April 30, 2008 9:46 AM PDT

Proposed new piracy penalties advance in House

A congressional proposal designed to stiffen penalties and enforcement against pirates and counterfeiters moved a step closer to becoming law on Wednesday.

As expected, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a copyright holder-backed enforcement proposal known as the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property, or Pro-IP, Act, which is chiefly sponsored by the committee's chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.).

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the committee's ranking member, said the U.S. Department of Justice is filing more intellectual-property cases than ever--217 in 2007--but suggested that's still not enough. The bill's passage shows "there is a bipartisan commitment to ensure the next president and succeeding administrations have the resources, organizations, and strategies that are required to protect our vital national and economic interests," he said in a statement.

The revised 68-page measure does not contain a controversial provision that would have dramatically increased fines in copyright infringement lawsuits.

The bill would, however, rewrite U.S. law to allow federal officials to seize property from convicted copyright infringers who made unauthorized copies of music, movies, or live performances. That property could include computers or other equipment used to commit intellectual-property crimes or obtained as a result of those proceeds. In civil cases, the feds would have to establish that there was a "substantial connection" between the property and the offense.

At a previous hearing, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said she worried that approach doesn't address the possibility that property could be seized from innocent people if a convicted pirate used it to commit crimes without their knowledge. (At least one defendant in a peer-to-peer lawsuit brought by the RIAA was sued because someone else was using their Wi-Fi access point.)

The bill would also create a new presidentially appointed position whose pick would be charged with acting as a chief adviser on intellectual property enforcement matters. The U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, as the position would be known, appears to be modeled after the U.S. Trade Representative, which already has some intellectual property enforcement responsibilities and puts out an annual report on global piracy.

The proposal also calls for the appointment of 10 new intellectual-property "attaches" to serve in U.S. embassies and creation of a new "intellectual property enforcement division" within the Justice Department. The Justice Department, for its part, has been resistant to those bureaucratic changes, arguing that its current setup is already effective enough.

The Copyright Alliance, a coalition of major copyright holders, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business group, were quick to praise the bill's passage.

"The Judiciary Committee has taken a necessary step to ensure America's innovation industries continue to create jobs, develop creative products, discover the drugs that cure critical diseases, and find cutting edge technology solutions to global challenges such as climate change," Caroline Joiner, executive director of the U.S. Chamber's Global Intellectual Property Center, said in a statement. "We urge the full House and Senate to pass the legislation so it can be signed into law."

Recent posts from News Blog
End of Intel, AMD duopoly near? Via readies Isaiah chip
Google Translate speaks 10 new languages
Yahoo investors begin to weigh in on Icahn proxy fight
Hacker confab 'Last HOPE' to track attendees with RFID
Can the Feds enforce Net neutrality? Maybe not
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 10 comments (Page 1 of 1)
Wonderful...
by umbrae April 30, 2008 10:37 AM PDT
Now modern day cartels will have a whole department in the government to support their needs. Needless to mention that more "convicted pirates" are 13 year old children and single moms. However, how can that compare to protecting the profits of a multi-billion dollar industry with dying business models? We have no government anymore. It is no longer We the People; It is We the Corporations.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Asset Seizure?
by R. U. Sirius April 30, 2008 10:44 AM PDT
You know, the problem I have with this is that it is using taxpayer dollars to protect big business. You know damn well that this will do nothing to protect my copyrights or the copyrights of any other small independent producer. And let's face it, this idea of asset seizure is disturbing. The RIAA is going to have an legal orgasm over this.
Reply to this comment View reply
Where's the HARM?
by hpew April 30, 2008 1:57 PM PDT
I think there should be a distinction between copy for commercial - for profit distribution and copy primarily for personal use. I once watched an interview with a wise (Circuit Court) Judge who handled primarily IP/copyright cases. His take was that if accusers could not show harm to their product, he would generally dismiss the case. This take was that Patent and subsequent IP laws were meant to protect the originator from harm to their property. No harm - no foul.
Reply to this comment View reply
Crooked Politics As Usual
by mikele11111 April 30, 2008 2:03 PM PDT
Lamar Smith is nothing but a political hack who is the tool of The RIAA, MPPA and every other lobbying group the buys off congressman with campaign contributions that are really nothing but bribes. Check Smith's list of contributors and I guarantee you will find these guys have made major payoffs (oops, I mean contributions)to him.
Reply to this comment
"protect our vital national and economic interests"
by Melekai April 30, 2008 5:00 PM PDT
Please, these buzzwords are getting tiresome.
Reply to this comment
How about corporate regulation instead?
by feliusrex April 30, 2008 5:28 PM PDT
If the House/Senate has so many extra resources that it can direct the DOJ to create whole new departments to go after imaginary property crime, how about we start doing so corporate regulation? I know of a lot of energy companies, communications companies, oil companies, ect ect that need much much more oversite. I would rather see the electric distribution sector regulated again than waste time/money/effort on increasing profits for the RIAA.
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About News Blog

  • Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Most popular stories

  1. CBS to buy CNET Networks

  2. Intel Germany executive reportedly confirms Atom-based iPhone

  3. Images: Microsoft telescope puts universe on your desktop

  4. Xbox 360 hits 10 million sold in U.S.

  5. Photos: Microsoft previews 2008 Xbox games

Latest tech news headlines

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman

Green Tech

One More Thing by Tom Krazit

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh

The Social by Caroline McCarthy

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland

advertisement
On TechRepublic: 3 habits of highly ineffective employees
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: