Del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Reddit
Newsvine
co.mments
PRO-IP Act of 2007
To enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, and for other purposes.
12/5/2007--Introduced.
Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007 - Amends federal copyright law to:
(1) provide a safe harbor for copyright registrations that contain inaccurate information;
(2) provide that copyright regist more...
Users Tracking [37]
Users who are tracking this bill are also tracking:
Committees
Amendments
This bill has no amendments.
Bill Status
| Introduced |  | Voted on by House |  | Voted on by Senate | | Considered By President | | Bill Becomes Law |
| December 05, 2007 | May 08, 2008 |
In the News
May 12, 2008 BONO MACK: PROTECTING IP RIGHTS HELPS AMERICA âS ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
... Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) today praised House passage of HR 4279, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO ...
May 10, 2008 House Approves New Property Seizure Law
HR 4279 or the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 which was recently passed by the US House of Representatives, ...
May 10, 2008 House Approves New Property Seizure Law
HR 4279 or the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 which was recently passed by the US House of Representatives, ...
Blog Coverage
May 13, 2008 Property Seizure Law Passed by House
HR 4279 or the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 which was recently passed by the US House of Representatives, will give the government draconian powers to do just this. ...
Source: DarkGovernment
Was this article useful?
Yes or
No
May 13, 2008 Property Seizure Law?
HR 4279 or the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 gives the government power to seize property that facilitates the violation of intellectual property laws.
Source: FreeMarketNews.com - World News/Editorials...
Was this article useful?
Yes or
No
May 12, 2008 House Backs Serious IP Protection Bill, 410-11 Vote
The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP; HR 4279) Act passed 410-11 on Thursday, May 8, 2008, a lopsided tally that reflects serious support for the measure.
173 more posts...
See highest rated blog posts
Information made available by:
Rating Filter: 5 (What's this?)(Close help)
Comments
(What's this?)(Close help)
This bill would burden the federal government with a new "Intellectual Property Enforcement Division," diverting the Justice Department's attention from more pressing enforcement matters.
Federal enforcement further externalizes the cost of intellectual property from its rights-holders onto the general public. If IP protection costs too much for the rights-holders to bear themselves, perhaps it isn't worth its cost to society.
Creating a division that is funded and run by the federal government to deal with issues of intellectual property enforcement does make everyone (the public) feel like the government and Hollywood is taking this issue even more seriously. The funds and manpower to back up the division is the innovation here. Hollywood is winning over some of those in office and winning some public dollars at the same time. On a really basic level, Hollywood is waging a war of paradigms -- they want people to understand their point of view, though it seems the internet is shifting the business model and millions of people just don't see their point.
One might also ask why IP-related punishments need to be increased at all. Civil remedies are already grossly disproportionate and criminal remedies include jail time... is there a reason to divert resources toward this project? In response to wseltzer, I agree and worry further that IP "enforcement" can be *too* low. See, for example, the U.S. recording industry's actions against alleged infringers on P2P networks. Tens of thousands of "pre-litigation" letters later, the RIAA has grossed tens of millions of dollars. And none of it goes to the artists they represent. To me, this does not look like an industry in need of extra enforcement powers.
For additional information, see this post from Bill Patry, copyright lawyer for Google: <a href="http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/12/what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-ip.html">What Does it Mean to Be Pro IP?</a>
From EFF's coverage of this bill:
"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.
Beyond its effects on file sharing litigation, the bill would create a new, taxpayer-funded federal bureaucracy focused on policing intellectual property domestically and overseas, including:
a United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, appointed by the President,
an Intellectual Property Enforcement Division in the Department of Justice, and
additional intellectual property attachés to staff U.S. embassies.
These new federal bureaucrats would essentially have one responsibility -- protecting the business interests of the biggest names in movies, music, and software. All of these industries are profitable, many of the corporations are foreign, and yet they want the American taxpayer to pick up the tab. Surely, Americans would rather see their tax dollars spent helping businesses and individuals who don't have ample means to help themselves."
One more online resource for this bill, this one by Public Knowledge:
<http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1298>
EFF's coverage is very helpful. It's hard to imagine this one-way ratchet being turned the other direction, however. We've got a strong alliance in this country between law enforcement, content owners, and network providers - all of whom, for different reasons, want to support strong/stronger IP protection.
