Ernie Miller argues often against the INDUCE Act. I happen to agree that the act is too broad, but I do think there is a place for law that prohibits true inducement of infringement, as long as it is properly tailored.

However, Ernie presents the argument that p2p networks are hard to regulate or control, seemingly as some sort of reason that legislation should not go forward, or some justification for p2p networks in and of themselves. Actually, I'm not quite sure what this argument is supposed to achieve other than some sort of glee in the apparent impotency of Congress to stop p2p networks, which Ernie obviously is for.

Well, I am for p2p networks too, but not when they are specifically tailored to induce copyright infringement, as some have been in the past.

At any rate, the argument that p2p is unregulable is out of place. There are quite a few things that are hard to regulate with law, but we figure out ways to do it anyway if it's necessary and desirable to our society. For instance, how can we regulate drugs? Presumably, growing pot is just about as easy as downloading a p2p app from an overseas server. How is it that we can still have laws that have a significant effect on marijuana consumption? We do...

My point is that if p2p is hard to regulate, and there are any serious social or economic problems caused by its widespread unregulated use, no one should be gleefully declaring its unregulability, or that our laws are impotent or ineffective. In such situations, we need to find ways to regulate that preserve the benefits of a technology, while simultaneously suppressing the detriments.

Certainly, if I were in the market for a nuke, I'd be happy to pronounce that the laws of the U.S. could do nothing to stop me in my endeavors. But this doesn't at all address whether the technology may have problems or harmful effects. If the technology does, we need to find ways to regulate it.