Anti-Piracy Legislation
On This Page:
2005
Family and Entertainment Copyright Act of 2005
2004
Last Update:
20-Apr-2006 11:35
Piracy deterrence and punishment were the themes of five copyright-related
bills that were considered in the 108th Congress. Three bills in the Senate
and two in the House of Representatives would have given law enforcement authorities
more options in prosecuting alleged copyright infringers and stiffen both civil
and criminal penalties for even non-commercial infringement.
As part of its unbalanced anti-piracy agenda, the content industry, represented
primarily by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA), has convinced many in Congress that
existing laws are inadequate and that new laws with lower standards for copyright
infringement are needed. Libraries do not agree.
- Libraries are not opposed to the effort to deal with legitimate concerns
about copyright infringement
- However, libraries do not favor the current trend toward further criminalizing
copyright law
- Libraries support enforcing the existing laws that have clear standards
for infringement and oppose adding broad criminal provisions with vaguely
defined standards
- The ambiguous and overly broad language in these bills will lead to potential
risks for libraries and educational institutions
Try out ALA's NEW e-advocacy site!
Use the text link or the logo
-
Click on the "Take @ction" to jump to ALA's Legislative Action Center
-
See what library legislation is hot
-
Send a letter or fax to Congress
U.S. Capitol switchboard 202-225-3121
We invite you to try out our new site today! If you experience problems with or have questions about the new site, please email bmurphy@alawash.org or ehaggerty@alawash.org.
2005
2 Sep
S. 167, Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005
On April 19, 2005, the House of Representatives passed S. 167, a copyright
bill that had been approved by the Senate on February 1. S. 167, the “Family
Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005,” picked up a number of provisions
that were included previously in Senate and House copyright bills in the
108th Congress that did not pass. Libraries had supported passage of some
of these provisions, though not others with which they were then joined,
and are supporting the current bill.
PDF of supporting letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (02Mar05)
The President signed the bill as Public Law No: 109-9 on April 27. PDF file of Act
The Act:
- Criminalizes the unauthorized recording of motion pictures in a movie
theatre.
- Makes clear that technology that allows consumers to skip over offensive
material in motion pictures does not infringe copyright.
- Reauthorizes the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film
Preservation Foundation, and will help ensure the preservation of our national
film heritage.
- Amends (in Title IV of the bill, the “Preservation of Orphan Works Act”)
Section 108 of the Copyright Act to allow libraries to engage in preservation,
scholarship and research of musical works, motion pictures, and other audiovisual
works during the last 20 years of their copyright term.
2004
Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments
Act of 2004
On December 8, 2004, in the closing hours of the 108th Congress, the Senate
passed H.R. 3632, the Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments
Act of 2004. H.R. 3632 had passed the House of Representatives on September
21.
H.R. 3632 [link
to PDF file] as enacted consists of two earlier bills: H.R. 3632, the Anti-Counterfeiting
Amendments Act of 2004; and H.R. 3754, the Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions
Act. The anti-counterfeiting amendments now constitute Title I of the legislation,
while the online identity provisions constitute Title II. (Title III contains
minor amendments to Title 28 of the U.S. Code, adding additional places of holding
court in Colorado and the Northern District of New York.)
TITLE I: Anti-Counterfeiting Provisions
Prior to the amendments, 18 U.S.C. § 2318 prohibited the knowing trafficking
in a counterfeit label affixed or designed to be affixed to a phonorecord or
a copy of a computer program or motion picture. Counterfeit label was defined
as an identifying label that appears to be genuine but is not. Traffic meant
to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration
for anything of value. A violation of § 2318 was subject only to criminal
penalties.
· Title I of H.R. 3632 broadens § 2318 significantly. First, it
provides a private right of action for violations of § 2318. The action
may be brought by any copyright owner who is injured, or threatened with injury,
by a violation. The court can award the injured party actual damages and additional
profits of the violator, or statutory damages. Actual damages are calculated
by multiplying the retail value of a copy of the work to which the unlawful
label is attached by the number of copies to which unlawful labels are affixed.
Statutory damages can range from $2,500 to $25,000 for each violation. The damages
can be trebled for repeat violators.
· Second, H.R. 3632 extends § 2318 to all literary, pictorial,
graphic, sculptural, or visual art works, in addition to phonorecords, computer
programs, and motion pictures.
· Third, H.R. 3632 applies to a new kind of unlawful label - an illicit
label - which is defined as a genuine certificate or similar labeling component
that is used by the copyright owner to verify that a copy of work is not counterfeit
or infringing of any copyright and that is distributed with a copy to which
it is not authorized to be affixed.
TITLE II: Fradulent Online Identity
Title II of H.R. 3632 amends the Lanham and Copyright Acts to create a rebuttable
presumption of willful infringement if the infringer provided materially false
contact information when registering a domain name used in the infringement.
The purpose of the amendment is to encourage the creation of accurate "WHOIS"
databases maintained by domain name registrars and registries.
Bills considered in the 108th Congress, but not passed:
S 3021 Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2004
At the very end of the session, the Senate passed S. 3021, the “Family
Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2004.” The bill was introduced by Sen.
Hatch (R-UT) on November 20th, as an alternative to a large and controversial
omnibus bill, H.R. 2391 (the “Intellectual Property Protection Act”)
that the Senate had been considering. The new bill was passed the same day by
Unanimous Consent.
The titles of the Act include: illegally recording movies in theaters; creating
an exemption from copyright infringement for devices that permit an individual
to skip over content in a motion picture being viewed at home; fostering the
preservation of so-called "orphaned" copyrighted works; and tougher
anti-counterfeiting laws related to physical goods and fake labels.
