Something wrong with the new copyright laws proposed by Gonzales

Copyright infringement is bad. Wrong. You shouldn’t do it because the consequences are pretty ugly, especially in the past decade and it will only get worse.
But Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is proposing to have a more strict law that talks about “attempted copyright violations.” I’m not certain how they’re going to make a subjective call for laws that are supposed to be objective, but my one concern is this part of the article:

Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when compact discs with “unauthorized fixations of the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance” are attempted to be imported. Neither the Motion Picture Association of America nor the Business Software Alliance (nor any other copyright holder such as photographers, playwrights, or news organizations, for that matter) would qualify for this kind of special treatment.

Here’s the key part that makes no sense to me. While the rest seems more hardliner type legal moves, this makes the AG seem like he’s in the pocket of the RIAA. The reason being: a law is enforced by an entity (the government) to make sure that private entities do not break laws. Thus, the government should be the overall say, and the third party that stands outside of everything. Justice is blind, correct? So there should be an objective view.
BUT…. in reporting to the RIAA, this makes it look like the RIAA is a governing entity and the government is reporting to them. Not so. The government should have overall say and if the RIAA gets access to that data, then all entities or private citizens should also have access. From the perspective of being fair and just, the RIAA should not be mentioned at all in the article. Perhaps that’s a perspective brought in from the author of the article, but there’s no way to tell for sure currently.
I’m hoping that the sponsorship of such a act (IPPA) would require some serious modification and the understanding by the politicians before it ever went to the floor. Currently, based strictly on CNET’s reporting, it doesn’t look very good for the government to take it as-is.
IP crimes are changing, and they do hurt businesses. That’s a no-brainer. It’s good to enforce this issue from a business perspective, and it needs to be made more clear-cut that doing A will land you B consequence. But if you jail copyright infringement based on music and movies, then you cannot exclude exclusion of photographs, and literature. You also have the gray area of RSS feeds and other types of content on the Internet that would also fall underneath this jurisdiction. And if so, then it becomes a much more complex issue than just satisfying some industry executives.