President signs controversial IP enforcement act into law

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

October 14, 2008, 11:47 AM

Convicted counterfeiters will now be subject to increased fines and the forfeiture of their property, under a new law that took effect yesterday. And the size of government just got bigger, with the creation of one more office.

While opposition was, as we put it some weeks ago, "mounting" against an intellectual property enforcement bill that would create a new government office in charge of enacting government policy against IP infringement, piracy, and counterfeiting, it's fair to say that opposition remained in large part outside of Congress. Last September 26, the US Senate passed the PRO-IP Act by unanimous consent; two days later, the House ratified it by a vote of 381-41.

The new law strengthens provisions for fines and punishment in civil cases, tripling some fines in cases of counterfeiting and enabling the US government to impound equipment used in the act of counterfeiting.

Heralding the bill as a strike against terrorism, the White House yesterday released a statement which reads in part, "In recent years, counterfeiting has grown rapidly. Counterfeiting costs America hundreds of billions of dollars a year and has harmful effects throughout the economy. Fake products can expose consumers to serious health and safety risks. Government loses out on tax revenues and is forced to divert law enforcement resources. Terrorist networks use counterfeit sales to finance their operations."

One of the bill's most contentions sections concerned what rights investigators had when impounding property that is suspected of being used in counterfeiting. An earlier draft of the bill supported by its principal author, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D - Vt.), explicitly stated that the government must prove a "substantial connection" exists between anyone who is the subject of a raid by law enforcement, and the equipment seized in that raid. That provision was stricken from the final language of the bill signed by the President yesterday.

"The protective order shall provide for appropriate procedures to ensure that confidential, private, proprietary, or privileged information contained in such records is not improperly disclosed or used," the final version of the PRO-IP Act reads. "At the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, unless otherwise requested by an agency of the United States, the court shall order that any property forfeited...be destroyed, or otherwise disposed of according to law."

The new law will create the office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), a sort of IP czar who reports directly to the President. However, despite the "E" in its title, the office will be explicitly separated from responsibility for or direction of any law enforcement agency that carries out IP law, according to the law's final language.

"The IPEC may not control or direct any law enforcement agency, including the Department of Justice, in the exercise of its investigative or prosecutorial authority," the law now reads. That distinction may please the US Justice Dept., which reportedly raised private concerns that the IPEC would interfere with its established law enforcement operations.

So what is it that the IPEC will actually do? The PRO-IP law will have this Presidential appointee chair a committee, made up of other leading officials such as the Register of Copyrights and the head of the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as representatives from the State Dept. and the Dept. of Homeland Security. That committee will create a joint policy for refining anti-counterfeiting policies and coordinating with other countries for anti-piracy and anti-IP infringement operations. The involvement of DHS implies that the advisory committee will be actively engaged in investigating the funding sources for terrorism operations.

What's now missing from the newly signed law is any loosening of statutory definitions of counterfeiting. Earlier, rights advocates had protested the possibility that law enforcement officials -- or perhaps a separate operation run by the IPEC (one which cannot now exist under the law's current language) -- could use the new law as a means of seizing computers of individuals suspected of merely trading illicit files over P2P networks. Though it's still conceivable that an administration may still attempt that approach, using the new law as cover, the PRO-IP law as passed actually does not make such an attempt more feasible than it already was.

The White House's statement yesterday made no mention of the IPEC office, which may be an indication that it could remain vacant in the final months of the Bush Administration.

Add a Comment (37 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Avion Airplane

edited Oct 15, 2008 - 8:38 AM

I can see it now, The IP police knocking on me door at night wanting to know if I have any illigal music on me computer that I would like to tell them about.....

or getting pulled over for speeding and the cop noticed the burned copy of Led Zeppelin in my car...... BUSTED

Score: 0

By Avion Airplane

edited Oct 15, 2008 - 8:28 AM

so is IP infringement someone using your IP adress without my permission?
If so what about the COPS who sit outside my store at night looking at porn using my wireless? is that IP infringement?

Score: 0

By megarockradiodotnet

edited Oct 14, 2008 - 6:44 PM

George Bush is such a tool. Glad he's already packing.

