Comments on: INDUCE Act, Take Two

By: matt perkins

matt perkins — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:37:04 +0000

Leaving aside the whole “cause” issue (which the Office spends a lot of time trying to justify), is there any basis for its new, business-model test? I’ve never heard of a product which is lawful to distribute, until that moment when >50% of users choose to use the product for illegal ends.

IANAL, but is there due process still? How can a business know when that magical 50% threshold has been achieved, and after which the continued offering of the product/service is unlawful?

By: matt perkins

matt perkins — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:18:18 +0000

Setting aside the “cause” matter (which the Office drops a lot of ink trying to justify), there’s the whole matter of “predominant” business viability. Is there any example of a product which is legal to distribute as a default, and then becomes illegal at the moment that >50% of consumers use it for unlawful purposes?

IANAL, but this sounds like a problem, doesn’t it? I mean, how can a business know when that magical 50% threshold has been met, and therefore when further sales are illegal? They took “intent” out of the matter, but then left this other, equally insane criterion in its place.

Yeeeshh.

By: joe

joe — Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:38:44 +0000

I can thinks of many “causes” of public dissemination…

By: Copyfight

Copyfight — Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:12:47 +0000

What the Fox Proposes for the Henhouse, Part 2
Below, the text of the Copyright Office’s second “consensus” draft of the misguided Induce Act, to which Ernie referred earlier today; more to come. Later: Fred von Lohmann @ Deep Links, arguing that the proposal would break the Betamax doctrine:…

By: Copyfight

Copyfight — Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:04:04 +0000