Anyone in Washington who's ever tried to resolve copyright arguments among rights holders, exhibitors, producers, and the "creative community" knows what it must have been like trying to arbitrate among the various ethnic groups comprising Bosnia-Herzegovina -- or, maybe, achieving a "just and lasting peace in the Middle East." Each interest group's always persuasive - that's what they and their Washington representatives do for a living, after all. Particularly the Motion Picture Association (MPAA) and the Recording Industry (RIAA) are experts at spinning you along. These folks are really quite good.

But the thing to remember is this: So long as the Federal Government, or Congress, leads these factious folks to believe there'll be yet another Government-devised and imposed solution, forward progress will be lost. You'll end up with the sort of modified gridlock faced today. The ONLY "digital rights management" solution guaranteed to work is the one which House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman W.J. ("Billy") Tauzin (R-La.) has proposed -- namely, that all these interest groups get together and develop a mutually satisfactory solution, which Congress then reviews and largely adopts.

The alternative to this sort of "tough love" approach will be continued NAPSTER-style litigation, coupled with a resistance to "digitize" programming, with the goal of stymieing technological changes. The Hollings option -- designing anti-infringement features into the hardware or software -- also seems doomed from the outset. We have 12-year-olds hacking into Federal Reserve Bank of New York and NATO missile aiming systems, for heaven's sake, and they seem quite capable of surmounting any such simple "fix." Are fewer music files being downloaded and swapped since Napster's demise? Not very many people think so.

Sterner civil or even criminal law enforcement initiatives seem hopeless as well. Among other things, copyright infringement's widely seen like taking a ballpoint home from the office. The "jury nullification" potential is manifest. The notion of expanding the "private subpoena" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- to allow more private snooping and policing by copyright interests -- is something that strikes many privacy advocates and civil libertarians as definitely a bad idea.

Even the Tauzin "sit-down" approach won't be as effective so long as the various Congressional interests disagree. If the leadership of the House and Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committees were together to declare they want industry to work out a solution, that might well happen. But so long as the various interests retain their forum-shopping option, is that going to happen? Probably not.

The country needs adequate incentives to produce more and better content, and it also needs to foster technological progress. On those two points, at least, all should be able to agree. It'd also be helpful if, occasionally, a little First Amendment free speech expressionism were factored into the equation. But how one strikes a better balance and builds a better copyright mousetrap is something it'd be better for the private sector to decide.

The art of politics consists of assembling groups, identifying a common denominator -- hopefully the highest common denominator -- and then working effectively to accomplish that shared goal. The groups and interests surrounding copyright matters are quite capable of devising a workable political solution. But that's not going to occur until all the Congressional leadership makes it quite clear they're not going to pick 'n' choose or arbitrate among these perennially warring groups.

Kenneth G. Robinson is a Washington lawyer and was senior legal advisor to FCC Chairman Alfred Sikes.