This is just another attempt by corporate america to get the taxpayers to foot the bill for them to chase people down like the RIAA has unsuccessfully done for years. Losers.

Score: 0

By Hellgod77

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 6:14 PM

wow what a waste, using our taxes to fight a battle for the media companies.

Score: 0

By beta31

edited Oct 14, 2008 - 5:40 PM

This is a problem that we cannot look at just from the USA. The problem needs to be address in every country. The semiconductor market, for example, is damaged by the counterfeited products. OEM and CEM agreed that they cannot "not buy" from the gray market because this industry needs obsolete produts that are resell only through the gray market. We cannot think that the government can do the clean up by themself because they have to face too many counterfeiters at the same time. The electronic industry needs to collaborate and exchange technical information about how to recognize a counterfeited products. Every body is just getting in a new area of the life of a product and solution need to be tried and found. The brokers community created 6 years ago a communication tools to channel information about other resellers and because of this exchange system they did their own clean up. We are far from being done but success is on the way...www.orafec.org is may be the answer !

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 3:58 AM

"OEM and CEM agreed that they cannot "not buy" from the gray market because this industry needs obsolete produts that are resell only through the gray market."

How so? Why do they need obsolete products? And if they're only available through the gray market, shouldn't they be complaining to the original manufacturers? How are they justified going through the gray market?

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 1:36 PM

you are all missing one hilariously interesting comment in the article above, "Heralding the bill as a strike against terrorism, the White House ..."
Damn kids are all terrorists now... turn them all in, the kid next door who cuts your grass is really a closet terrorist, better tuurn him in now before it's too late and he strikes his infamous blow..
MY GOD how many other things wikll be labeled as terroristic before people wise up and realize the US government is the biggest terrorist organization. They have caused more damage and terror in 4 years than all the other supposed terrorist people and organizations worldwide combined have in 10 years..
my question is... when everyone in the us is labeled a terrorist, then what will be the big brother government's next step? nuke the whole usa?

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 3:29 PM

how many other things wikll be labeled as terroristic before people wise up and realize the US government is the biggest terrorist organization. They have caused more damage and terror in 4 years than all the other supposed terrorist people and organizations worldwide combined have in 10 years..

You, sir, are an idiot.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 3:54 PM

Much more concise than my own post, and much more to the point.

Nicely said.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 1:47 PM

Terrorist:
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant.

Sorry, our troops are not civilians, and they certainly are not disguised as non-combatants.

...and thank you *so* much for calling my brother-in-law (Army Blackhawk crew-chief) a terrorist.

Yeah, I *do* believe:

Terrorist networks use counterfeit sales to finance their operations

...is a stretch. Of course, I'm not about to start frothing at the mouth and disrespecting every active US soldier on this planet like some thoughtless moron...

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 3:11 PM

You do realize that most Western governments do not share your concerns who to call terrorist based on a dress code and tactical operations review.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 14, 2008 - 3:42 PM

Funny...it's not *my* definition.. The Geneva Convention shares it as well, genius.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 4:48 PM

That's the point...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 5:03 PM

I think you are confused. Or you are trying to confuse me. If it is the latter, consider it a success. If it is the former, are you implying that I and the Geneva accord are the only one's using that definition?

If so...you'd be wrong.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 5:45 PM

Mission accomplished for the day :)

My only point really is to commend your nobility of sticking to the GC definition of the term and not even dreaming of using it to discredit inconvenient opposition to your agenda ;-)

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 8:26 PM

To borrow a Canadian colloquialism:

Eh?

Score: 0

By roj

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 3:47 PM

Well, given that no one seems to be paying attention to that convention any longer, it hardly matters does it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 3:54 PM

It doesn't apply to warfare against non-aligned military (military without a nation), nor does it apply to civilian guerrillas.

If suddenly we went to war with Korea or Iran, we'd have to abide. (Just as we did in Iraq, until the war was over and the insurgency began in earnest...these people are no longer have Iraq behind them. They are non-aligned.)

