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."

[umbrae]

Wonderful...

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.

[R. U. Sirius]

Asset Seizure?

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.

[hpew]

Where's the HARM?

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.

[mikele11111]

Crooked Politics As Usual

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.

[Melekai]

"protect our vital national and economic interests"

Please, these buzzwords are getting tiresome.

[feliusrex]

How about corporate regulation instead?

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.