An amendment by Sen. McCain (R-AZ) was added to the bill, relating not to copyright,
but to the Professional Boxing Safety Act. It is unclear whether this amendment
makes the entire bill unacceptable and/or whether there will be time for the
House to act on it before adjournment.
HR 2391 Intellectual Property Protection Act
October 2004
This omnibus intellectual property bill, under consideration at the end of
the 108th Congress by both the Senate and House, encompasses a number of bills
previously introduced in this session (see below). Libraries have urged Congress
to defer action on this highly controversial piece of legislation, much of which
has been the subject of no hearings in either the House or the Senate.
H.R. 2391 contains some provisions supported by the library community. Specifically,
we support Title IV, the National Film Preservation Act, and Title V, the Preservation
of Orphan Works Act. However, we strongly oppose Titles II and III of the bill
because they would significantly increase the role of the federal government
in protecting the entertainment industry. These Titles would:
- Subsidize the entertainment industry by diverting Department
of Justice funds and human resources in the midst of the war on terrorism
to protect the entertainment industry's interests. The Copyright Act already
provides a private right of action that the industry has used vigorously against
infringers. Moreover, the industry controls numerous media and product distribution
outlets and thus can engage in its own public education at low cost. The cost
of education and enforcement should be borne by the companies that derive
significant profits from the distribution of copyrighted products, not the
general public.
- Expand the scope of what constitutes criminal copyright infringement
by replacing the current clear standard -- knowing that one's acts constituted
copyright infringement -- with an uncertain and ambiguous standard -- recklessly
disregarding the possibility that one's act might lead to further infringement
by the independent acts of other people.
- Subject such newly minted felons to increased criminal sentences
by requiring the U.S. Sentencing Commission to modify its guidelines yet again.
The library community is committed to preserving the balance in copyright law.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2391 tips the scales by directing the Department of Justice
to spend valuable resources on public education and law enforcement campaigns.
We believe that further deliberation is necessary for members of both chambers
to determine whether increased federal assistance for the entertainment industry
is an appropriate priority in the midst of a war on terrorism and a significant
budget deficit.
S 2560: Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (INDUCE)
of 2004
June 22, 2004:
Sen. Hatch (R-UT) introduced S. 2560, the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights
Act of 2004 (INDUCE Act). The bill would allow a copyright holder to sue
a manufacturer based on the technology if the product is merely capable of being
used to engage in copyright infringement. The bill would overturn the clear
standard established twenty years ago in the Sony v. Universal Studios ("Betamax")
decision. The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT), Frist (R-TN), Daschle
(D-SD), Graham (R-SC), Boxer (D-CA) and is on a fast track to the Senate floor.
The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Libraries have joined
with a diverse group of high tech firms and public interest organizations in
opposing the bill.
July 6, 2004:
Joint
letter to Sen. Hatch and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (pdf)
July 22, 2004:
Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on S. 2560
HR 4077: Piracy and Deterrence
and Education Act of 2004
The "Piracy, Deterrence and Education Act of 2004" would significantly
increase the role of the federal government in enforcing the copyright laws.
The Act 1) amends the Copyright Act to allow criminal prosecution of someone
who "makes available" one work worth $10,000 or more works of undetermined
value; 2) enhances criminal enforcement of copyright laws and requires the Department
of Justice to educate the public about copyright infringement; 3) makes it an
offense to record, transmit or make copies of a motion picture in a theater
with an audiovisual recording device. (See S.1932)
- While libraries do not oppose efforts to deal with legitimate concerns about
copyright infringement, H.R. 4077 is part of a disturbing trend to further
criminalize the copyright law.
- Libraries support enforcing the existing laws that have clear standards
for infringement. H.R. 4077 adds a broad criminal provision with a new and
vaguely defined standard.
- Libraries are concerned that the ambiguous and overly broad language in
H.R. 4077 will lead to potential risks for libraries.
- H.R. 4077 prohibits the use of a recording device in a motion picture theater
even if no copyright infringement occurs and imposes criminal penalties. A
student in a film class at a library would commit a felony if she recorded
brief excerpts of a film screened during the class.
- H.R. 4077 authorizes the appropriation of $15 million to the investigation
and prosecution of copyright and the establishment of an Internet Use Education
Program. Libraries believe that the movie and recording industries should
fund their own copyright education campaigns and not use public resources
for that purpose.
S 1932 Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2003
The "Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2003" makes it an
offense to record, transmit or make copies of a motion picture in a theater
with an audiovisual recording device "without the consent of the copyright
owner." The term "motion picture exhibition facility" is defined
broadly so that it could include libraries and educational institutions. (See
similar provision in H.R. 4077.)
S 2237 Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and
Expropriation Act of 2004
The "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act
of 2004" ("PIRATE Act") would amend the Copyright Act to allow
government to seek civil penalties, as well as criminal penalties, for willful
copyright infringement and directs the Department of Justice to develop a civil
enforcement program.
HR 3632 Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2004
The "Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2004" prohibits "trafficking
in counterfeit labels, illicit labels or counterfeit documentation or packaging"
that is attached to computer programs, motion pictures or audiovisual works.
The current language could apply to legitimate electronic distribution of copyrighted
works.
S 2242 Anticounterfeiting Act of 2004
The "Anticounterfeiting Act of 2004" prohibits "trafficking
in counterfeit labels, illicit labels or counterfeit documentation or packaging"
that is attached to computer programs, motion pictures or audiovisual works.
The current language could apply to legitimate electronic distribution of copyrighted
works.
Try out ALA's NEW e-advocacy site!
Use the text link or the logo
U.S. Capitol switchboard 202-225-3121
We invite you to try out our new site today! If you experience problems with or have questions about the new site, please email bmurphy@alawash.org or ehaggerty@alawash.org.
|
