Induce this!

I enjoy my ritual four day weekends home every five months – invariably, my mom tells the same story six times and I end up arguing with some member of my family over a redundant misunderstanding. With family, it’s to be expected, I think. Last May’s visit was no exception – albeit the summer teaching assignments were issued two days before I left. The majority of the trip was spent planning, rendering my ability to spend time with my family at zero.

“How can I prevent this from happening?” I asked myself. “Technically, I knew my assignment would come at the end of May. I should have anticipated this.” I thought to myself.

“Or, what if the teaching assignments had been disclosed earlier, instead of the last minute?” Maybe that is where I should direct my anger.

“That’s it!” I thought. “Dr. Smith is responsible for my inability to spend time with my family because he could have given the assignment earlier, thus giving me the chance to prepare before going home.”

As farfetched as that sounds, it is analogous to the developer, consumer and copyright holder relationship in the Induce Act. For those who are saying, “What the f*** is the Induce Act?,” it’s current senate legislation that affects the liability of manufacturers and developers who make products that could be used for copyright infringement. Comparable to Dr. Smith controlling my actions based on a job assignment.

I’m sure many are now thinking, “Well, isn’t that the law now?” No – it’s not. About twenty years ago, motion picture giant Universal Studios took on Sony Corporation of America for copyright infringement liability regarding recordable VHS cassettes used with the Sony Betamax VCR. The result was the “Substantial non-infringing use” test. If the product can be used for non-infringing actions, in the case of Betamax, it was timeshifting (or recording and watching a television show at a later time without any monetary gain), then the manufacturer would not be held liable for infringements caused by the consumer.
Invariable, the “people need to stop downloading illegal music” argument rears its ugly head. While I completely agree with this perspective, I do not think that holding manufacturers responsible is the answer. Semiconductors have been successful based on consumers maintaining liability for their actions – legitimate or not. Technology would be no where near as advanced and customizable had the Universal v. Sony case been overturned.

The Induct Act can partially be attributed to the MPAA/RIAA’s refusal to operate under a post-dot-com era business model. Downloadable music sites such as LivePhish and LiveDownloads (SCI) have proved and established the viability of this market, raising the question – “If it’s profitable, why the f*** won’t they do it?”

Blame the lack of trust on America’s decreasing ability to accept responsibility for his/her actions. The popular trend of fat people blaming fast food distributors for their obesity and gun owners blaming gun manufacturers for “accidental home shootings” has started to haunt us – legislatively speaking of course.

Not only could this injustice severely constrain future technology, but also if this bill passes, my thesis work could hold me liable for third party copyright liability. The work includes “securing” (or removing security vulnerabilities) from an ad hoc network layer overlay for inspecific peer-to-peer applications. All of the unfamiliar computer jargon correlates to a way of establishing direct routes between individuals for a plethora of applications, such as file-sharing (like Kazaa), anonymous message boards (like Freenet) or communications (like AOL Instant Messenger). Additionally, the “ad hoc” designation means that the network is “self-configuring”, or doesn’t require a centralized location to connect. Analogously compare it to the Motorola Talk-Abouts that people use at big shows – an established frequency to communicate allows each person to “connect” and talk without relying on an additional tower to route the communications.

However, the “applications” that will run on top of my thesis work have yet to be developed. The purpose of developing for “inspecific p2p networks” facilitates ease of transition from one application to another using the same “secure” routing information. Imagine a medium sized company purchasing blackberry-esque devices that can seamlessly and securely communicate, share files, connect with company servers etc, for internal usage by associates throughout the world. Although similar applications exist, they are not platform inspecific, comparatively incohesive and completely insecure.

According to the Induct Act, if an average person thinks that an entity “could” facilitate copyright infringement, then the manufacturers and developers, in addition to the actual direct infringer, will be held liable. I have questioned my involvement in this project, only to realize that quitting is just giving in. Why should I stop working on a valuable project because I could be sued two years down the road for copyright infringement cause by an “inspecific application” that hasn’t been created yet?


Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation to take action against the Induce Act!