FWIW, this doesn't disconfirm what we already knew about the administration's affection for Big Content, but what we already knew was a lot more important. Loo

FWIW, this doesn't disconfirm what we already knew about the administration's affection for Big Content, but what we already knew was a lot more important. Look at the ACTA talks. It was something of a tipoff that drafts of the agreement were shared with a panel of "big content" lawyers[1], but hidden from the general public, supposedly on grounds of national security. As to substance, leaked drafts required DMCA-type legislative provisions and strongly encouraged "three strikes and you're out" policies for kicking infringers off the net, (they weren't mandated, but were, IIRC, explicitly listed in one draft as a "best practice", with no stated alternatives). And while current drafts back off of that, and some of the other more draconian positions, that's largely due to push-back from other parties, particularly in Europe. The problem with a two-party system is that whichever you pick, they're going to support something that you really don't like. For me, with the Democrats, this is one of the biggies: on these issues, the party positions have been largely dictated by Hollywood for a fairly long time. (Sonny Bono copyright act, anyone?) Then again, the Republicans haven't been all that great on this either; ACTA started under Bush.... [1] The list is here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/these-42-people-are-shaping-us-internet-enforcement-policy.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/these-42-peo... The White House was, for a time, trying to keep even the names secret, again claiming "national security". (How does it compromise national security if people know these drafts are going to lawyers for eBay? I have no idea...)