One more move by people in power to persecute those without power. If there is any real crime being committed, it would be by those who explicitly profit off the use of copywritten materials. There probably should be a more rational set of rules to regulate the fair distriubtion of money generated by the use of said materials, but this is not what is being proposed in this legislation. It is more lawsuits aimed at the unwitting parents of teenaged and college downloaders. The strategy is to go after the little guy. Is it right to penalize someone with no money, who in downloading media for personal use profited in no direct financial way with fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars?
How is downloading a file any different than making a copy of a tape for a friend, taping a movie or tv show off the television, photocopying a book or magazine in the library, or recording a song off the radio? With increased technology, there is increased quality in the copies, but fundamentally making a copy for personal use has always been a fundamental part of media exchange in our society.
Downloading is already widespread and ubiquitous. It is too late to turn back the clock with draconian threats that can only be enforced like a lottery. To rachet enforcement directly implies the corrosion of privacy. Downloaded files will have to be traced to your computer by increasingly invasive tactics of hacking your files and tracking your every move in cyberspace. Is this the internet's promise of freedom? i hope not.
410 to 10? No dissent by our representatives? No mention of this critical vote in the mainstream media? What is going on here? What do you think a public opinion poll of this would be? Do we really want our children, friends and relatives to continue to be subjected to crippling fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars?
We need more than 10 rational heads in congress. Is that too much to ask for?
I've seen the following in Washington Post, May 1st:
1. The Justice Dept. warns that the new IP czar would "undermine" its independence. JD also blasted the bill after it was introduced, calling it unnecessary and worrying that an enforcement position at the Cabinet level could become easily politicized.
2. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "The White House has very serious concerns with the legislation."
3. The tech community doesn't like it either. William Patry, senior copyright lawyer for Google, who called [the initial draft] the most "outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the U.S." in a posting on his blog in December. (Patry seems to be somewhat calmer about the present form, but maybe just numb)
4. The people in this article who like it were NBC, MPAA and RIAA. My experience has been that they are a precise reverse barometer of my interests; everything they ever wanted seems to poison what I want (and I say that as a performing artist myself).
5. Even the NBC Universal general counsel Rick Cotton, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy, said the U.S.-based campaigns of the MPAA and RIAA don't reach every potential pirate, particularly those overseas. The real piracy (other than sleazy contracts and creative accounting the music industry pulls on its artists while claiming to "protect" them) is done mainly in Russia and China, with some other countries being added to the list. H.R.4279 is just a tethered dog annoyingly barking out at the unconcerned world outside its yard.
Looking to another source I trust much more, the EFF, I see that they are using words like "outrageous", "unnecessary" and "ridiculous" to describe this piece of... err, legislation.
I mentioned that I'm a performing (and recording) artist. The last thing I want is for some kid to have his doors busted in, and his parents' property (is it true they could even lose their home?!?) for illegally obtaining or using one of my songs. I want nothing to do with that threat or the kind of people who would make it. Entertainment is, sick though this may be, one of the few things we're allowed to make each other feel good legally. Finding more ways to make it illegal is just retarded; spending tax money to do it, even more so.
Look at our national debt. Go ahead, look.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ :: pretty accurate
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np ::officially accurate to the penny
Now, is this really the time to spend more taxpayer money, run up more debt, create additional government, just to make the entertainment industry happy, even over the objections of the Dept. of Justice? Don't we have more important things to do? I can think of plenty of real life-threatening situations here and now that need our immediate attention; repairing bridges and fixing the runaway costs of greedy healthcare, just to name a couple. Whoever voted for this bill is an idiot, but there's always hope that there are fewer idiots in the Senate. Please.
This is a 'guilty until proven innocent' law. They take your equipment and / or house until they figure out whether or not you've stolen mp3s, software, etc?
It's another example of having one special interest group, the RIAA, not getting enough out of it's court settlements so now it needs a law to take your house away... private property rights have been dying off for a while now. This is nothing new.
I expect nothing less from the socialist environment that permeates our current government. Just wait until January 2008... it WILL get worse.
Wait until the next administration announces the new "WAR ON IP THEFT"
Add A Comment