INDUCE Act
Here's something to worry about: The INDUCE Act of 2004 [pdf].
The logic is that P2P applications inevitably lead to exploitation of children. With me so far? So the act is called the “Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act.” I'm not even sure that's how “devolves” should be used. But the crimes here go far beyond the title.
The Act (to be proposed tomorrow by songwriter Sen. Hatch and others) amends the copyright law to say that anyone who “induces” copyright infringement is himself/itself an infringer.
“Induce” means intentionally aids, abets, counsels, or procures. So you can't even hire a lawyer if you're doing something risky.
This is amazing. Now we're waaaaaay beyond contributory and vicarious theories of liability, which are court-created and pretty darn broad on their own. See Napster 9th Circuit, Aimster 7th Circuit. It's not even clear what the limit to this is — “aids” could mean that even something that would have been fair use under the Sony Betamax decision is now an illegal inducement.
And no one can talk to you if they think there's the slightest risk of copyright infringement liability.
We're back to the CBPTDA – another hugely broad way of making sure that no unauthorized machines ever enter into our lives. If there was ever a moment to organize (see prior post) this might be it.
“Copyright. It's Not Just the Law. It's All Law.”
[thanks to Fred von Lohmann for pointing to this]
Reflection
So where are we? Blogs seem primitive, but they're changing. Everyone's looking for ways to follow up on whatever online energy spurred the Dean campaign on. Technorati is pulling things together for us. Some people have recognized that blogrolls are just like social software lists of frients (which results in mixed feelings). And academics are finding different communities to work with.
These developments, for all their excitement, feel insular. It seems as if we have a long way to go in recognizing what online life is and what effect it is having on the world. We seem to be so focused on what the big guy (the blogger rock star) is thinking, rather than on what interesting complexities we've created by way of the groups we're involved in. I love the blogs I read, and I go back to them every day. I'm often inspired by them. But I also often feel that I'm witnessing a strange big-media move (get everyone watching the same thing) in a local-media place. After all, the internet should make it possible for large groups to act on the same thing, not just link to it.
It's not that I'm against crowd-pleasing events. Everyone wants to be part of an order that can be understood — we like drum beats, marching bands, parades, views of ocean waves, and bass beats. Some people like to drive down the road with the radio blaring, just to feel part of some rhythm larger than their own. Synchronization is central to our lives.
But I'm worried that the groupness of all this online journal-keeping is (paradoxically) being underplayed. We watch and imitate, somewhat passively, but we don't make it possible for online groups to speak more powerfully than we can as online individuals. There's something missing, some sense of animating purpose or spirit that produces results. When there's something big to complain about, why don't like-minded local writers have a place to go to leverage their voices?
Maybe to have a trade association you need a trade. (Someone wise told me this.) Maybe without the leverage of compensation flowing in one direction or another, the many voices stay just that — multiple, clever, smooth, bantering, never ceding any shred of autonomy.