Digital Economy: More heat than light?
Making its way through Parliament right now is something which its supporters say will be the magic bullet which will save Britain's creative industries from doom, while opponents claim it could destroy life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Last week in the Lords, Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers managed to strike out one of the bill's most controversial clauses which would have given future government extensive powers to amend copyright law - only to replace it with something that opponents say will have even more damaging consequences.
The new clause will allow content-creators to take court action which could force internet service providers to block access to sites which repeatedly infringe copyright.
The Internet Services Providers' Association (ISPA), which represents ISPs, issued a press release in which it said it was "outraged" by this amendment, which it described as "misjudged" and "disproportionate".
The prominent blogger and web-freedom campaigner Cory Doctorow went further, warning that in trying to end the use of "web lockers" for copyright infringement, the Lords could cripple services like Google Docs and You Send It, and end up damaging Britain.
Despite the imminence of a general election, it's now looking quite likely that a bill which has the support of the main parties could well end up in law.
That's making the angry chorus about its implications even louder - but in all the noisy headlines about YouTube being doomed and innocent victims having their human rights abused when their internet connections are cut off, I've read little detailed examination of the bill.
When I read the British writer Paul Carr's piece on the bill on the Techcrunch blog (contains some strong language), I was expecting more heat than light.
To my surprise, after some knockabout stuff in the first few paragraphs, the post turns into a seemingly-thoughtful inquiry; unlike most responses, the author says he has looked closely at the actual wording of the bill. You can do so here.
You may disagree with Mr Carr's conclusions, but the post does us all a favour by pointing out that the debate is just a bit more complex than many have assumed.