Bush administration opposes RIAA-backed copyright bill
The Bush administration has announced its strong opposition to a bill backed by the recording industry that would let federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against peer-to-peer pirates.
In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that amounts to a veto threat, the administration said it was "deeply concerned" that the proposal would divert resources from criminal prosecution to civil enforcement, and create "unnecessary bureaucracy." Currently prosecutors have authority to file criminal charges.
The two-page letter said that copyright owners already have plenty of legal methods to target infringers, including seeking injunctions, impounding infringing materials, recovering actual damages plus statutory damages, and, in some cases, obtaining attorney's fees. The letter was signed by Keith Nelson, a principal deputy assistant attorney general, and Lily Fu Claffee, the Commerce Department's general counsel.
The bill in question is called the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved in a 14-4 vote on September 11.
In addition, the administration said the bill was "objectionable on constitutional grounds" because it would create an "IP coordinator" inside the White House, the organization of which is traditionally a presidential prerogative.
It's relatively rare for a pair of federal agencies to oppose a bipartisan bill so strongly--Republican co-sponsors include Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch--and the implied threat of a veto is likely to doom the proposal in its current form. (It has echoes of the Bush administration's opposition to an anti-China Internet bill earlier this year, which has gone nowhere since.)
Because usual congressional schedules are in disarray because of the November election, and because work on appropriations bills is even more behind schedule than usual, there's not much time left for Congress to return to this topic and negotiate a compromise this year.
Supporters of the bill include the Recording Industry Association of America, the Motion Picture Association of America, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Opponents include the American Library Association and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than 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." E-mail Declan. 
Many thanks to the Administration for standing up for the people of America. That is all we needed the RIAA and MPAA writing laws in this country to suit them.
Introduction of bills like this one, with such huge and obvious constitutionality concerns, tell me that the RIAA and MPAA have such a disporportionately large part of some lawmakers' attention that they don't even pay attention to the legality of such legislation. Unbelievable...
Now how do we go about fixing the rest of the destruction he has perpetrated upon your country?
Go Bush? I'm confused.
which nobody really knows what's going to be in that bill because it is being written in secret. Open government anyone?
However, rumor is it's basically a bill to make electronic border searches legal where they could keep a copy of all data on any device you take across the border to search later for copyright violations. It is also rumored that this bill could force ISPs to police their networks for copyright violations. Which just creates privacy violations for everyone instead. I guess you can right a wrong with another wrong.
Then the big rumor that the bill may contain language to make P2P file sharing and P2P file sharing programs illegal. However, I don't think they're done writing it yet though. A little more info on the topic from CNET might be nice though. ;)
<a href="http://www.analyzedmarketing.com">Mark</a>
Thieves, every single one of you! This law should signed into law and you should be in jail for what you are, common thieves.
As far as your common thief comment goes, that is an entirely separate and nonetheless lengthy topic. While i would agree that it is wrong, there are several differences between common theft and copyright infringement.
Two are:
1. No physical possession is lost by either party
2. Under current cases the financial penalties allowed under copyright infringement exceed most cases of petty theft
One major problem is that most of these are civil cases brought by a private organization or person. They don't have the same legal oversight. That's why we have to watch what they're doing. It isn't only the RIAA that has intellectual property (IP). Everyone has their own IP. I have my own intellectual property. I'm not saying the RIAA or ISPs are spying on people. I'm just saying that if we set the precedent that they can violate your privacy because you might be a pirate then that means I can violate your privacy because I have IP. This is because neither of us are government. We'd both just be private organizations going after our own IP.
You could use the argument you have nothing to hide. Okay then, Let me spy on your net and search your hard drive and set up cameras in your home and sleep under your bed just in case you stole my IP. Not saying you're a thief, but really there's only one way to tell right?
No, the RIAA doesn't do all that crazy stuff. However, you have to understand that I am crazy. I would. This is why your privacy is important. If they take it away I will annoy you or someone like you until the day I die.
Now, if I don't have the right to violate your privacy than the RIAA shouldn't either right? You see the privacy is there to protect everyone, not the thief. Pirates already steal music, movies, and software. Don't be foolish enough to give them your privacy too. It won't stop piracy. That's just an illusion.
Now the reason we don't need this law is because federal prosecutors already have the authority to file criminal charges against pirates. Criminal charges are more severe and can include prison time and hefty fines for the pirate. So why have federal prosecutors file civil suits where the pirate is likely to face less punishment? You just said they should all be in jail. Well we already have the laws for that. What do we need this one for?
- by matthevil September 25, 2008 7:14 AM PDT
- Can you explain to me why it's okay for the RIAA etc. to steal taxpayer money for prosecution that can't even prove whether IP was actually stolen? Why should they reap the benefit of that prosecution, from which the artists will still get nothing? And as for your idiotic post about everything...you actually think the industry has the right to pawn of costs to taxpayers for poor business decisions and that no one should be opposed to it?
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (32 Comments)Moron, every bit of you! This law should be squashed and the industry should have to foot its own legal bill for what they are, common morons.