 |
Sometimes, you just grit your teeth… |
 |
So, guess who voted to force the government to carry water for the RIAA and the MPAA? All sorts of Democrats (and Republicans, of course). Sometimes, it’s hard to be a partisan when your party does this kind of stupid shit…
The bill was the “Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO IP) Act of 2007″ and the EFF has a description:
This week, members of the House Judiciary Committee introduced the “Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO IP) Act of 2007,” a bill that ratchets up the federal government’s role in dealing with intellectual property infringement. While portions of the bill seem legitimately targeted at combating mass, commercial counterfeiting operations, other parts are devoted to little more than protecting the entertainment industry’s obsolete business models.
Going after commercial pirates is a good idea, but copyright law often fails to distinguish between commercial counterfeiters and regular folks — like those caught up in the RIAA’s anti-downloading litigation dragnet. If the entertainment industry wants to pile on extraordinary penalties for the commercial pirates, it also seems like a good time to make adjustments that recognize that lesser penalties are appropriate for noncommercial, personal copying. People who reasonably believe that what they are doing is a fair use, for example, shouldn’t face ruinous liability if a court doesn’t agree with them. Similarly, the thousands of music fans arbitrarily singled out for file sharing shouldn’t have to risk their homes just to have their day in court. And, of course, technology companies shouldn’t be put out of business just because their multi-purpose products are misused by their customers.
Unfortunately, the PRO IP Act is just another in a long line of “one-way ratchet” proposals that amplifies copyright without protecting innovators or technology users. One provision, entitled “Computation of Statutory Damages in Copyright Cases,” seems aimed at allowing the music industry to threaten even higher statutory damages in its campaign to sue filesharers. Copyright law currently allows the RIAA to seek statutory damages per album, while the new law would allow them to seek damages per song. Under the new limits proposed by the PRO IP Act, someone who downloads each individual track from Guns N’ Roses’ 12-track Appetite for Destruction album could face a maximum statutory penalty of $360,000; as opposed to the current limit of $30,000 for the album.
So, guess who voted for this horrible piece of legislation, which allows the music industry to sue their own customers for more money because they can’t get off their dead horse of a business model? The list of Nay votes is horribly short:
Nay VA-9 Boucher, Frederick [D]
Nay CA-4 Doolittle, John [R]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
Nay OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Nay CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe [D]
Nay WI-4 Moore, Gwen [D]
Nay TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
Nay TX-2 Poe, Ted [R]
Nay GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn [R]
Nay AK-0 Young, Donald [R]
Why would anyone in their right minds vote for a bill like this? Going after commercial pirates, sure, but increasing punitive punishments for regular people, a strategy that has failed over and over, is just stupid.
The more I keep seeing Kucinich and Paul pop up on these kinds of votes, the more it makes me wonder…
The more I keep seeing Kucinich and Paul pop up on these kinds of votes, the more it makes me wonder%u2026
Wonder what? They each have a keen grasp of the obvious, even though they differ sharply on what government should be allowed to do.
What a joke. Someone within the RIAA knows whose pockets to lube. What a corrupt government we live within. Bunch of Kangaroo courts and jokers.
JT
http://www.PRivacy-center.net
The only problem is that EFF’s summary is bullshit. It was wrong when they posted it last December and it’s still wrong today.
Have you read the text of the bill? (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-4279)
There is no section titled, “Computation of Statutory Damages in Copyright Cases,” and no indication that it ever contained one.
SEC. 103. CIVIL REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT.
Section 503(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by striking `and of all plates’ and inserting `of all plates’; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: `, and records documenting the manufacture, sale, or receipt of things involved in such violation. The court shall enter an appropriate protective order with respect to discovery by the applicant of any records that have been seized. The protective order shall provide for appropriate procedures to assure that confidential information contained in such records is not improperly disclosed to the applicant.’.
——–
That’s the entire scope of changes that would possibly affect any of the RIAA’s file-sharing cases.
We do have:
SEC. 104. TREBLE DAMAGES IN COUNTERFEITING CASES, and
SEC. 105. STATUTORY DAMAGES IN COUNTERFEITING CASES
But filesharing isn’t counterfeiting. Filesharing is still not yet mentioned, much less defined or equated with counterfeiting, in U.S. copyright laws, even if this “enhancement” to the “civil intellectual property” laws is approved by the Senate.
I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy. Probably more. But let’s save the outrage and channel it elsewhere.
As with the first comment, I’m very curious about the end of the post. “The more I keep seeing Kucinich and Paul pop up on these kinds of votes, the more it makes me wonder%u2026″ As the first guy said, wonder what?
We should be asking Obama about why he supported this. He cares a lot about his appeal to internet saavy voters and is likely to take a rational position if given the opportunity.
McCain, has more appeal to MSM fans and is unlikely to be swayed by the opinions of internet voters.
In December 2007, the bill did have a section altering the COMPUTATION OF STATUTORY DAMAGES IN COPYRIGHT CASES.
THOMAS, the Library of Congress’ database of legislative information, includes the original draft of HR4279 introduced to the House, which is not reflected in the govtrack.us copy of the full text. That original version, still in fact titled the “Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007″ (having been introduced at the end of last year) includes the dangerous section described in the blog post above.
Click on version 1 and look for Section 104:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.4279:1
However, that section was removed before the passage of the bill, a fact reflected in our blog post made after the passage:
“While Public Knowledge and other groups successfully persuaded the House to remove the most damaging provision in the bill (seemingly written solely to increase damages in the RIAA’s file-sharing lawsuit campaign), the bill would nonetheless significantly expand federal enforcement of copyright law.”