December 5, 2007 10:43 PM PST

Major copyright bill boosts penalties, creates new agency

In the aftermath of the $222,000 jury verdict that the Recording Industry Association of America recently won against a Minnesota woman who shared 24 songs on Kazaa, the U.S. Congress is preparing to amend copyright law.

Politicians want to increase penalties for copyright infringement.

It's no joke. Top Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday introduced a sweeping 69-page bill that ratchets up civil penalties for copyright infringement, boosts criminal enforcement, and even creates a new federal agency charged with bringing about a national and international copyright crackdown.

"By providing additional resources for enforcement of intellectual property, we ensure that innovation and creativity will continue to prosper in our society," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich) said in a statement.

The legislation, called the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act, or PRO IP Act, is throughly bipartisan. The top Republican, Lamar Smith of Texas, on the Judiciary committee is a sponsor. So is Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the chair of the subcommittee that writes copyright law, and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

The Motion Picture Association of America, which has long championed stiffer copyright laws such as this fall's legislation aimed at file trading at universities, applauded the PRO IP Act as well.

"I believe that the American business community can speak in one voice today in support of these legislative efforts to protect intellectual property," MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman said in a statement. "I am pleased to see a concerted effort by Congress to address this growing problem, and the MPAA looks forward to working with congressional leaders in the weeks to come."

Here are some of the major sections of the PRO IP Act:

* Fines in copyright cases dealing with compilations would be increased. Right now, as in the case of Xoom v. Imageline, the maximum penalty for infringement of one compilation is $30,000. Now courts would be able to make "multiple awards of statutory damages" when compilations are infringed.

* Maximum penalties for repeat copyright offenders would be easier to obtain. Current law says that anyone who "willfully" infringes a copyright by distributing over $1,000 worth of material (including over a peer-to-peer network) is a criminal. The PRO IP Act keeps the 10-year prison term intact for felonious repeat offenders--but, crucially, deletes the requirement that repeat offenders must have distributed at least 10 copyrighted works within 180 days.

* Any computer or network hardware used to "facilitate" a copyright crime could be seized by the Justice Department and auctioned off. The proceeds would be funneled to the agency's budget. The process is called civil asset forfeiture, and typically the owner does not need to be found guilty of a crime for his property to be taken.

Probably the most extensive part of the PRO IP Act is its creation of a new federal bureaucracy called the White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, or WHIPER. The head of WHIPER would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

WHIPER seems to be modeled after the U.S. Trade Representative, with the head of the new agency bearing the rank of "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary." WHIPER's head is charged with being the president's principal advisor and spokesman for intellectual property matters, as well as identifying countries that don't adequately protect IP rights. It gets to create its own official seal as well, and the WHIPER head appears to be paid as well as the attorney general and secretary of defense ($186,600 in 2007).

One of WHIPER's major tasks would be to create a "Joint Strategic Plan" that, in part, involves "identifying individuals" involved in the "trafficking" of "pirated goods." An annual report is due to Congress by December 31 of each year. In addition, 10 "intellectual property attaches" are intended to be dispatched to embassies around the world.

Finally, the U.S. Justice Department's intellectual property enforcement apparatus would be completely revamped. An "Intellectual Property Enforcement Division" would be created and subsume the IP-related functions that the department's computer crime section in the criminal division currently performs. The new division would receive $25 million per year to start with.

