Tag: Intellectual Property

In the ongoing battle over intellectual property rights enforcement, facts and figures often serve as the ammunition of choice for both sides. As Wired's Threat Level blog points out, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been brandishing a familiar number lately, in an attempt to pressure the Commander in Chief to sign the recently-passed PRO-IP bill: 750,000 American jobs lost to intellectual property theft. That's a devastating number--representing some eight percent of all Americans who are currently out of work--and is made all the more resonant by our country's deepening economic crisis. It's a shame then, for the proponents of PRO-IP, that this 750k figure is about as real as the emperor's new clothes.

The Chamber of Commerce tomorrow (Oct. 8) will throw its fifth annual pep rally for control over information. Officially, it’s the “Fifth Annual Intellectual Property Summit.” But given that the speakers all come from the same point of view, the agenda looks to be more of solidifying than educating.

If there are any doubts about how this group views complex issues, here’s their description of the panel, “Frontiers of Innovation: Protecting IP in the Digital World”:

“The digital world is emerging as the cornerstone for innovation, with new products, applications, and platforms being launched daily. This new frontier allows the business community endless opportunities to get consumers what they want, how they want it, almost instantaneously. At the same time, the Internet provides seemingly endless opportunities for bad actors to steal intellectual property and deceive, and sometimes harm, consumers.

A lot of the questions about ACTA are raised by reading between the lines of what little is known about the proposed agreement. Is the term “border measures” a reference to searching individual consumers’ devices at airports? Is a reference to “safeguards” for ISPs to “encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders” an attempt to shift the balance of rights and responsibilities under DMCA safe harbors?

These are some of the most pressing questions that are raised when it comes to ACTA, but they’re certainly not the only ones. While in a situation as opaque as this one, it’s critical to seek out what may be intentionally hidden in the unstated implications of the language, as well as the unintended consequences of broad language.

But that doesn’t mean that the face value of the language that’s there should be ignored, either.

If you are a New York Mets fan like me, you’d know what it was like to be a supporter of orphan works legislation. For the past month, every time you thought the Mets would completely crumble and drop out of the baseball pennant race, they would come back. But then, on the very last day of the season, they lost and went home for the year. It was much the same with orphan works. We at PK had given up the orphan works bill for dead in early September when the Senate tried to push the bill through to no avail. Nothing was happening on the House side either. Then, thanks to the stick-to-it-tiveness of Senator Patrick Leahy’s staff, the Senate orphan works bill passed the Senate on Friday September 26.

That was the day Congress was to have adjourned for the year, and had that been the case, that would have been the end of the orphan works story.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and the panel’s senior Republican, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, have asked trade negotiators not to make the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) too specific.

In an Oct. 2 letter to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, Leahy and Specter said they were concerned that the agreement was being drafted in such detail that it could limit congressional flexibility to deal with intellectual property and related issues in the future. The senators also said their concerns were compounded by the “lack of transparency” that goes along with trade agreements and by the speed of the negotiating process.

They also specifically asked Schwab to steer clear in the trade agreement of issues surrounding liability of Internet Service Providers and of technological protection measures.

This past weekend, the House and Senate approved an amended version of the Intellectual Property (IP) enforcement bill, now called the PRO-IP bill. As you’ll recall, we at Public Knowledge have voiced our opposition to this bill numerous times in the past and have even called upon you to make your voice heard. We may not have been able to stop the PRO-IP bill from passing but with the help of our friends we were able to shore up the support of 41 Representatives who voted “no” on the bill. Now, it’s time to thank those brave 41 Representatives, for standing up to the entertainment industry in an election year and fighting the good fight.

With the help of your calls, the bill was amended and was stripped of some of the most troubling provisions seen in previous versions, including one that would grant the Attorney General the power to bring civil lawsuits against alleged infringers on behalf of copyright holders. However, PRO-IP still increases forfeiture penalties for copyright infringement and media bootlegging, meaning that any number of multipurpose devices—even those not owned by the infringer and those not directly tied to the offense—could get caught up in the net of forfeiture penalties.

Congress may have passed PRO-IP thanks to overwhelming support from the movie and music industries but that doesn’t mean that everyone supports the entertainment industry’s agenda. 41 Congressmen and Congresswomen chose to stand apart from the pack on Sunday, voting against PRO-IP despite Hollywood’s intense lobbying efforts. Please join us in thanking these 41 Representatives for standing strong on the issue of Intellectual Property enforcement and for working to protect the rights of users.

We want to make sure each of the 41 knows our appreciation. Please follow these quick steps to express your thanks:

1. Check to see if your member is one of the 41. If so, make a call or send a fax via our action center. If you call, you could simply say: “Thank you for opposing S. 3325, the PRO-IP bill and standing up to Hollywood.”

2. Use Facebook? 16 of these 41 members do too!. Even if they’re not your member, click “Become a Supporter” on their Facebook page or add them as a friend, then leave a message on their wall thanking them for opposing the PRO-IP bill. Here’s a sample message: “Thank you for opposing S. 3325, the PRO-IP bill and standing up to Hollywood.”

3. Use Twitter? Two of these 41 members do too! Even if they’re not your member, leave them a tweet thanking them for opposing the PRO-IP bill using this sample message: “Thank you for opposing S. 3325, the #PRO-IP bill and standing up to Hollywood”

Today, the Senate approved an amended version of its version of IP enforcement bill (now named the PRO-IP bill to parallel the enforcement bill in the House). PK’s press release is here.

As amended, the bill retained its increased forfeiture penalties for copyright infringement and media bootlegging, meaning that any number of multipurpose devices—even those not owned by the infringer—could get caught up in the net of forfeiture penalties.

Late yesterday, the Department of Justice and the Department of Commerce sent a letter to Senators Leahy and Specter opposing S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008. Specifically, the letter says that the agencies are “deeply concerned” that

the proposed legislation will undermine existing intellectual property enforcement efforts by diminishing the effective use of limited criminal enforcement resources and creating unnecessary bureaucracy. It will also improperly micro-manage the internal organization of the Executive Branch.

The letter targets Titles I and IV of the bill as most offensive. Title I, as we have written about numerous times, would give the Justice Department authority to pursue civil lawsuits. Plain and simple, the Justice Department does not want to sped its valuable resources (or your tax dollars) to bring such suits.

Background: The Justice and Commerce Departments yesterday sent a letter to the Senate opposing key parts of pending intellectual property legislation (S. 3325). The letter is here:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/doj-letter-20080923.pdf

The following is the statement of Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:

“We are pleased that the Justice and Commerce departments agree with us that it would be a mistake to give the Justice Department the authority to pursue civil suits in copyright cases. As the departments said in the letter, and as Public Knowledge has said repeatedly, the private sector has all the resources necessary to pursue cases that companies want to pursue. The government should not be turned into the law firm for wealthy copyright holders.

“We hope that the sponsors of the bill will take these views seriously and will forgo action on the legislation for the foreseeable future.”

University of California, Berkeley
Chevron Auditorium, International House
2299 Piedmont Ave
Berkeley, CA

Students for Free Culture is holding a conference for, and about, free culture, technology, copyright, remixing, and free software. Day 1 is intended to give a thorough introduction to the players and issues in the movement, Day 2 is designed to help students learn the key components in activism through work shops and an un-conference setting.

For more information please visit: http://conference.freeculture.org/