Score: 0

By roj

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 3:58 PM

What is the difference between a "civilian guerrila" who uses a car bomb to oust invaders form his / her country and a so-called terrorist who does the same?

Not A Damned Thing.

They live there. It's their land. They want The Invader out.

The rest is a paper exercise.

And funny how no one thought of that when Palestine was ripped from those who owned it by the Brits and given to a bunch of people who became the biggest arrogant bully in the Middle East:

The State of Israel.

Score: 0

By tscar13

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 12:29 AM

With all due respect, I hate to say it but you have history wrong. In 1947, the U.N. mandated two nations- Israel and Palestine. After the British left Israel was invaded by 5 Arab armies while also fighting a revolutionary group called the Stern gang.
At the ceasefire, Jordon controlled the West Bank, Gaza and half of Jerusalem. From 47-67, Jordon controlled the area that was to be the nation of Palestine and at no time did you hear the Arabs say anything in support of the people of Palestine.
In 67, when Egypt, under Nasser, was set to invade Israel again and took over Jordon's military and Israel launched a pre-emptive strike, Events move so quickly on the ground that in 6 days the Jordanians were in full retreat and Israel found itself in control of these areas.
Now, suddenly, all those Arab countries started supporting a state of Palestine and the rest is history. The point is that Jordon could have at any time in the 20 years after the U.N. mandate set up the state of Palestine if the Arab countries were really interested in their fellow Arabs of Palestine and not using them as a tool to beat Israel over the head with strapping bombs to women and blowing up innocent children.
Look at the Arab countries for the current state of affairs in this part of the world or better yet, get off your dead horse and study history.

Have a nice day :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 4:19 PM

What is the difference between a "civilian guerrila" who uses a car bomb to oust invaders form his / her country and a so-called terrorist who does the same?

It is not "his/her" country. That's what I am saying, that's where your argument falls apart. When they were part of the Iraq military (some of them were, most of them were not), it was an entirely different story...and your analogy would hold up.

As it is, they have no national backing. They aren't fighting *for* their country.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 11:28 AM

How can you say it's not their country *if they live there*? If they were insurgents from outside destabilizing things, I could understand but these people Live There.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 4:49 PM

According to specific interest groups that have the power to disperse appropriate propaganda ;-)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 5:02 PM

I'm pretty sure even *they* would tell you they weren't fighting *for* Iraq...

Score: 0

By preinterpost

edited Oct 14, 2008 - 6:19 PM

Who are we talking about? I thought this is about the IPEC?

Actually let's roll this back a little on the track you seem to be on. There is this beautiful country called Iran. A Shah is kept in power with US backing. A lot of people become less and less happy, start growing long beards and drink more and more tea and smoke shisha. Eventually they go out, thrash the place and kick the guy, his cronies and allies out - who for all Western purpose were legitimate representatives of the nation. At which point do the bearded one become legitimate? Some of the worst ones don't even have beards any longer so that can't be it...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 9:26 AM

Whats his face...

Achmadjinitard.

Something like that... ;)

Score: 0

By roj

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 3:40 PM

ROFLMAO!!!!

Score: 0

By roj

edited Oct 14, 2008 - 3:45 PM

"One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant."

Um, dude, those are known as Freedom Fighters in various parts of the world... including the North American continent in 1776. In addition, your government has been steadfastly supporting MANY MANY groups that meet exactly that description over the last century (more than a few of which have Turned Against You, I might add - um, Saddam Hussein I believe was trained by you folks).

The pot should not call the kettle black.

It's really easy to draw the black and white line between good guys and bad guys - except that the term is completely relative.

Your people seriously need to get out of the "terrorist" mindset - for your own good. I can definitely appreciate how you got there but you've reached the stage where you see shadows everywhere, including where there aren't any. The 911 attack completely achieved its objective and the legacy, sad to say, persists:

You are now (and I say this without a shred of rancor or sarcasm but with a great deal of sadness) completely owned by your own fear and the rhetoric that goes with it. It renders you completely susceptible to unscrupulous individuals with their own agendas who would wave the red rag of terrorism inn front of the bull - and you charge every time.

Do you REALLY want to live that way? I would submit to you that it's not really living.

