argue that having an iPod enhances the lure of using P2P to download music (gotta fill all that space!) and because all the major record labels still believe that private sharing of songs from your CDs with friends is copyright infringement. We still disagree with the labels on these points, but the reality is that no court has yet convinced them that their legal theories are flawed. We also threw in Toshiba for making the iPod's hard drive and CNET for showing people how to move the iPod's music files.

Under the Supreme Court's ruling in Sony v. Universal (the Betamax VCR case), devices like the iPod and CD burners are legal as long as they have legal uses—what the Court called "substantial non-infringing uses." This has been the rule in the technology sector for the last 20 years. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs have depended on it. Industries have blossomed under it. And any case brought against Apple or HP or Dell would be immediately dismissed because of it.

Now Senator Hatch and his allies want to tear down that rule and substitute a new one with the Induce Act. With it, the fact that a device or product has legal uses, even lots of them, is irrelevant. Filing a lawsuit under the Induce Act is like dropping a litigation bomb on any company that gives users products that have even the slightest potential to assist in copyright infringement. Technology companies will avoid being innovative, and investors will avoid supporting new technologies for fear of being sued out of existence based on the possible conduct of their customers. If this bill had been law in 1984, there would be no VCR. If this bill had been law in 1995, there would be no CD burners. If this bill had been law in 2000, there would be no iPod. If this bill becomes law in 2004, we may lose those devices and many more that we haven't even begun to imagine."