By Sherwin Siy | September 11, 2008
S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Act of 2008, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier today, 15-4. The bill was amended to remove, among other things, the provision expanding penalties for circumventing DRM. Other amendments removed potentially problematic new offenses involving transshipment, and still others added protective orders for private or confidential data recovered when servers are seized or forfeited.
Still in the bill is a section authorizing the federal government to sue infringers in civil court in order to turn the money over to copyright holders. This provision lets the Attorney General take advantage of the lower standard for burden of proof in civil cases—here, the government only needs to prove infringement with a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning that it's more likely than not that infringement occurred, as opposed to the usual criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." And the only penalty available under such cases is restitution—the government turns over the amount of damages to the copyright holder. This is a win-win for the content industry, which now can get money damages while taking advantage of the legal services of the Justice Department.
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 1738
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 1713
[status] => 1
[created] => 1221165290
[changed] => 1221165338
[comment] => 1
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 1867
[revision_uid] => 1713
[title] => S. 3325 Passes Senate Judiciary
[body] =>
S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Act of 2008, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier today, 15-4. The bill was amended to remove, among other things, the provision expanding penalties for circumventing DRM. Other amendments removed potentially problematic new offenses involving transshipment, and still others added protective orders for private or confidential data recovered when servers are seized or forfeited.
Still in the bill is a section authorizing the federal government to sue infringers in civil court in order to turn the money over to copyright holders. This provision lets the Attorney General take advantage of the lower standard for burden of proof in civil cases—here, the government only needs to prove infringement with a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning that it's more likely than not that infringement occurred, as opposed to the usual criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." And the only penalty available under such cases is restitution—the government turns over the amount of damages to the copyright holder. This is a win-win for the content industry, which now can get money damages while taking advantage of the legal services of the Justice Department.
[log] =>
[revision_timestamp] => 1221165338
[format] => 4
[name] => Sherwin Siy
[picture] => files/pictures/picture-1713.png
[data] => a:9:{s:6:"notify";i:1;s:6:"submit";s:18:"Create new account";s:7:"form_id";s:13:"user_register";s:7:"contact";i:0;s:10:"form_token";s:32:"065f3fb71f73c4995f87d1c633469c4e";s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}}
[path] => blog/s-3325-passes-senate-judiciary
[print_display] => 1
[print_display_comment] => 0
[print_display_urllist] => 1
[print_mail_display] => 1
[print_mail_display_comment] => 0
[print_mail_display_urllist] => 1
[print_pdf_display] => 1
[print_pdf_display_comment] => 0
[print_pdf_display_urllist] => 1
[last_comment_timestamp] => 1221165338
[last_comment_name] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[53] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 53
[vid] => 5
[name] => DRM
[description] => Digital Rights Management
[weight] => 0
)
)
[files] => Array
(
)
[iids] => Array
(
)
[page_title] =>
[nodewords] => Array
(
)
[build_mode] => 0
[readmore] => 1
[content] => Array
(
[print_links] => Array
(
[#weight] => -101
[#suffix] =>
[#value] =>
[#prefix] =>
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#content_extra_fields] => Array
(
[title] => Array
(
[label] => Title
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => -5
)
[body_field] => Array
(
[label] => Body
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 0
[view] => body
)
[revision_information] => Array
(
[label] => Revision information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[author] => Array
(
[label] => Authoring information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[options] => Array
(
[label] => Publishing options
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 25
)
[comment_settings] => Array
(
[label] => Comment settings
[description] => Comment module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[menu] => Array
(
[label] => Menu settings
[description] => Menu module form.
[weight] => -2
)
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[label] => Taxonomy
[description] => Taxonomy module form.
[weight] => -3
)
[path] => Array
(
[label] => Path settings
[description] => Path module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[attachments] => Array
(
[label] => File attachments
[description] => Upload module form.
[weight] => 30
[view] => files
)
[image_attach] => Array
(
[label] => Attached images
[description] => Image Attach module form.
[weight] => 0
)
[itunes] => Array
(
[label] => iTunes feed information
[description] => iTunes specific information.
[weight] => 0
)
[page_title] => Array
(
[label] => Page Title
[description] => Page Title form.
[weight] => -4
)
[path_redirect] => Array
(
[label] => URL redirects
[description] => Path redirect module listing
[weight] => 30
)
[print] => Array
(
[label] => Printer, e-mail and PDF versions
[description] => Print module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[xmlsitemap] => Array
(
[label] => XML sitemap
[description] => XML sitemap module form
[weight] => 30
)
[nodewords] => Array
(
[label] => Meta tags
[description] => Meta tags fieldset.
[weight] => 10
)
)
[#pre_render] => Array
(
[0] => content_alter_extra_weights
)
[body] => Array
(
[#weight] => 0
[#value] => S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Act of 2008, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier today, 15-4. The bill was amended to remove, among other things, the provision expanding penalties for circumventing DRM. Other amendments removed potentially problematic new offenses involving transshipment, and still others added protective orders for private or confidential data recovered when servers are seized or forfeited.
Still in the bill is a section authorizing the federal government to sue infringers in civil court in order to turn the money over to copyright holders. This provision lets the Attorney General take advantage of the lower standard for burden of proof in civil cases—here, the government only needs to prove infringement with a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning that it's more likely than not that infringement occurred, as opposed to the usual criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." And the only penalty available under such cases is restitution—the government turns over the amount of damages to the copyright holder. This is a win-win for the content industry, which now can get money damages while taking advantage of the legal services of the Justice Department.
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#children] => S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Act of 2008, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier today, 15-4. The bill was amended to remove, among other things, the provision expanding penalties for circumventing DRM. Other amendments removed potentially problematic new offenses involving transshipment, and still others added protective orders for private or confidential data recovered when servers are seized or forfeited.
Still in the bill is a section authorizing the federal government to sue infringers in civil court in order to turn the money over to copyright holders. This provision lets the Attorney General take advantage of the lower standard for burden of proof in civil cases—here, the government only needs to prove infringement with a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning that it's more likely than not that infringement occurred, as opposed to the usual criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." And the only penalty available under such cases is restitution—the government turns over the amount of damages to the copyright holder. This is a win-win for the content industry, which now can get money damages while taking advantage of the legal services of the Justice Department.
[#printed] => 1
)
[links] => Array
(
[print_html] => Array
(
[href] => print/1738
[title] => Printer-friendly version
[attributes] => Array
(
[title] => Display a printer-friendly version of this page.
[class] => print-page
[rel] => nofollow
)
[html] =>
[query] =>
)
)
)