That being said (and back to the topic), what is now needed is to treat Corps the same way as is proposed for counterfeiters. No more immunity for the Board of Directors. The personal fortunes of those who make truly bad decisions (such as those that have recently devastated your economy) should be automatically seized and jail terms imposed. Draconian? Consider the Draconian tax load now imposed on your people to bail these miscreants out. We grant Corps the same rights as individuals - but we utterly fail to hold them accountable when they transgress.

If you want to do this with counterfeiters, then large banks, financial institutions, oil and pharmaceutical companies should be next (as just initial examples).

Regarding soldiers:

They can hardly be held to blame for the rank stupidity of their senior commanders or the politicians who command those commanders. THOSE are the terrorists and there are War Crimes Courts for that. Interestingly enough, that fate may await several currently prominent politicians once they leave office should they ever make the mistake of traveling to Europe (do a search and you'll see what I mean).

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 3:51 PM

*yawn*

In no *way* have our military forces *ever* been terrorists (as defined above *and* by the Geneva Conventions). If you want to argue some lame-ass "Boston Tea-Party" BS like you did last time, it didn't work then, and it won't work now.

In addition, your government has been steadfastly supporting MANY MANY groups...

Yes, we offer aid, yes, sometimes that aid backfires. Nothing is perfect.

Taxes? Corporations? WTH? Perhaps another topic entirely?

THOSE are the terrorists and there are War Crimes Courts for that.

Okay... Look. The Geneva Convention, which is used as a basis by many countries to determine "fair" and "unfair" warfare, does not, in any way, protect nan-aligned military personnel, or civilian guerrillas. What "War Crimes" have we committed, based on that?

Sure, water-boarding is frowned upon, as is most any kind of torture. But they are *not* protected from it.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of the apologists for the anti-US crowd trying to get these people "fair trials" and this "innocent until proven guilty" BS. What protections have they afforded *our* troops, *our* civilians, and *our* medics?

Right.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Oct 14, 2008 - 5:13 PM

Dude, the facts speak for themselves - acknowledge your roots.

No reparations were paid, real or imaginary after the Boston Tea Party.

A bunch of "freedom fighters", er, "civilian guerrillas", destroyed other people's property to make a point.

They weren't even troops - you had none.

YOUR history is written by YOUR people (and history, being written by the victors, is ALWAYS subjective). Read the British account of the incident - you'll get a far different picture. You'll get a picture of a bunch of self-serving individuals who had a lot of financing sunk into their colonies to make them work - and then flat out refused to pay the money back. Then those same self-serving people perpetuated a terrorist act to prove their point and then adopted tactics (that ironically enough some 200 hundred years later would be use don them in Vietnam).

You see, you're certainly no better - and no worse - than those you turn your nose up at.

You're just, as have many other countries on this planet come to see, hypocritical about it.

Most amusing of all, you actually believe your own hype.

Oh, and "aid" in the form of military advisors, training and hardware? Um, didn't the Soviets used to do that? And you guys got your panties in a bunch over it?

On the war crimes subject, Tricky d***y and company were declared by some European countries to be war criminals for the Iraq invasion and while they cannot be tried whilst in office, are likely to be charged as such when they leave office should they visit Europe. Or so it's claimed. Personally, I think that this would be perfectly fitting, given the massive Lie behind the whole Iraq invasion ("wee-pons of mass destruction" my foot - impartial UN observers found none and I'm certainly more likely to believe them as they have no Saudi friends nor axe to grind).

While I deplore the lives of American soldiers lost in the Iraq invasion as I would any lives lost, theirs or yours, those lives would not have been lost had those troops not been there in an illegal action to begin with. On our home front, there's a lot of anger against our Conservative government for adjusting the posture of our troops in Afghanistan from our traditional Peacekeeping role to actively supporting your troops. We traditionally take the dangerous but often non-combative role of standing between the two warring factions and calming them, a posture that has gained us a not inconsiderable amount of worldwide respect. However, this time out boy decided to align himself with your guys against better judgment, a decision that will no doubt produce definitive consequences for him in today's Federal election (as they did for Tony Blair) since it has cost the lives of a number of our servicemen needlessly. In short and bluntly, we'll punish him for what we consider to be inappropriate actions on the world stage. He may be returned to power but once again in a minority context where he can do little damage until the opposition regroups and he is replaced.

