more u.s. copyright legislation

specifically, the 'enforcement of intellectual property rights act' and the 'international intellectual property protection and enforcement act'. the former renders it so that the state, rather than rights owners, goes after the thieving vermin who download blah blah blah, and the latter is so the u.s. can threaten and frighten other countries who seem not to be doing enough to stop their own thieving vermin who etc..
on cnet concerning the first bill:

One of the more controversial sections of the latest version would permit the Justice Department to file a civil lawsuit against "any person" committing a copyright violation--which would include thousands, or perhaps millions, of piratical peer-to-peer users.

americans might be indifferent to the idea of their government going after citizens on the behalf of the riaa and the mpaa, but it's doubtful. the public knowledge action alert suggests that:

By allowing the federal government to sue infringers in civil court, the DOJ would be asking a court for monetary damages on behalf of content owners. In a civil suit brought by the government, the defendant loses many of the protections he possesses in a criminal action—including his right to free legal representation. What’s more, the government’s legal burden of proof is lower: the government only needs to prove infringement with a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that it’s more likely than not that infringement occurred, as opposed to the usual criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Does the content industry need this help from the Department of Justice? Absolutely not! In the last five years, the RIAA filed or threatened more than 30,000 suits against alleged infringers. If the Enforcement bill passes, not only will the number of such suits increase—they’ll also be paid for with your tax dollars.

the legislation is on its way to the senate.