In thinking about the future of my information availability in our society, am I right to be concerned about the emergence of pay per use as the norm?

I am beginning a long-awaited weeklong break today, and I will be in a place which has no telephone access. Therefore, I will not be interacting with those who post responses during the course of today. I look forward to reading all of the postings in the blog archive upon my return.

This has been a most enjoyable and informative experience for me. I thank Larry Lessig for asking me to host this week. I have concluded that his brilliance is almost matched by that of his regular blog contributors. Each of you is invited to stop by my office for a visit when your travels bring you to the nation’s capital.

In anticipation of this debate, I have joined with Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida in drafting H.R. 4757, the Advanced Internet Communications Services Act. The legislation would stimulate investment in, and encourage the rapid deployment of, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and other Advanced Internet Communcations Services. We begin from the premise that VoIP is neither a pure telecommunications service nor a pure information service, as defined under current law. We would write new rules for it.

With its packet-switched architecture, VoIP offers a far more convenient and less costly means of making telephone calls than the currently used circuit-switched technology. Internet-based telephone calling will bring digital clarity, greater flexibility of service offerings and substantial consumer savings over the analog circuit-switched technology now widely in use.

We believe that Internet-based communications should be treated with a light regulatory touch. Traditional rules that have applied to wired local exchanges will not apply. However, in view of the fact that virtually all voice communications will migrate to VoIP over several years, we believe it is useful to preserve E911, properly warranted law enforcement access, access for the hearing impaired and universal service funding for those who still have and need financial help in keeping wired telephones. More information on the bill is available at my website.

It is our intent to apply the new light regulatory touch to all Internet-based communications, not just to VoIP. I would appreciate thoughts on whether we have undertaken the right approach to drafing a new framework for the era of Internet-based communications, and what kinds of new Internet-based services and technologies lie over the horizon but be shaping our thinking now.

With P2P music file sharing, we have witnessed a range of dramatic responses from the content owning community: massive lawsuits against individuals, including innocent children and grandparents; invasive efforts to get customer information without the intervention of a judge through misuse of administrative subpoena provisions of title II of the DMCA; and now the Induce Act in the Senate.

Fred von Lohmann and his colleagues at EFF have suggested an innovative alternative to litigation and traditional compulsory licenses. Their approach, described as a “voluntary collective licensing” system, is aimed at compensating artists while ensuring that new technology will flourish. I would welcome your thoughts on whether this is the kind of approach we in Congress should implement or whether there are other alternative means of moving beyond the unproductive debates of today to a new legal regime for music file sharing.

In legislative fights, opponents of a bill often overstate their concerns with it. But even such attacks occasionally contain a grain of truth. As legislators, we have to sort through articulated positions and make judgements about what is right. In this case, we think we have gotten the balance right in carefully crafting our legislation. I would welcome thoughts on whether our approach makes sense and whether there are approaches we ought to have in mind as we move forward in the legislative process. For more information on H.R. 107, please visit my website.

Let’s begin today with the hottest topic, the so-called Induce Act.

The Senate has under consideration a bill ( S. 2560 , often referred to as the Induce Act) that makes it unlawful for anyone to “intentionally induce” the infringement of a copyrighted work. By creating a new cause of action based on a subjective test, the legislation would overturn, or at least make irrelevant, the Supreme Court’s objective test in the Betamax case (“capable of substantial noninfringing use”). The effect on device manufacturers, including computer manufacturers, would appear to be self-evident: They could not bring new multi-purpose devices (including software) to market without facing the threat of crippling litigation. They would either have to withhold from the market useful new technology or agree in advance to restrictions on the functionality of the equipment, perhaps even agreeing to specific technical mandates sought by content owners.

Although I have my doubts that the bill will make its way out of the Senate this year and be considered by the House, we could yet see the bill appear in some form before the House Judiciary Committee (on which I sit) either as freestanding legislation or as an amendment to a pending copyright bill. As we fashion a strategy to address this threat to innovation and technical progress, I would welcome thoughts on whether the Induce Act does in fact gut the Betamax decision, how its effect will be felt beyond devices, and whether it raises any First Amendment issues by potentially chilling speech (e.g., product reviews).