Recent posts from The Iconoclast
RIAA defendant Jammie Thomas may get new trial
Q&A with Charter VP: Your Web activity, logged and loaded
FBI's Net surveillance proposal raises privacy, legal concerns
Transcript: FBI director on surveillance of 'illegal' Internet activity
FBI, politicos renew push for ISP data retention laws
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 40 comments (Page 1 of 3)
We Finally Get Thought Police
by Fat Drunk and Stupid December 5, 2007 11:47 PM PST
We were suppose to have thought police in 1984. What took so long?
Reply to this comment View reply
Its quite obvious, who the Federal-Government works for...
by Had_to_be_said December 6, 2007 12:12 AM PST
...And, it sure as hell isnt us (citizens). First off... "our" politicians have obviously been sitting on all kinds of such legislation for months. And now, they are seizing their chance, and they are going to shovel-through all of this CRAP now, at the end of the session (and year)... as fast as they can... so that there is no chance for the American-People to effectively-protest, or stop it (before its too late). And, second... isnt it absolutely amazing how protecting the wildest, wet-dreams, of the richest corporations in America... so clearly, take precedence over: obscene gas-prices... an illegal-war, that 70-percent of the American people, vehemently, oppose... wholesale government-corruption... the violation of citizen-rights... real national-security... or, any other truly-important matter..? If you arent OUTRAGED... You, just, arent paying attention.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Special interest group creates own government
by feliusrex December 6, 2007 12:44 AM PST
Why do 'big content' like the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, ect ect get to buy their own branches of government? A copyright enforcement department? Why don't we just create new departments for how we're really governed? Might I suggest: The State of Fear department to make sure everyone is kept terrified of everything (weather, immigrants, toys, the supply of gas). The War on Terrorism Department to make sure that everyone knows we are fighting the terrorist (whomever they might be, no one seems to actually have captured any), the PC Department to make sure no one has their delicate sensibilities offended by creativity or original thought, and coming soon, the Thought Crime department (Mr. Bush will be heading this one after his term as president, since it's easy to prove that he's never had a thought in 8 years.) Or how about this: If the senate and the house (neither deserving of a capital letter) want an IP department, they can fund the budget from their retirement, their 'perks', and their travel expenses.
Reply to this comment
I always figured
by RaggieSoft December 6, 2007 2:04 AM PST
I had a nasty hunch the Gov worked only for the big guys...hmm, let's see: The real reason for Iraq is the oil, the Draconian Music Cart your A$$ to jail law, and now the RIAA/MPAA doesn't Give a "Blank" law? When I'm rich an famous (which we all know will be never), I'm going to buy my own gov where EVERYTHING is GPL'd ;)
Reply to this comment
Its all in place....
by cidman2001 December 6, 2007 4:40 AM PST
Now the government has found a new way to use those "secret" rooms they built to tap into internet backbones for terrorist surveilance...Big Brother is here already!
Reply to this comment
Where is the GOVT when the people need them...
by umbrae December 6, 2007 5:54 AM PST
Foreclosures, Lead in Toys, etc. Where are these "agencies" to help consumers killed and driven to bankruptcy by corporations? Instead they are passing laws for civil crimes that do not even require corporations to lift a finger. They can just sit back and relax as tax payer dollars are used so the FBI and special forces can raid the homes of single mothers and college students to squeeze every penny out of consumers. And all of this when they are making record profits. It is just amazing how complacent the US citizen have become. Please contact your representatives and stop this madness.
Reply to this comment View reply
Something I don't get
by van_Zeller December 6, 2007 6:54 AM PST
How exactly are the owners of an open wifi connection going to monitor the traffic going through their router? Suppose it's me, here at home, being a good samaritan, allowing people to use their iphones or laptops, say. And one of them is going to "childporn.com", or worse, is uploading some pictures to attach to an email. How will I know and what can I do about it? Also, imagine a hotel lobby in NY, full of people. Suppose you *know* someone is doing something the shouldn't. How do you trace that person? They are all in the same room, with their laptops in their, well, laps. Now what?
Reply to this comment
What a surprise
by giaconej December 6, 2007 7:05 AM PST
Nice to see our politicians are really just RIAA and MPAA sockpupets.
Reply to this comment
duh
by goople December 6, 2007 7:12 AM PST
as was repeated warned...the MOFO's who repeatedly glorified/rationalized piracy brought this government &$#% on. I include CNET in the blame for this. Just because you hate the RIAA doesn't mean you have to be so stupid as to invite government intervention by suggesting it's "ok" to violate copyright.
Reply to this comment View reply
Outrageous grandstanding
by jrice December 6, 2007 7:19 AM PST
Ironic, that the only two dissents are Republican. This is nothing more than Democratic pandering. The bill means that anyone with WiFi is responsible for anyone who walks into their hot zone. And what about the content? I thought the Supreme Court had already ruled that Congress can't prohibit non-photographic images, i.e. drawings and computer-generated images, i.e. images of people who don't exist. So Congress is behaving as if the Court hasn't ruled. It seems they are passing laws that are patently invalid 1) for the harrassment value -- even if the case is thrown out the bust is the point -- and 2) grandstanding as "the party battling kiddie-porn, the party of family values". In today's news Dick Cheney is calling the Dems dickless, and with this bill, the Dems are saying, "Oh no we're not! See?" This is disgusting. This bill will either die in the Senate or the courts. Meanwhile, it's a nuisance.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
1 | 2 | 3 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About The Iconoclast

  • Declan McCullagh has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C. for over a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says: "We oughta have a new federal law against this."

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Most popular stories

  1. CBS to buy CNET Networks

  2. Images: Microsoft telescope puts universe on your desktop

  3. Intel Germany executive reportedly confirms Atom-based iPhone

  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 Social by Caroline McCarthy

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland

Resource center from News.com sponsors

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