Induce Act renamed the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act

I just posted the article Induce Act renamed the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act.

This legislation says “whoever intentionally
induces any violation” of copyright law would be legally liable for those
violations, which would make P2P type networks illegal. In…

Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

It reads like this, “…key Democratic and Republican senators who recieved tremendous amounts of hollywood $$$ are backing a bill that would…” These fools have no clue of the impact these kinds of laws have on the nation. They’re narrow minded idiots, esp Orin Hatch. It always makes me wonder how people could have voted for polititians like this. Geez.

One reason people vote these jerks in is also the only reason Kerry could be our next president. Mainstream media bias. All the news outlets tend to bias their stories to support their political views. How many people write names down for future use. (You bet your ass I hold grudges) Not many concidering how Al Gore came close to winning that presidencial race. When he is married to TIPPER GORE? Running mate was JOSEPH LIEBERMAN?? One word - censorship. But people ran off to the voting booths in droves for this man. I see no other reason for these politicians holding office other than the lack of FACT being reported on the news and in the papers. Take names folks…take names! Edit - What does this mean? “Hey, ya get what you vote for! So remember to vote this fall!” Hatch isn’t going anywhere in the fall… and this years presidencial elections aren’t going to effect legislation such as this. But hey… go ahead and put Kerry in the oval office. Sad… Very sad.
[edited by Lacrymator on 24.06.2004 19:39]

Hey, lay off of Tipper. The PMRC was there to “Protect the Children”, remember? :smiley:

Why not ban guns??

Um, by likening P2P downloading with child exploitation, is he condemning P2P , or is he really likening child exploitation to P2P (cos everyone does it) in order to make it seem less serious? I’m pretty sure I know which of the two crimes he’d be more likely to commit. The guys probably never seen a computer.

If this legislation is passed technolgy advances will proceed at a snail crawl. I can see under this law the demise of all analog and digital recorders, cameras, photocopiers, fax machines, the computer and maybe even pen and paper. No laws are better than poorly created laws. This legislation needs to be defeated

In response to RawShadow: I saw some roadside posters while travelling last weekend that read: Guns Save Lives, Ban Criminals!

I have a better analogy than the article suggests. P2P networks are like people hanging out that do not know each other, but would like to share what they have with others that are around them as well. Now, if I gather people around and tell them to bring things they like, let’s say their music. Then, we all play the music we like only in this little arranged meeting. However, we are sharing music with others. Is the only real difference between the analogy and P2P technology the ability to copy fast and easily the songs we like? There seems to be an underlying scheme passed off as a simple legislative fight against media sharing. Could there be such a plan to control media at the hardware and software level and give much more access to corporations the use of our PC’s if we go online? Could our firewalls be rigged to allow such communications by corporation payoffs? It’s a simple rant, groundless, but still we all have to think several steps ahead. Who is the one to profit here or lose the most?:B Also: Tipper Gore did some nasty things while she had power, like raise our taxes to “protect our children” because most of our parents are lazy and cannot adequately educate children. I said most, not all. There are lots of parents that are great, but I have to be realistic from experiences.
[edited by jasaiyajin on 26.06.2004 17:09]