Here is the
The Obsessively Annotated Introduction to the INDUCE Act it's a very long read which means it may only be of interest to smackie. But it goes line by line through Sen Hatch introduction to the the Induce bill which gives the power to charge developers, and lots of others because the bill is so broadly written, with criminal charges because they wrote and provided tools which induced people, mostly importantly children, to break the law.
Never mind the fact that it reaches beyond evil P2P sw, and includes HTML, FTP, IM all the basic compents of the Internet communication. My favorite annonation is....
{Hatch} I think we must understand how some corporations came to confuse child endangerment with a legal business model.
[Again with the corporations. Unfortunately, the law isn't limited to corporations.] Their confusion seems to arise from court cases misinterpreting a well-intended Supreme Court decision that tried to clarify two critical components of federal law: the law of secondary liability and the law of copyright.
[Senator Hatch, legal scholar. I like this quote from The Hill, "No Republican senator has sponsored more laws later held unconstitutional than Hatch." That's quite an impressive record and says something about his legal acumen. And what it is saying can't be printed on a family webpage.] He also misrepresents the premises of Oliver Twist and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and critizes the way P2P companies are setup when "legitmate" corporations go offshore all the time...
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted a mock complaint that could be filed against the iPod if the Induce act were passed.
Fake Complaint EFF Press release
