05/09/2008, 10:15am, EDT
Friday, May 9thHouse passes Pro-IP copyright protection act
The House of Representatives on Friday approved the controversial Pro-IP Act, a bill which is designed to protect intellectual property by imposing more rigid punishment in the case of copyright infringement. Ars Technica writes that the bill passed with a vote of 410 to 10, but has yet to be voted on by the Senate. Among the details of the bill, one segment states that law enforcement agents would be able to seize property from those charched with copyright infringement.
"We applaud the members of the House of Representatives for passing the PRO-IP Act, H.R. 4279," said Dan Glickman, chairman of the MPAA. "It is a comprehensive, bipartisan measure that will strengthen our nation's economy and generate more jobs for American workers by bolstering protections for intellectual property. Given the difficult economic times we face, the PRO-IP Act is welcome by both the business and labor communities because it can improve our nation's economic outlook. I hope the Senate will move quickly to pass similar legislation."
While the bill was the subject of unanimous support by the House Judiciary Committee, some question whether President Bush would sign the bill as it is written, since the administration has reservations concerning its current form.
Filed under: industry
Other story tags: copyright, PRO-IP, law, bill
, 
, 13
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
I think is it also sad that the House played on the "poor, weak economy" idea to push their bill through.
Again, if most of the piracy takes place outside the U.S. (where it really cannot easily be enforced) how is this going to help our economy?
Everyone else needs to go.
is just hysterical. Doesn't this just move money from one segment to the other (either because people are paying for it, or they're getting property siezed)? And won't most of the money just go to the labels, not really to those hurt by piracy?
Then again, it supposedly will increase more American jobs. I guess they're planning on moving a lot of their film-making business back from Canada and other countries? And they won't be shipping work to India, or using the H-1B visas to bring in outside workers, right?
Stop complaining. Fair Use has long established legal precedent, and is not likely to go away.
I do agree using the tough times a reason for passing the law as silly, since laws should not be based upon economic circumstances (since economic situations always change).
Don't steal music, don't steal movies, don't steal software.
Again, I always ask, but no one answers: why should you be allowed to download MP3's and movies from Torrent or elswhere? OR make a copy of Spiderman 2 for your sister?
...or make a copy of my legally purchased Spiderman 2 DVD for myself to put on my Apple TV? That's illegal too, you know, and would have been considered Fair Use until the DMCA came along. With every one of these laws, Fair Use is being slowly eroded and the real pirates are not being slowed one bit.
Wait, you don't even need to buy that copy of Spiderman 2: rent it from NetFlix! Pass it around, no problem!
The knee-jerk "If you are for fair-use and reasonable copyright law you must be a pirate." reaction is getting so damn old.
Ripping a copy of your DVD and placing it appletv is legally ambiguous. For now, which is why DVD rippers are not necessarily banned. It is a legal grey area. To my knowledge, no one has ever been arrested for doing this.
To address this, some DVD's now come with a way to access a downloadable version
The other arguments are just plain silly. If I buy a dvd and give the original away, that is fine. Again, passing around a single copy is fine.
My frustration is I run a legal website development company that LEGALLY buys software. It is a big expense. I have to compete against other companies that avoid that expense by using illegal versions of the software.