I read it...
Well, I read the section on IP, Copyrights and so on and wow, I just can't believe it.
They mention early on that in a situation where such things as P2P file sharing are widespread, it's perhaps the business models due to them being dated and failing that need to change but then later they go on to protect these dated and failing models with talk of legislation.
Furthermore, Carter misses one extremely important point- he mentions "subject to acceptable levels of proof" or similar regarding the evidence required to catch infringers. The fundamnetal issue here is that the only possible way to prove a particular individual is guilty of copyright infringement is to actually watch them physically sat at the computer downloading the file. Apart from this there is no way to tell if an IP address downloading the file is someone on a machine behind that IP with a trojan using it to download, someone hijacking wireless behind that IP, someone who has broken into the house physically, a friend of the house, a lodger of the house, the kids of the house, the owner of the house or the owner of the internet connection. It is clear therefore that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of evidence.
The best you can do is hold the owner of the internet connection responsible but this means effectively making people legally responsible if someone hacks their machine, hacks their wireless, breaks into their house. It is akin to charging someone with manslaughter should their car be stolen and used to run someone other. This is clear wrong, and not an acceptable path in a free society.
I don't necessarily support illegal file sharing per-se where legal alternatives exist and where the legal product is of equivalent quality of the illegal product (i.e. no DRM- see Spore as an example of where the illegal version was superior to the legal version) but what I do feel is that the law shouldn't be subverted, standards of evidence for illegal activity shouldn't be decreased and innocent people's lives and privacy shouldn't be breached just to pander to a dying business model.
The only upside is in the US, the RIAA is giving up on legal action because every time it's gotten to court it's failed, apart from the one time it succeeded where it later got overturned. This is because of the afformentioned lack of evidence. If our courts are as intelligent and good at defending the laws and required levels of proof then there is some hope this will be stamped out pretty quickly at least.