Susan Crawford on "bad" P2P

Susan Crawford makes an interesting point about IICA. The statute will attempt to create a twisted definition of what sort of P2P is illegal, this will almost certainly be over (or under) inclusive. As usual there will be other programs that fit the description but perform a function we would consider benign, or accomplish what the Induce Act hopes to end, but does not fall under the bill. Although this bill is already well on its way to passage, Crawford suggests a different approach for the future:

As the negotiations on the Induce Act continue, it's likely that there are people sitting in a room on Capitol Hill debating how to define "bad" P2P applications...It may be that we're taking the wrong approach to these questions. How do you describe code you don't like without sweeping in untold numbers of existing (and yet-to-be-created) innovations? Answer: You try really really hard and create tortured definitions, then hope for the best...
Maybe, instead of defining what code we don't like, we should define what relationships we don't approve of...
[S]omeone who wants to make money from
massive uploading of copyrighted works, but tries to avoid liability under standard copyright law, is creating a relationship with the marketplace that we may want to condemn.

Go, read the rest: Susan Crawford blog :: "Bad" P2P and Spyware