backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 81 comment(s) - last by reader1.. on Sep 30 at 7:50 AM

Sweeping IP reform sails through half of congress

Redoubling its commitment to fight piracy, the U.S. senate passed sweeping intellectual property legislation set to install a new position in the presidential cabinet: that of the “Copyright Czar”.

S. 3325, commonly known as the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008, sailed through the Senate Friday in a unanimous, bipartisan consent vote.

The Copyright Czar, known formally as the “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator,” will report directly to the White House and Congress while creating and executing nationwide anti-piracy initiatives. These policies will govern oversee nearly all forms of intellectual property in the United States, including digital media, counterfeit goods, and the “unauthorized recording of motion pictures.”

While the IPEC will head an “advisory committee” for the assistance of its duties, S. 3325 explicitly limits its power over other government agencies: exercising control of “any law enforcement agency, including the Department of Justice,” is forbidden.

According to Wired’s Threat Level, labor unions, manufacturers, the content industry, and the United States Chamber of Commerce backed S. 3325 heavily.

The bill originally included a provision that would see the Department of Justice filing copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of the entertainment industry; however, it appears that those sections were removed at the DOJ’s behest (PDF).

“[EIPRA] will undermine existing intellectual property enforcement efforts by diminishing the effective use of limited criminal enforcement resources and creating unnecessary bureaucracy,” it wrote. “It will also improperly micro-manage the internal organization of the Executive Branch.”

The DOJ also noted that the IPEC already exists as a position in the commerce department, and raised constitutional objections to its appointment to the presidential cabinet. Such a change “constitutes a legislative intrusion into the internal structure and composition of the President's Administration,” and cannot be allowed due to the principle of separated government powers.

A number of digital and public rights groups, including Public Knowledge, joined the DOJ in opposing the bill.

Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn said she was “pleased” that the DOJ is relieved of its lawsuit requirement.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce heralded S. 3325 as a win for IP creators.

“This is a win for both parties and, more importantly, for America's innovators, workers whose jobs rely on intellectual property, and consumers who depend on safe and effective products," said Chamber CEO Tom Donohue.

S. 3325 represents the latest development in an ongoing, divergent attitude between judicial and legislative branches of the U.S. government. With civil courts, at both state and federal levels, issuing a string of rulings against the content industry – including, most recently, ordering the retrial Jammie Thomas’ $222,000 jury verdict – it appears that content executives are pushing heavily for legislative change in order to shore up their positions. This effort, which includes lawmaking in both the congressional and international arenas, could make future piracy far more dangerous for infringers.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

huge waste of tax dollars
By the goat on 9/28/2008 4:03:46 PM , Rating: 5
The US government should not be concerned with enforcing copyrights on US soil. The copyright holder should be responsible for that. The US government should ensure foreign governments respect would copyrights so that copyright holders can enforce the copyright in other countries.

A lot of the pirating problem would be resolved if the copyright length was shortened back to something reasonable. The founding fathers set it at 14 years (28 years maximum with an extension). After that the work should fall into the public domain. That would encourage people/companies to make more new content instead of mooching off of enormous catalogs of work that have already generated millions of dollars in prophet.




RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By Spivonious on 9/28/2008 4:16:26 PM , Rating: 1
lol, sorry but you cannot be more wrong. From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (listing powers of Congress):

quote:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries


I do agree with your point though; the copyright term needs to be shortened considerably. I think 14 years is plenty of time to make money off of an invention.


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By the goat on 9/28/2008 7:30:43 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think I am wrong. That section of the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to grant copyrights. My point is, that section does not compel the executive branch to enforce the copyright on behalf of the author/inventor. Once the copyright has been granted it is up to the holder to enforce it (utilizing the judicial branch).

Checks and Balances my friend. . .


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By shin0bi272 on 9/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By the goat on 9/28/2008 8:50:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So youre saying its up to Metallica to police the internet and sue everyone who downloads their music even though its in the constitution that the congress has the ability to secure Metallica's IP till their copyright is up?


No I am saying it is up to Metallica to enforce their copyright (buy sewing everybody who downloads their music). The constitution gives congress the power to grant Metallica the copyright in the first place.

Without that section of the constitution congress could not grant Metallica the copyright and Metallita could not sew anybody. That section of the constitution allows congress to give the artist/inventor the power to protect their exclusive right. Nothing more nothing less.


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By foolsgambit11 on 9/28/2008 10:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Read more carefully. The section says that Congress has the right not only to grant a copyright, but to secure the exclusive right of the holder. Securing the copyright holder's right is an active power, one that authorizes government enforcement. In other words, the Constitution not only lets the Congress grant copyrights, but also lets them enforce (secure) those copyrights. Of course, it doesn't require that they do this, it just says that Congress shall have that power (no duty to exercise it).

So you could say that it should be up to Metallica to secure their copyrights, but you can't say it's a violation of the Constitution if the government takes on that role.


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By stilltrying on 9/28/2008 10:55:36 PM , Rating: 4
Since when has any of the branches followed the constitution lately? Very infrequently. Border searches and seizures. If we are going to start following the constitution then all of the other fascist unnatural laws need to be taken off the books like many from the DHS or actually the entire DHS department.


