Senate unanimously passes RIAA-backed bill
This post was updated at 4:25 p.m. PDT with more details.
The U.S. Senate on Friday unanimously passed a bipartisan bill backed by groups like the recording industry and the labor movement that would increase federal protections over intellectual property.
Introduced in July by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act now moves to the House of Representatives, where it will be taken up either Friday or Saturday, before Congress adjourns.
The bill was stripped of a controversial measure that would have given federal prosecutors the power to file civil lawsuits against peer-to-peer users who violate copyright laws. The Commerce Department and Justice Department voiced their opposition to the provision in a letter this week, saying it would create "unnecessary bureaucracy."
The legislation still provides increased resources for the Justice Department to combat intellectual property theft and provide coordination for federal and state efforts against counterfeiting and piracy. It also increases penalties for intellectual property infringements.
Not all of the Bush administration's objections with the legislation were addressed, however. The bill replaces the body that currently enforces intellectual property law with a White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. The new coordinator will chair an inter-agency committee to combat counterfeiting and piracy. In its letter, the administration said the establishment of a White House IP coordinator was "objectionable on constitutional grounds."
The Commerce Department said it is still reviewing the legislation as it was passed.
The Recording Industry of America gave resounding praise for the bill.
"At a critical economic juncture, this bipartisan legislation provides enhanced protection for an important asset that helps lead our global competitiveness," RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Bainwol said. "Additional tools for intellectual-property enforcement are not just good for the copyright community but for consumers who will enjoy a wider array of legitimate offerings."
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who pushed to have the controversial Justice Department provision removed, was still dissatisfied with the state of the bill.
"The legislation still includes provisions that overzealous federal prosecutors could misconstrue to allow the seizure of important components of our Internet infrastructure," he said in a statement.
Other groups opposed to the bill also spoke out Friday.
"At a time when the entire digital world is going to less restrictive distribution models, and when the courts are aghast at the outlandish damages being inflicted on consumers in copyright cases, this bill goes entirely in the wrong direction," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge.
Rick Cotton, executive vice president and general counsel of NBC Universal, said concerns that the bill goes too far are unfounded.
"Over the last 20 years, the flood of physical counterfeit projects and the scale of digital theft (have) gone off the chart," he said. "What drives (the U.S. economy are) precisely technical invention, innovation, and creativity--if we don't protect that, we dramatically undermine our economic future."
Along with the recording industry, the bill is backed by the Chamber of Commerce, and labor groups like the AFL-CIO and Change to Win.
Stephanie Condon is a staff writer for CNET News focused on the intersection of technology and politics. She is based in Washington, D.C. E-mail Stephanie. 
Law of mass/matter conservation.
So my advice is, don't let anyone have access to your computer. Someone may copy some of your music files with a flash drive when you aren't looking and you could end up with no way to prove that you didn't intentionally share files.
As for the "other two" guys.. I'm voting NO CONFIDENCE, or in other words I'm voting for a 3rd party candidate. It doesn't matter who.. just so long as Washington gets the message that I'm mad as hell with the options I'm getting and I'm not going to accept this *one party* system anymore.
I believe that the intent by Congress (not the RIAA/MPAA) is to combat commercial piracy and theft of intellectual property.
There are two things lawmakers should keep in mind. There is no "privacy" as we know it on the internet and anything that is distributed will be stolen and copied. These two fundamentals should really shape the debate.
That alone ought to tell you exactly what this bill means to the consumers.
So... Do you work for a record label? Do you work elsewhere in the industry?
"I believe that the intent by Congress (not the RIAA/MPAA) is to combat commercial piracy and theft of intellectual property."
Actually, cidman, what you describe is what USED to be the case with the law. That's why the old FBI warnings on videocassettes began with "The FBI investigates instances of copyright infringement done willfully and for profit ..." Notice the "and for profit." The law specifically changed about a decade ago in response to massive amounts of copyright infringement that was NOT for profit but was destructive of the industries whose works were being used without compensation. (With the change in law, the FBI investigations broadened to fit the new provisions.)
The way that the above attempts to write off the "kid sharing a couple hundred mp3's" is part of the problem. That really is a high number, and it's not mere excerpts either. Far too many users of online trading sites went far beyond what MIGHT have been permitted as fair use. (See http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c12C.html to read just how limited this subject was -- far more so than what is so capriciously taken as permissible on the sites.) In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Grokster running an illegal operation. (See a summary of the decision at http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c13D.html#s032.) Really, no one should be surprised at this new set of provisions; it's more-or-less the law as it has been practiced, with provisions for enforcement.
These bastard corporate lackey shams of "Representatives" along with the impossibly **** rule of Bush & Cheney have left me absolutely sick. I weep for the America of my grandfathers.
We really need to realize that under the Constitution, these awards go past the 'reasonable compensation' that is supposed to be the ONLY constitutional award.
Plus, after the I lost all respect for any opinion the RIAA has after they supported ILLEGAL pre-emptive hacking of individuals computers to figure out if they were stealing materal and if so release viruses to take those computers down. Their tactics are deplorable.
Nothing the RIAA supports is good for consumers, nor artists for that matter. The main objective of this sell out Government is to criminalize as many innocent non-violent people as possible and to completely invade their privacy. Keep voting for these clowns America.
- by alexgieg September 27, 2008 6:03 AM PDT
- The end result will be P2P turning into extremely secure, distributed, encrypted darknets. The best known western example is Freenet, which provides a full alternative hidden Internet, complete with anonymous websites and anonymous e-mail:
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (29 Comments)https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Freenet
As for the Orient, Japan already has a much stricter IP policy than the US, and guess what? Their most used P2P file-sharing networks, such as Perfect Dark, work in this exact same way:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Perfect_Dark_(P2P)
What the RIAA and government officials don't understand is that there's no going back. The more governments press against the wishes of the majority, the more the majority works around the pressure. It's like hammering water: you cause some splashes, maybe some turmoil, but after a few seconds, the water gets back to its placid massiveness, and you're none the better.