H.R.4279 - Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 Sponsor: John Conyers / 110th Congress

Title
110th Congress - To enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, and for other purposes.
Summary
To enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, and for other purposes. (by CRS)
Status
The bill was voted on in the House on May 8, 2008

Customize

Customize the interests supporting and opposing this bill

To remove an interest, click the Remove button next to its name below this box.

To add an interest, choose one from this list:

To add an interest, click Support or Oppose.

You can share your customized pages with other people by sending them the URL for pages about this bill. Other MAPLight.org users will not see your customizations unless they use the URL you send them. To save your customizations for your next visit, create a free New Account, then Sign In.

Done

Interests who did want this bill to become law included these interests and specific groups:

Interests who did not want this bill to become law included these interests and specific groups:

(None found)

Contribution data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)

Comments RSS feed

Certainly prioritizing resources...but for whom? by Peter Volberding, Jun 12, 2008 (1:52am)

HR 4279 is the hallmark legislation for tightening restrictions and improving the enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights, as it overshadowed S. 522 and raced through committee largely thanks to Rep. Conyers (D-MI). In fact, this legislation was overwhelmingly approved by the House (a 409-11 vote) and was broadly supported by nearly all the industries and unions, clearly signifying its importance, impartiality, and necessity as a law. Or is it?
First of all, this bill is much stronger than S. 522. It greatly increases the penalties that can be reaped in civil courts, toughens restrictions, pours resources into enforcement, and establishes an “IP-Czar” at the executive level. In its original conception, one of the most controversial sections was its allowance of suing per component, instead of the whole. For instance, downloading a CD illegally could be sued for $150,000 under the old legislation. However, if the CD had 10 songs on it, the lawsuit could jump ten-fold to $1,500,000, or a fine for each component. Thankfully, this was taken out, but many other harsh sections (per the request of the RIAA) still remain. It is also interesting to note that S. 522, though broadly supported by everyone, conspicuously lacked the support of the RIAA, MPAA, and telecommunications industry. The Copyright Alliance (a thinly-veiled coalition of corporations) is also a big contributor. It appears that without them on board, intellectual property rights legislation would go nowhere.
While legislators tout the broad support, it is actually fervently opposed by many. If all the corporations and unions support it, who’s left? Citizens. Opposition has grown with technology users (aka, everyone) and consumer advocacy groups because of the stringent, and unfair, laws that infringe upon people’s legal rights over the internet and created plausible fears of government monitoring and reduced liberties. The other opposition, ironically, comes from the Department of Justice (who doesn’t want to see their power diminished). Then why are legislators not more adequately reflecting the will of the people? Well, both groups don’t exactly wield enormous amounts of cash or political power.
Over the next four years, this bill is expected to also be enormously expensive, coming in at a projected $435 million. Ending with that, it seems that there really shouldn’t be enough to get this bill passed so solidly, so how did it get this far, so fast? Enter Rep. Conyers. It always helps to have the Chairman of the House Judicial Committee on your side. Some of his largest contributors are, unsurprisingly, the television, music, and telecommunication industries. Enough said.
It is apparent that intellectual property rights legislation will continue to evolve, as modes of communication rapidly change. But legislation should keep the interests of consumers, not just the profit margins of companies, in mind as well.

Reply to this comment
Reply to this comment close
[ Tags ]
[ Tags ] close
[ Spam ]
[ Spam ] close