Business, labor urge Bush to sign RIAA-backed copyright bill

Business leaders discuss promoting IP protection at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday.

(Credit: Stephanie Condon/CNET)

WASHINGTON--With only five days left for President Bush to decide whether to sign into law a controversial copyright bill, business lobbyists and even the AFL-CIO are pushing for it to become law.

Most bills to expand copyright law are bipartisan--one aimed at file-swappers and prerelease movies in 2005 comes to mind--and the so-called Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act is no exception. Sens. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, and Arlen Specter, a Republican, are the sponsors, and it enjoys the support of the Recording Industry Association of America.

But the Pro-IP Act is unusual because the Bush administration threatened a veto last month. It's been subsequently amended, and the changes are likely to assuage the administration's concerns, but the U.S. Commerce Department told CNET News that it is still reviewing the revised language.

While industries have been defensively adapting to a globalized economy and game-changing technologies, intellectual property holders are on the offense. The messages from companies like Procter & Gamble and NBC Universal are being carefully tailored to reveal the benefits of bolstering IP protections--whether it's a promise to U.S. politicians of more jobs, better products for consumers, or faster development for leaders abroad.

Industry representatives discussed how to craft those messages, and what obstacles stand in their way, on Wednesday at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's fifth annual intellectual property summit.

So far, its message to the U.S. government appears to be working. The Pro-IP Act passed unanimously in the Senate and saw bipartisan support in the House.

In the case of the entertainment industry, it is imperative to educate people about "the ramification of (IP) theft to the people who work on the sets, in makeup, even selling concessions"--not just the highly paid actors and producers, said Rick Lane, senior vice president for government affairs at News Corp.

Industries have coordinated their message with union leaders to emphasize that IP protection is, at its core, a jobs issue.

"America's workers are also being victimized by a tidal wave of counterfeiting...and digital theft...(that) threatens the well-being of the U.S. economy, endangers our citizens, and steals our jobs," John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO wrote in The Hill, a newspaper ubiquitous around the Capitol.

The message seems to be sinking in not only with congressmen but also with the presidential candidates. Wednesday's panelists see the presidential election's emphasis on green technology as a positive sign.

"That's a recognition of the role of innovation and its tie to the U.S. economy," said Rick Cotton, executive vice president and general counsel of NBC Universal. "This is not a low-cost manufacturing economy--what we have to offer is our innovation."

The need to protect and stimulate innovation is also emphasized with foreign governments, especially those like Brazil that have implemented compulsory licenses, which forces IP holders to grant a state rights to use the intellectual property in question at a set rate.

"We're actually trying to spread that gospel in lots of different countries," said Jon Soderstrom, president of the Association of University Technology Managers. "What we see is people making assertions about the flaws (of IP protection), like hindering the flow of research--none of which is true. The evidence shows it's actually promoting innovation."

Lane said the U.S. should be "using the pulpit of the presidency to explain the importance of IP to other economies."

Creating a favorable environment for IP holders involves convincing consumers as well as lawmakers that IP enforcement is worthwhile.

Encouraging consumers to veer away from bootlegged content simply requires "sending them cues," said Cotton.

NBC has had a great deal of success routing viewers of the Olympics and popular videos like SNL sketches to its own sites.

"That combination of ease of access and the desire of consumers to access content when, and how they want it," Cotton said, "have to go hand and hand, and then we see the possibility of continuing investment."

CNET's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report

[Vurk]

Intellectual Property is not but a euhemism for "ideas"; but you cant patent ideas, or sue over them, or demand that the person who comes up with a better one turns it over to their employer.

But with "intellectual property" all the existing law concerning property right come into play.

You can sue over an idea if that idea is your "property", but not if were just an "idea".

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "You can sue over an idea if that idea is your "property", but not if were just an "idea"." Question: If the entire world apparently cannot now come up with an "sound idea" about how to fix the "global financial and economic crisis" then what "intellectual property" property are we talking about. How about if we start here; and, won't this be cool!

[thrca]

"NBC has had a great deal of success routing viewers of the Olympics and popular videos like SNL sketches to its own sites. "

This year, I had the opportunity to experience the Olympics using the Vista Media Center plugin powered by TVTonic. Innovations such as this are really excellent, and if this bill does as it claims to help spur the development of this type of innovation, I am all in support of that. My faith in bills backed by the RIAA is shaky at best, but I would love to see more networks and studios following suit with NBC.

[Travis Ernst]

The problem with IP and trying to claim it as yours or a companies, is you have to show HISTORY or proof that you are working on a concept. If you are working on say developing a square wheel for cars (good example, who would do that!) you need to show history of the concept, meetings, sketches, models, and so on.


JUST an idea (but not something to be pursued) is not something you can claim as property. If you do nothing with a concept and somebody else develops your idea, and has history documented you have no claim to it. It's the same with R&D of any product going to the market.

You can't claim you thought of everything and fill all the gaps to hold back the tide. This will only cause complaints and slow developments due to the claims companies make that they have holdings in the IP field.

Sometimes companies seem to develop similar or nearly identical tech and it goes to court. I think the "one click" to buy was a recent case with Amazon. I can't believe that the courts sided against Amazon. One Click buttons have been around for a LONG time on web sites and in software. I would claim it is public domain in my opinion, but the courts said otherwise.

[unknown unknown]

Too bad all the number the content industry likes to cite about losses are a fabrication which combined with campaign donations are designed to take advantage of gullible congress critters and get favorable legislation through. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars

"Creating a favorable environment for IP holders involves convincing consumers as well as lawmakers that IP enforcement is worthwhile."

No, It means a lopsided system where big copyright holders have all the cards, and consumers and artists get shafted while losing rights that many of these companies exploit (like fair-use and the public domain).

