by; Tom Corelis
Two-headed ogre is a best-of compilation for PRO-IP and PIRATE Acts
With the controversial copyright reform PRO-IP and PIRATE Acts all but forgotten about, the United States Senate introduced a new bill designed to incorporate the best of both worlds for IP protection, dubbed the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 (PDF).
Unfurled last week on the Senate floor, the EIPRA seeks a number of new measures to bolster copyright protection in the United States, including the appointment of a “copyright czar” and corresponding government bureau (borrowed from the PRO-IP Act), and allowing federal authorities to file civil suits against and seize property of suspected copyright infringers (borrowed from the PIRATE Act).
EIPRA would also increase the penalties assessed against those found liable for copyright infringement.
Both the PRO-IP and PIRATE Acts enjoyed a fair amount of success in their respective branches of Congress. The PIRATE Act passed the Senate several times since 2004, and the PRO-IP Act sailed through the House of Representatives last May. Critics have fought hard to stall both bills, however, citing concerns over increasing government power, bureaucratic waste, overly broad wording, unnecessarily tough penalties, and the possibility of limited redress for those caught in its crosshairs.
In a Thursday press conference last week, the bill’s sponsors said EIPRA would protect American jobs and ward off allegedly severe losses incurred by American industry.
“American businesses lose $250 billion every year, and we have lost more than 750,000 jobs because of intellectual property theft,” said Democratic co-sponsor Evan Bayh. “The global economy is not working as it should when we buy from countries that have a competitive advantage over us, and they steal from us when we have a competitive advantage over them … The American auto industry estimates it could hire an additional 200,000 workers if we eliminated the trafficking of counterfeit auto parts.”
EIPRA is designed to address more than just simple internet piracy, as it also seeks to legislate the much larger business of counterfeit goods illegally entering the United States.
“If hundreds of our cargo ships were being hijacked on the high seas … there would be a great sense of alarm and unshakable government resolve to act. That, in effect, is what is happening today, yet we are not doing nearly enough to stop it,” said Bayh.
Critics say the Senators’ focus on counterfeiting is a red herring against the issue of consumers’ rights, noting that EIPRA’s provisions make little difference between commercial, professional pirates and ordinary consumer pirates – and many say that wording is there by design. Facing particular focus is a section that allows authorities to confiscate equipment used in infringement: “Seizing expensive manufacturing equipment used for large-scale infringement from a commercial pirate may be appropriate. Seizing a family’s general-purpose computer in a download case, as this bill would allow, is not appropriate,” said Public Knowledge president and co-founder Gigi Sohn.
“This bill goes even farther, expanding the penalties under the flawed Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to create new grounds for allowing a family’s computer to be seized if used to circumvent digital rights management, even if for fair uses,” he said.
The content industry seems to have had a heavy role in EIPRA’s design, stemming partially from plans originally laid out in the PRO-IP and PIRATE Acts – both of which enjoyed at times much more overt support from music, movie, and software industry associations.
Previous attempts at watering down EIPRA’s predecessors have met with failure, most notably with an attempt by Representative Rick Boucher to merge the dead FAIR USE Act of 2007 with the PRO-IP Act earlier this year. His plans would have eliminated DMCA-prescribed penalties for someone who circumvents copy protection to engage in a “non-infringing use,” and sought to protect those who seek to use and understand their A/V equipment in ways currently deemed illegal.
The EFF points out that EIPRA, combined with secretive negotiations currently underway in the secretive, international ACTA treaty, would empower border agents to seize equipment like iPods if consumers bring them across country lines. This would in turn force music fans, travelling DJs, and anyone who carries an iPod or CD carrier with burned, backed up, copied, or compilation discs to prove their ownership – or face having their equipment destroyed.
A leaked, confidential briefing to ACTA negotiators – supposedly written by “concerned business groups operating in ACTA nations” – reinforces the content industries’ alleged desire for an international standard of destroying equipment at border crossings.
While the EIPRA seems to be enjoying wide support amongst both chambers of Congress, some say it is unlikely that the bill will be able to clear the legislative branch before Congress’ annual summer recess.
