P2Pnet reports on the RIAA’s letter writing campaign: RIAA to US Senate …
It is no secret that the intellectual property assets of our nation are under assault, as never before. That is why we support S. 2560, an effective, bipartisan bill drafted by Senators Hatch and Leahy and introduced two weeks ago. The bill is aimed at ensuring the vibrancy of both our creative community and our technology community.
[...] Therefore, when you hear criticisms of this bill, I’d encourage you to ask a simple question: Is the criticism about the core purpose - getting at bad actors that are destroying the funding of new creativity - or is the criticism about definition? If it’s about who gets caught in the net, then I’d suggest the response to the critics should be to seek their suggestions for improving the definition.
[...] I’m available if you have any questions.
Well, if you put it that way, then if I were to talk about “getting at bad actors that are destroying the funding of new creativity,” I’m almost certainly sure that P2P wouldn’t even be on my radar. In fact, when I consider who exactly comes up with things like “American Idol,” Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and every boy band/hair band/etc., the parties responsible for the loss of funding for new creativity are not that hard to identify, IMHO.
Later (although Ernest posted earlier — I’ve got to get myself fully moved over to this new machine — I’m missing too much!): Ernest Miller deconstructs the letter, line by line: The Excessively Annotated RIAA Letter on the INDUCE Act (IICA); Later: Slashdot, with more links — RIAA Sends Letter to Senate Supporting INDUCE Act