] While you have carefully crafted this bill to preserve
] the 20-year-old decision in the Sony case, it may become
] necessary to consider whether that decision is overly
] protective of manufacturers and marketers of infringement
] tools...

This is an extremely biased opinion for an executive agency to be presenting.

Today, the way things work, is that if a tool has non-infringing uses then its legal. The induce act flips this standard around 180 degrees and says if a tool has infringing uses then its illegal. There are many shades of gray in here that we could be having a reasonable discussion about. Instead we have this radical non-sense, and its coming from the people we pay to offer reasonable technical perspectives.

This isn't the first time that people working in the Intellectual Property arena in our government have proven to be foaming at the mouth copyright maximalists. Recently our UN abassador to WIPO argued that WIPO had no business discussing open source software because a discussion of anything other then "all rights reserved" is apparently inappropriate for an Intellectual Property organization. I concur with this author that some serious house cleaning needs to occur. People need to be fired.

[ Hear hear. I have only one nit to pick, which is mainly semantic, but i was under the impression that the wording of the law required "substantial non-infringing uses", i.e. there is a threshold you must meet in terms of having other functions. The threshold is, i think, left up for interpretation, but nonetheless, the non-infringing uses must be something more than token. Within the gray area you mention is discussion of where that line is drawn. Must 50% of the utility be legal? 10%? 90%?. Obviously people Ms. Peters and the *AA's want it to be a lot closer to 100%.
In the meantime, the patent and copyright offices could do with a major top-to-bottom thrashing in this country. -k]

Copyright Office wants to ban VCRs