• On MovieTome: See the TRAILER for TERMINATOR 4!
September 26, 2008 1:30 PM PDT

Senate unanimously passes RIAA-backed bill

Posted by Stephanie Condon
  • Print

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.
Recent posts from Politics and Law
Lifestreaming in Obamaland
The key to innovation: Privately owned fiber?
SEC exempts Facebook from revealing finances for now
Judge spares E-Gold directors jail time
Obama transition team names tech policy group
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 29 comments
by Solaris_User September 26, 2008 1:56 PM PDT
Hard at work on the economic "meltdown" I see..
Reply to this comment
by Philips September 26, 2008 2:19 PM PDT
If banks do not have money now - then somebody else has them.

Law of mass/matter conservation.
by Earl Benzar September 26, 2008 2:22 PM PDT
And the giveaways to big corporations continue. The scumwads are supposed to represent the voters, not the damn RIAA and Rick Cotton.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis September 26, 2008 3:03 PM PDT
Well, the problem started when businesses were given the same 'status' as a private citizen. That was the 'beginning of the end' to me and the source of all these problems with illegal monetary awards.
by ev61 September 26, 2008 2:28 PM PDT
^^ Exactly. Somehow, catering to the RIAA was more important than doing real work.
Reply to this comment
by djFLWB September 26, 2008 2:35 PM PDT
So now instead of $5k and $20k civil suits by the RIAA against consumers who shared files with friends or family now we'll have the federal govt prosecuting for the $250k federal penalty for copyright infringement.

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.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis September 26, 2008 3:04 PM PDT
The fact is that they still have to prove that it was YOU who distributed those files. These cases lately where they have pointed to an IP address as evidence.... it is not with all the wireless access points and way to tap into a cable modems line. It just isn't evidence, doesn't meet that standard at all.
by contentcreator--2008 September 26, 2008 2:43 PM PDT
The way to avoid all this continues to be----quit taking other people's hard work without paying for it. You can't expect to continue stealing without people fighting back. I'm a voter too.
Reply to this comment
by protagonistic September 26, 2008 3:43 PM PDT
An even better way is to only buy music from musicians who are not under the control of the RIAA. The music I buy comes with the right to share a song or two with friends. At least some people have figured out that this is a good way to get exposure and chalk up more sales.
by Solaris_User September 26, 2008 2:57 PM PDT
I swear.. I'm voting against every single person holding political office this year. If your in, your fired.

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.
Reply to this comment
by cidman2001 September 26, 2008 3:01 PM PDT
I'm not sure what I'm doing with my vote yet, but I share your angst. It really is a one party system.
by cidman2001 September 26, 2008 2:59 PM PDT
I would like to see Congress make a legal distinction between piracy for commercial profit and college kids sharing music and movies. To be sure, both are illegal and wrong, but certainly the guy running off 10,000 discs of a yet to be released movie shouldn't be charged and tried the same as the kid sharing a couple hundred mp3's. You are really talking apples and oranges here.

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.
Reply to this comment
by vtchuck2000 September 26, 2008 3:00 PM PDT
"The Recording Industry of America gave resounding praise for the bill. "

That alone ought to tell you exactly what this bill means to the consumers.
Reply to this comment
by imacpwr September 26, 2008 3:25 PM PDT
Seeing the greed of the RIAA continue as it and now the passage of this bill I do hereby declare my refusal to purchase RIAA sponsored music of any kind here on out.
Reply to this comment
by sjsobol September 26, 2008 3:52 PM PDT
Contentcreator: The RIAA's members have every legal right to expect that people don't pirate their goods. However, this is the same bunch of idiots that wants to have the right to check any computer for pirated music, even if there is no evidence or probable cause to indicate that the alleged perp actually DID pirate something. They want to bypass a whole bunch of civil liberties and legal protections, basically, on a bet that the user MAY have something illegal on their computer.

So... Do you work for a record label? Do you work elsewhere in the industry?
Reply to this comment
by Jim Hubbard September 26, 2008 4:12 PM PDT
OK....so now we have to encrypt the p2p applications and have invitation only sites. It's not like they can block all https traffic.....
Reply to this comment
by DHnetter September 26, 2008 5:04 PM PDT
cidman2001 wrote: "I would like to see Congress make a legal distinction between piracy for commercial profit and college kids sharing music and movies. To be sure, both are illegal and wrong, but certainly the guy running off 10,000 discs of a yet to be released movie shouldn't be charged and tried the same as the kid sharing a couple hundred mp3's. You are really talking apples and oranges here.

"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.
Reply to this comment
by man_w_balls September 26, 2008 5:21 PM PDT
BOO Congress!! Them Dems came in with so much promise of Change, back in 2006 (Nov. election) - didn't they? And this is the kind of **** they give us. Bunch of ******* parasites! They should have impeached Bush by now, if they had had enough balls to do their jobs.
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.
Reply to this comment
by nicmart September 26, 2008 6:46 PM PDT
Why is a music CD stolen online punishable by tens of thousands of dollars in fines, but a CD stolen in a retail store punishable by minor fines if at all? Because neither the RIAA nor Congress gives a crap about the poor retailers, who don't make large political contributions.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis September 26, 2008 7:19 PM PDT
Someone should bring that up sometime: that if you steal a CD from a store, it is a minor fine and no jail time in most cases.... heck, it usually doesn't even go on your criminal record, it's done as a 'civil action'.
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.
by jinx101a September 26, 2008 7:17 PM PDT
We just experienced the largest bank failure in the history of the United States this week, other banks are on the verge of failure without intervention and _this_ is what Congress is voting on when theys say they're working non-stop to get the job done. What a joke.

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.
Reply to this comment
by HighwayHome September 26, 2008 7:27 PM PDT
"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."

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.
Reply to this comment
by ksfkay September 26, 2008 9:04 PM PDT
protecting copyright infringement is one thing. Destroying the natural freedoms of individuals is another. When greedy pockets comes before the people then what type of government are we supporting? Clearly this is not a government run by people.
Reply to this comment
by Imalittleteapot September 26, 2008 11:15 PM PDT
Music and movies are the new contraband. Stay away from them!! Don't listen to it!! Don't watch it!!! Definitely don't buy it!! You're just supporting the dealers!! You'll get more jail time than a drug dealer if you have music in your possession. JUST SAY NO! Let the SOBs go broke. Guard your wallet.
Reply to this comment
by FellowConspirator September 27, 2008 5:05 AM PDT
Unanimous? Not even one lone dissenter? C'mon, someone must have felt an iota of shame... I guess not. VOTE ANTI-INCUMBENT '08!
Reply to this comment
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:

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.
Reply to this comment
 See all 29 Comments >>
advertisement

In the news now

Apple's iPhone 2.2
hits the street

The latest software update offers several improvements to Google maps as well as wireless downloading for podcasts.



The big chill for holiday parties?

Tech companies faced with cost-cutting may not be canceling the annual festivities outright, but things are certainly being done differently this year.



About Politics and Law

Lead contributor Declan McCullagh 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."

Add this feed to your online news reader

Politics and Law topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right