... banning automobiles to prevent "contributory bank robbery"
This has been my slashdot
more like "banning newsprint to prevent contributory ransom demands." Better analogy. Trust me.
But actually, I've given a lot of thought to this piece of bumper-sticker wisdom. I still think mine is better, on the following counts:
The issue (which for me lies in the 2600 decision as well as the Napster rulings) is whether a tool should be banned based upon its usage by some to break the law.
Indeed, it's worse, in that the Content Cartel wants to preemptively ban techologies that might usable in copyright infringement, regardless of other uses of that technology.
The "newsprint" thing drags in the First Amendment, and while I believe the First Amendment to be perhaps the most important political writing ever, I don't believe it's really applicable here.
Along the lines of enabling technologies, the AC should at least have offered "printing presses". Hmmm... I could live with "Banning software to prevent 'contributory piracy' is like banning printing presses to prevent 'contributory counterfeiting'. But it still raises that whole First Amendment thing.