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By Ringold on 9/29/2008 12:24:07 AM , Rating: 1
When Democrats agree to give up unconstitutional wealth redistribution, and Republican's agree in trade to give up a strong but corrupting and pervasive military, then your wish may come true. Search & seizure along national borders pales in comparison to.. well.. just about everything else going on the past several decades.

I wouldn't get my hopes up though; we're as socialist as any part of Western Europe or Asia at this point, not so much because of the above-board financial system rescue but the last-minute stealth 25 billion in heavily subsidized loans given to GM, Ford and Chrysler that the media has barely talked about. We've abdicated our right to bitch about Chinese tariffs or subsidies and European support for EADS/Airbus for at least a little while. 25b isn't a big number in the scheme of things, only 7b at risk, but it's the principle of the matter...


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By Oregonian2 on 9/29/2008 3:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
Have those gone through? I know how a loan guarantees for large amounts are being pushed for by Ford and Chrysler (it's been in the press quite a lot, I'm not sure what press hasn't been covering it that you're referring to) but those AFAIK are just guarantees, not actual out of pocket expenses (lowers the interest rate the companies need to pay for the loans). Of course we could just have those companies go bankrupt (along with all those companies that supply them parts and services) and spend ten times that in outright expenses for the unemployment related issues that might follow.


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By Spivonious on 9/29/2008 7:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;


Homeland Security sounds a lot like "common defense" to me.


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2008 2:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
Again. Read more carefully. The Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It then goes on to talk about the requirements for warrants, but there's no guarantee that the two clauses cover all searches an seizures. For instance, warrants may only be necessary for searches that would be unreasonable without them. That is a completely valid and internally coherent reading of the 4th Amendment. It's certainly more coherent than reading a personal right to bear arms into the 2nd Amendment, where it's alleged that the two parts of the amendment have apparently no bearing on one another (but let's not get off topic talking about that, please....). On topic, this reading would still leave a whole class of searches (the reasonable ones) which could be performed without a warrant.

Secondarily, Congress, when enacting DHS legislation, would be acting within the context of the Judicially described boundaries of what constitutes a 'search' in legal terms. You may consider it a search when you get your bags opened before you fly, but the Supreme Court (see Katz v. US) says it's only a search if there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. But that reading is not, prima facie, obvious, and I could understand some confusion about the implementation of the 4th Amendment based on a 'common usage' interpretation of the word 'search'. But at its heart, this reading says the same thing as the first reading I gave - there are, in layman's terms, 'reasonable searches', which can be performed without triggering the constitutional requirement for a warrant.

As a side note, has reading comprehension been stripped from school curriculum? It sure seems like it.

I understand Constitutional purists who argue about federal encroachment into state powers, via broad readings of powers like the interstate commerce clause, or people who complain about our money not being gold or silver coin. I understand people who are concerned about encroachments into the unenumerated rights of citizens alluded to in the Bill of Rights. But I don't understand people who refuse to see what the Constitution obviously says.


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By ZmaxDP on 9/29/2008 7:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting...

"No I am saying it is up to Metallica to enforce their copyright (buy sewing everybody who downloads their music)."

So, are you advocating removing their skin and sewing that into some kind of stage outfit, or are you suggesting that we actually sew their entire bodies in some manner? For that matter, aside from the obvious pain and suffering that occurs when one is sewn, what exactly is the intent of sewing those who infringe upon your copyright? Is the intent to keep those who infringe from unraveling into worse crimes? (Wait, I don't think that is sewing even, more like serging or something...) Either way, there are plenty of ways to stick people together besides sewing. Maybe they should try Velcro? That might hurt too though. Isn't there a constitutional clause that limits cruel and unusual punishment though? If so, this conversation is probably moot since sewing definitely fits the unusual bill...

Sorry, couldn't help it. The word you were looking for is "sue" I believe...


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By the goat on 9/30/2008 7:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, couldn't help it. The word you were looking for is "sue" I believe...


Of coarse you are correct. Whatever I originally typed was flagged red by the spell check. I just picked the first suggested correction and I picked wrong.


RE: huge waste of tax dollars
By Spivonious on 9/29/2008 9:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
And here I though the executive branch was created to execute the laws creating by the legislative branch...


By djkrypplephite on 9/29/2008 1:49:27 AM , Rating: 4
I feel like with the need for $700 billion dollar bail-out, two wars, and federal debt as it is, we could find other ways to spend taxpayer money in ways better than chasing kids who download music. I'm not saying piracy isn't a problem, but some of this is ridiculous.


Totally Unfair
By Flunk on 9/28/2008 3:10:48 PM , Rating: 5
I see the concept of fair use no longer exists. Gee I wonder why people wonder if the US government is in the pocket of big business...




RE: Totally Unfair
By Spivonious on 9/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Totally Unfair
By mindless1 on 9/28/2008 6:53:24 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, previously they were trying to ignore fair use, and now they're saying "and this is what we're going to do" while ignoring fair use. It is an extension of the problem.