- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
As previously mentioned in last week’s post, the days of George W. Bush’s presidency may be dwindling, but that hasn’t stopped him from using his last months in office to strengthen federal protection for entertainment industries with the creation of a “Copyright Czar“. Despite strong objections from the Department of Justice, President Bush signed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (PRO-IP Act) on Monday, October 13. In addition to calling for a new executive office to oversee intellectual property issues, the Act will dramatically stiffen penalties for music and movie piracy at the federal level.
The Chairman and CEO of the RIAA, Mitch Bainwol, hailed the new bill as “music to the ears of all those who care about strengthening American creativity and jobs.”
Tom Donohue, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, “By becoming law, the Pro-IP Act sends the message to IP criminals everywhere that the U.S. will go the extra mile to protect American innovation.” The Chamber values the intellectual property industry at around $5 trillion dollars and notes that it accounts for around half of the United States’ exports each year. The Chamber also said that piracy and counterfeiting costs the United States around $250 billion dollars each year.
However, not everyone is thrilled with the strengthening of the federal government’s power in the area of intellectual property. The Justice Department initially opposed the creation of the executive office, worrying that it would undermine the DOJ’s ability to pursue copyright infringers and pirates. Public Knowledge, a Washington D.C.-based public interest group “working to defend your rights in the emerging digital culture”, opposed the Act’s passage because it failed to address “orphan works“, works for which no copyright owner could be found.
Other organizations opposed to the legislation included the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Library Association. Opponents say the Act does nothing but strengthen protection for corporations, dampen creativity and place further limits on the concept of fair use.
The real question is this: with lawsuits being successfully brought against pirates and infringers and sites like YouTube frequently complying with requests to remove infringing materials (like home videos of babies dancing to Prince songs), was this extra protection really necessary?
Tagged with: books • copyright • Counterfeiting • criminal law • EFF • entertainment • executive branch • fair use • film/television • government • intellectual property • intellectual-property czar • internet • IP criminals • legislation • music • orphan works • piracy • PRO-IP Act • technology • U.S. Constitution
Recent Blog Posts
- Facebook Gears up for Trademark Fight With Brazilian Competitor
- Draft Kings: A fantasy sports betting website valued close to $1 Billion
- Are Design Patents Really a Wise Investment Now?
- The Door Left Ajar: Navigating the Patent-Antitrust Paradox in Light of King Drug Co. v. GlaxoSmithKline
- Will Feds Preempt Tougher State Data Breach Laws?
- Commercial Drones in the Oil and Gas Industry: A Regulatory Incubator
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution