The Coble camp seems not to get it. Early response to my column and the N&R editorial is that we are wrong on the issue in factual terms--that the bill does not in fact allow companies access to your desktop or free rein to damage files on your computer.
The bill says: "a copyright owner shall not be liable...for disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network..."
Now, if Hollywood chases its copyrights onto your computer, it is not allowed to mess with the other stuff on your hard drive..."except as may be reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work..." In other words, companies could mess with designated files on my desktop and not be liable (beyond some limited and hard-to-attain recourse) for damage to other files on my computer.
How are my column and the editorial incorrect?
I am not discouraged. OK, I'm just a little discouraged. But this is a process. If you can explain to me in simple terms why I am wrong, I'll make good. But if you can explain in simple terms why Coble is wrong, tell him at email@example.com.
The Journalist/Blog Network
Stephen Dulaney sketches a method of furthering the connections between Web logs and print journalism: find local journalists in the district of a politician you want to influence and tie that writer into the blog network. "Henry Hyde in Chicago has 46 bloggers near him."
I want politicians to have blogs. They will.
Even ultraconservatives do it. A columnist at WorldNetDaily espouses blogging.