The author is a highly IT-literate attorney. He makes a valid point, though only briefly and at the end of his article: Congress faces a problem in keeping the legislation it produces up to date vis-a-vis the state of the technology addressed by that legislation. The problem is becoming increasingly serious, because IT technology is advancing ever more rapidly, while legislators are not elected based on their technical ability.

Grosso cites the recent extension of the conventional copyright legislation through passage of the No Electronic Theft Act. The copyright legislation only punishes copyright infringements done “willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” The NET Act extends the scope of copyright infringement by also punishing electronic reproduction of copyrighted material, which seems to include the mere act of posting it on the Internet. Such reproduction of an electronic item with a “retail value” between $1,000 and $2,500 is a misdemeanor; for a “retail value” over $2,500, it is a felony.

The author is rightly concerned about this possible abrogation of individual rights, about the facts that retail values are hard to define and that they change with time and inflation, and about the narrow dollar boundary between misdemeanor and felony. He suspects that the NET Act was passed in response to pressure by parochial interests.

He can be faulted for describing a problem but not recommending a solution, so let your reviewer try: most legislation is drafted not by the legislators but by their staffs. The author correctly points out that the NET Act is only the tip of the iceberg; more and worse awaits us. Therefore, IT expertise should be more strongly represented on congressional staffs than it now appears to be, and soon.