As I said, it's the damned politicians but we'll control our own by handing him another minority government - at best. That way he can't do anything stupid like that again.

But I digress.

At the end of the day, when you abandon "fair trials" and "innocent until proven guilty", you live up to everyone's worst expectations of you - which I might add, is not inconsiderable these days.

Be careful of the laws you pass - you have people in power, run by the Corps who will not hesitate to pervert those laws into self-serving and corporate gain.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 9:25 AM

No reparations were paid, real or imaginary after the Boston Tea Party.

Non-violent protest. Had we car-bombed them, it would be a different story, wouldn't it?

Then those same self-serving people perpetuated a terrorist act...

The casks were opened and the tea dumped overboard; the work, lasting well into the night, was quick, thorough, and efficient. By dawn, over 342 casks or 90,000 lbs (45 tons) of tea worth an estimated £10,000 (£953,000[5], or $1.87 million USD[6] in 2007 currency) had been consigned to waters of Boston harbor.[1] Nothing else had been damaged or stolen, except a single padlock accidentally broken and anonymously replaced not long thereafter.

Hardly...

On the war crimes subject, Tricky d***y and company were declared by some European countries to be war criminals for the Iraq invasion

*laughs*

Politics. It'll never happen. It was a PR gesture, nothing more. Are you really that naive?

I think that this would be perfectly fitting, given the massive Lie behind the whole Iraq invasion ("wee-pons of mass destruction" my foot - impartial UN observers found none and I'm certainly more likely to believe them as they have no Saudi friends nor axe to grind).

Yeah. Lets just ignore Saddam's own threats to *use* those non-existant weapons, shall we?

Be careful of the laws you pass - you have people in power, run by the Corps who will not hesitate to pervert those laws into self-serving and corporate gain.

*laughs* The people in power are *not* mine. I'm a Conservative. Limited Government, limited Social spending, limited taxation. Who's bailing out the Corps? Ah...that'd be Liberals. Any true conservative would rather let the market correction take place, as it *should* have (with far less impact on the economy) in the mid to late 90's.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 11:31 AM

Didn't read it all (don't have the time right now, sadly - it's not for lack of interest because I enjoy the jousting but I have a major system imploding) but one comment stuck out:

"non-violent protest".

Arguably no one got physically hurt but it could hardly be called non-violent if property was destroyed.

And lots was.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 12:13 PM

Un-casking and dumping are hardly considered violent by the standards of the time, mush *less* by today's standards.

And lots was.

Over a Million (by today's standards) dollars worth. Of course, If I picked up your wallet and removed some of your money ( and dumped it in the lake), you'd consider that violent, right?

;)

..

Good luck with the implosion. Hope it wasn't caused by a conspiracy... (Implosions usually are, ya know) ;)

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Oct 15, 2008 - 9:37 AM

"Non-violent protest. Had we car-bombed them, it would be a different story, wouldn't it?"

I believe for the sake of efficiency one prefers to napalm bomb adversaries that are difficult to pinpoint.

"Politics. It'll never happen. It was a PR gesture, nothing more. Are you really that naive?"

Of course. Which political action ISN'T?

Anyway, I am rudely inserting myself and should humbly extract to where I came from...

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 12:46 PM

too bad all the kids these days are using proxies for all their downloading needs making it difficult for them to nail them in the first place. not that im saying to tackle that, i have a hard enough time taking care of their shenannigans as it is.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Oct 14, 2008 - 2:41 PM

God (and proxies) save them from the REAL thieves:

The legalized thugs of the Entertainment Companies and their Special Interest Lobbies.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 14, 2008 - 12:14 PM

the new law strengthens provisions for fines and punishment in civil cases

Or, "When $220,000, for 20 odd songs just isn't enough."

What a joke. We should be fixing copyright, not protecting it in it's current form.

Score: 0