The content industry is bunch of greedy executives who say anything to get what they want. If that mean making up numbers so be it.

[sparrowhyperion]

I agree. They complain about losing Billions due to piracy... Well maybe if they didn't set prices so high for the junk that comes out of Hollywood and the music industry these days, more people would go to the movies.. Trailers are not good for seeing how good or bad a movie is. A trailer is made up of the very best most excitiing snippets from a movie. I have found that, after wasting a lot of money, most of todays movies lack substance, and are pretty much junk. As for videos and games. I don't think they are losing billions because a lot of the folks who pirate these things, wouldn't have the money to buy them anyways. They probably used all of their cash on frivolities like food, rent, gas etc...

I don't condone piracy, but I certainly understand why people do it.

[Lerianis]

sparrowhyperion gets it right. The fact is that most of the 'piracy' is coming because people cannot afford the prices that Hollywood wants for the movies, that the game companies want for their games, etc.
If they would LOWER THE PRICES (which should have been MANDATED YEARS AGO by the Feds).... we wouldn't be having the problem with piracy today.

[daves_done]

"...They complain about losing Billions due to piracy...Well maybe if they didn't set prices so high for the junk that comes out of Hollywood and the music industry these days, more people would go to the movies..."

I hear your frustration, but comments like this do more to re-affirm the Industry position that people in America downloading or copying rented content are the reasons they are losing billions when in fact they are not. They may lose a lot of money (prob a lot less than they claim), but the reason they do is the Asian cartels that copy, package and sell this counterfeit stuff by the shipping crate. It's all prepacked with the proper casings and cover art and looks authentic, but it's really a boot-leg copy.

They should stop blaming their PAYING customers who only excercise their fair use rights and go after the real criminals.

[ddesy]

Here we go with the misinformation. They're claiming that tight IP control doesn't hurt innovation but rather increases it? I say show the proof!

Too bad these bills are usually very flawed and still get bipartisan support.

[man_w_balls]

"America's workers are also being victimized by a tidal wave of counterfeiting...and digital theft...(that) threatens the well-being of the U.S. economy, endangers our citizens, and steals our jobs,"

BS! America's Workers lose nothing to piracy, etc. Only record and movie companies lose money, hypothetically - who's to say the people illegally obtaining said IP would buy it for any amount of money if they couldn't get it free? Pure conjecture!

In reality, America's Workers are being victimized by the US Government! They just voted to give $700 BILLION to $1.8 TRILLION of American Workers' tax money to failing bankers! This is unconstitutional, stupid, hasty, illogical, and goes against the vast majority will of America's citizens. So Fuçk Off with your boo-hooing over a few lost MP3 dollars, and line up with the rest of the corporate pigs for a free lunch on the American Workers' dime. Or trillions of dimes, more realistically.

BTW, American Workers, if you personally don't like Congress and the President taking actions contrary to your will, then remember who voted against the majority will of the citizens, and vote them ALL out of office this November. I will never vote in favor of any politician who helped authorize the Colossally Wrong Bailout Legislation of 2008 - repeat after me...

[photog_7]

Greed comes into play here. We already have an abundance of laws to protect IP. Furthermore, our patent office has no common sense. In 2006, they granted a very broad patent to Blackboard, Inc. on Internet-based learning. I believe that history shows that people were using software to learn over the Internet before Blackboard wrote their software. We have all the laws we need to protect the RIAA. What we don't have is an educated citizenry with the morals and ethics to obey our existing laws. Let's work on raising our kids so they know right from wrong, and convince our Congress to focus on health care, campaign finance reform, and passing a Presidential line-item veto so every bill won't be loaded with pork.

[Lerianis]

Many people don't believe in your idea of 'right' and 'wrong' (those two things are TOTALLY subjective outside of 3, maybe 4 things that DOESN'T include piracy). Frankly, people are realizing, more and more, that they have ALREADY paid for these movies. How? Their cable and satellite subscriptions, because ALL movies are going to be on there soon or later. Same thing with ALL music.

With games...... those are basically forcing people to pirate them (or pirate them AFTER THEY STOP BEING SOLD IN STORES) because the prices are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too high for them. $60 dollars for ONE GAME, even a PS3 or XBox360 game? I don't think so, jackasses! There is NO way I am going to pay that much for a game, even if it is the next Crysis (which, I did buy online for 20 dollars, a more reasonable price).
Lower your prices, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, etc.: you will get more sales that will make you more money in the long run.

Better yet: offer everything for download online in ISO format, so we can burn our own copies of games. That way, you won't have to pay for: shipping, store space, discs, packaging, etc. The consumer would absorb all or most all of those costs and you would be SAVING MONEY in the long run.

[MaggieRed]

Of course they get bipartisan support, they make agreements and give back door goodies to get them all on the same page.

I would trust nothing that the RIAA backs. If this bill passes most of America will become criminals. Funny how we lasted a century without this government control as a puppet of the music, movie and corrupt businesses. And more so "AFL-CIO are pushing for it to become law" that should scare anyone. I say write to the President and let him know how you feel and if you don't want more government in your lives, ask him to veto this bill.

Hopefully GW will do something in favor of the citizens of this country and veto this bill.

[hassan_bin_sober]

RIAA needs to be exterminated, and I don't mean figuratively.

[umbrae]

The Bill sucks and should be vetoed. Blind support for large companies is precisely what lead to the financial crisis. Single mothers and children already get bullied by the RIAA: no reason to spread the audience.

[clumpkin]

It strikes me as odd that a government that is "For the People, By the People" would ignore those very people and make laws that run contrary to what the majority of the people desire.