So I guess it all boils down to "reasonable care"?

This is straight from the bill:

"and who fails to exercise reasonable care in preventing use of that software to commit an unlawful act with"

So what is reasonable care? This really puzzles me... If they had something more explicit, say, having all internet programs required to query a central copyright server (for example by passing in a hash of the file, the file name, other pieces of date to uniquely identify the file), then maybe we would be on to something. But this seems so vague that besides triggering all sorts of lawsuits, what is the intent? Note that even a proposal like the one I discuss would not be sufficient IMHO. The issue I have with any solution is that false positives (cases where a file is not really subject to those limitations) trigger some sort of problems for a person that is not commiting any crime.

On top of everything, the definition of p2p software appears to be quite correct, and hence, quite wide. Windows File Sharing would definitely fall in that category. To quote the text of the proposed bill:

"software that once installed and launched, enables the user to connect his or her computer to a network of other computers on which the users of these computers have made available recording or audiovisual works for electronic dissemination to other users who are connected to the network."

I actually wonder if a tool like bittorrent would fall into that description since bittorrent, when simply launched, does nothing. You have to first have a tracker for it to do anything.

I wonder if this law will get anywhere.