Technically, nothing HAS to be passed; realistically, something WILL be passed. You guys are doing a great job convincing me of two things:

1) The bills currently under consideration desperately need major revisions and

2) Neither will receive any because critics will content themselves with listing their flaws without presenting any superior alternatives, and expect Congress to reject the whole proposal, and all the well funded vocal media support for it, out of a noble commitment to the public interest.

Guess what: Not going to happen. As I said elsewhere, I am no fan of corporate "personhood," but the ACTUAL people running those corporations ARE members of the public every bit as entitled to Congressional representation as anyone else. So are their employees and everyone working in related industries. Congress will not simply ignore that because the people (illegally) accessing their work free of charge wish to continue doing so.

It is an interesting debate to have on a site dedicated to books; is it unreasonable or draconian for Tor, Sanderson and Jordans estate to expect people PAY to possess AMoL? Or should they just invest all the time, effort and money of publishing it as an act of largesse? How many new books do you expect to be published as a charitable act each year?


Most of what I watch I watch on TV. We pay the government a licensing fee for the ability to do that, then pay the cable company for the ability to get their programming, along with the internet I am currently using. Since we must pay both a public AND private entity for access to that content, maybe that is not the best example, eh? But sticking with your examples, I thought TiVo just recorded shows that were being broadcast in the first place, either at no charge or through a cable service for which you pay. Does Netflix obtain the movies it rents free of charge? Somehow I doubt it, though I honestly do not know. Streaming online content, well, it varies; a lot of it is available free of charge because its "providers" are illegally providing media other people produced, despite existing laws against doing so. Which, once again, is why new laws are being considered: Because existing laws are not preventing illegal copyright infringement.

I had to chuckle over that argument in a recent email: We do not need these laws, and the only reason Big Media wants them is because they know they will never collect the fines imposed for copyright infringement under civil law, so now they want to criminalize it. Um, call me crazy but it seems like the failure of civil law to prevent copyright infringement, loss of revenue and even livelihoods, that even when fines are imposed they frequently cannot be collected, is a rather compelling argument we DO need new laws. Congress certainly seems to think so.

"Great injustice" hmm, well, I guess it depends on whom you are. If you are one of the people seeking free access to other peoples work, maybe not; if you are one of the artists or production companies paying your bills with the profits from that work, it is a little different. It is certainly an economic issue, but that does not preclude it being an issue of justice as well; minimum wage and child labor laws qualify as both, and this does, too. I would not list it among the nations highest priorities, but the fact remains that people are losing the profits from their hardwork because other people are illegally accessing it for free, and existing laws are failing to prevent that. So a new stricter law is coming.

So we are back to the real crux of the matter: What would you like that inevitable law to be? Note: "NOTHING111" remains an invalid answer.