Induce Act "discussion draft" still overly broad

The U.S. Copyright Office has drafted a new version of the Induce Act in hopes that it will overturn the Aug. 19 ruling by the 9th Circuit which held that filesharing networks such as Grokster and Morpheus were legal. While the original Induce Act has been criticized severely for being excessively broad, the new discussion draft is intended to be more friendly to file storing and playing devices such as MP3 players. It imposes liability for copyright infringement according to a new definition of "induce."

...anyone who "intentionally induces" copyright violations can be found liable, with "induce" defined as one or more "affirmative, overt acts that are reasonably expected to cause or persuade another person or persons" to violate copyright law.

However, if this definition of "induce" is enough to make file sharing networks guilty of copyright violations, then wouldn't it have essentially the same effect on devices such as MP3 players, VCRs, and TIVO? To me, this language seems overbroad and does little to narrow the scope of the Act to file sharing networks (no doubt the major concern of groups like the RIAA) while filtering out hardware devices with "substantial noninfringing uses." The proposed Act is obviously an attempt by the RIAA and others to get legislation passed that would shut down free file sharing networks once and for all, but a better solution would be to work with the P2P networks. After all, with Sony coming out with its new portable MP3 player, isn't it making money off the very type of copyright violation that their record department oposes?

And speaking of Induce, does anyone know what INDUCE actually stands for? Believe it or not, it stands for inducement devolves into child exploitation. WHAT?? Leave it to Orrin Hatch to take legislation aimed at saving big business and somehow revolve it around saving the children (I'm from Utah so I'm familiar with his work).