It looks like internet-wide content filtering is being discussed already:

Mr. Cicconi said that AT&T has been talking to technology companies, and members of the M.P.A.A. and R.I.A.A., for the last six months about carrying out digital fingerprinting techniques on the network level.

It sounds like it's still very preliminary, but I would bet this is coming sooner or later.

If only these people could think of a revenue model other than lawsuits. Maybe someone could start selling RIAA lawsuit insurance to distribute the cost of those out-of-court settlements over the whole population. We could call it "privatized taxation" to get bipartisan support.

Columnist C seems to have it in for candidate A:

And somehow many people believe that Candidate A is the true progressive -- he wasn’t really saying that Reagan was right -- and that Candidate B, despite the progressive talk, is just Bush the third.

I respect Columnist C; I too find some of candidate A's rhetoric distasteful, and don't see him as nearly the progressive some claim. When it was just a matter of comparing health care plans I thought C was contributing to the discussion, and not simply cheerleading for (or against) a single candidate. But at some point this seems to have become personal: How does contrasting cherry-picked quotes contribute to the debate?