I can't remember where I saw it - it was either a news link from here to somewhere like CNN SciTech or something similar - but I read a recent article that proposed the exact opposite to this news story.
The bill proposed would remove any of the restrictions that stopped businesses like Napster from operating (in a legal way).
The heart of the bill would increase the number of legal backups a person can make from 2 to something like 250. This way an Internet Radio site or Music Sharing site could keep copies of a song in all major formats for PC playing software.
My problem with this article is just because something is put before congress, hardly means that it will become law. There are just as many supporters in Congress of Net based music sites as there are opponents. So the reality is that neither bill will pass, or if it does will pass in an extremely watered down version, that has no real power to do anything.
The other thing is that most politicians are completely against any kind of internet censorship. Some because they feel it would be a violation of freedom of speech, others because they would see unintended restrictions in free trade, and many because such laws are almost impossible to police without an extremely prohibitive cost attached.
Look at the recent laws passed in the UK that force any large internet provider to have the ability to monitor and record email and chat traffic. Just about none of these companies are in compliance because no one has said how the technology and software required will be paid for. The fines imposed for non-compliance wouldn't come close to the costs involved in setting this up, and most are refusing to even start unless the government pays for it up front. Even if they start projects to implement these laws it could be years before any of them are finished.
This is the main reason why governments don't like technology legislation. They have no idea what the cost is going to end up being or what how implications of those laws will end up affecting the businesses that support each party or party member.
So until I see it, I won't believe any restrictive legislation will happen. It certainly won't happen any time soon - heck it's taken them over a year to get the crucial anti-terroism legislation moving - how many years do you think it will take for something like that mentioned in this thread?