Modulator

Do Not Call and the RIAA

Radley Balko questions why Julian Sanchez supports the federal Do Not Call list but opposes congress acting on behalf of the RIAA to clamp down on Peer-to-Peer applications. Balko argues that the feds should not get involved in stopping either telemarketing calls or music downloading.

I certainly agree that stuff like the Protecting Children from Peer-to-Peer Pornography Act of 2003 should not even see the light of day. This bill is as good an argument as any that the commerce clause was and still is a mistake as written and interpreted.

Seems like "...regulate commerce...among the several states..." would better serve the people if it were written something like adjudicate disputes relating to commerce among the several states. The principle being that we should be able to contract with others, in or out of state, for goods on terms we and the others mutually agree on. With the appropriate federal role being to resolve contractual disputes relating to interstate commerce.

Both unsolicited telemarketing calls and the RIAA's problem with theft should be easily dealt with in either criminal or civil courts. That they are not is a failing of our police, legislatures and judicial system.

The calls are at best trespassing and potentially a form of assault. On the criminal side a misdemeanor charge with a small fine plus court costs and on the civil side $50 (indexed to inflation) plus court costs should make the number of calls approach zero.

On the RIAA side dealing with theft as theft and taking folks to court regularly (make'm pay a small fine plus court costs) should reduce the downloading of protected material to close to zero.

NB: Bigwig considers this the "stupidest.bill.ever.Until Tomorrow."