p2pnet news | Politics:- Music compilations are currently treated as a single work. But in the “RIAA’s perfect world, each copied track would count as a separate act of infringement, meaning that a copying a ten-song CD even one time could end up costing a defendant $1.5 million if done willfully”.

So says Ars Technica’s Nate Anderson, citing changes to statutory damages demanded in the PRO-IP Act that’s before Congress.

Google’s top copyright lawyer (and the man who wrote a seven-volume treatise on the subject of copyright law), William Patry, called the bill the most “outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the US,” says the story.

And if Patry “wasn’t pleased with the PRO-IP Act,” neither was Public Knowledge, says Ars, going on that PK’s Gigi Sohn testified before Congress last year that statutory damages are already “disproportionate penalties for infringement,” and that it, “hardly seems fair to bill someone like Jammie Thomas more than $9,000 per song when each track costs a buck”.

Actually, they don’t even cost that.

But $1 and up is what the corporate music ’services’ charge, based on music industry wholesale rip-offs.

“Given the huge amounts already available to copyright holders (who can always collect actual damages if the statutory damages truly aren’t large enough to cover their costs), an increase in statutory damages seems only useful when pursuing true ‘pirates’ and large-scale infringers,” says Anderson.

“Unfortunately, the PRO-IP Act would would make the damages an option in small-scale file-swapping cases, the kinds of cases that the European Court of Justice doesn’t seem real worried about. When it comes to casual, non-commercial users, current awards are high enough already.”

Protecting the business interests of the biggest names in movies, music, and software

The “Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO IP) Act of 2007 “ratchets up the federal government’s role in dealing with intellectual property infringement,” posted the EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Association) Richard Esguerra recently, going on >>>

While portions of the bill seem legitimately targeted at combating mass, commercial counterfeiting operations, other parts are devoted to little more than protecting the entertainment industry’s obsolete business models.

Going after commercial pirates is a good idea, but copyright law often fails to distinguish between commercial counterfeiters and regular folks — like those caught up in the RIAA’s anti-downloading litigation dragnet. If the entertainment industry wants to pile on extraordinary penalties for the commercial pirates, it also seems like a good time to make adjustments that recognize that lesser penalties are appropriate for noncommercial, personal copying. People who reasonably believe that what they are doing is a fair use, for example, shouldn’t face ruinous liability if a court doesn’t agree with them.

Similarly, the thousands of music fans arbitrarily singled out for file sharing shouldn’t have to risk their homes just to have their day in court. And, of course, technology companies shouldn’t be put out of business just because their multi-purpose products are misused by their customers.

Unfortunately, the PRO IP Act is just another in a long line of “one-way ratchet” proposals that amplifies copyright without protecting innovators or technology users. One provision, entitled “Computation of Statutory Damages in Copyright Cases,” seems aimed at allowing the music industry to threaten even higher statutory damages in its campaign to sue filesharers.

Copyright law currently allows the RIAA to seek statutory damages per album, while the new law would allow them to seek damages per song. Under the new limits proposed by the PRO IP Act, someone who downloads each individual track from Guns N’ Roses’ 12-track Appetite for Destruction album could face a maximum statutory penalty of $360,000; as opposed to the current limit of $30,000 for the album.

Beyond its effects on file sharing litigation, the bill would create a new, taxpayer-funded federal bureaucracy focused on policing intellectual property domestically and overseas, including:

• a United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, appointed by the President,
  
• an Intellectual Property Enforcement Division in the Department of Justice, and
  
• additional intellectual property attachés to staff U.S. embassies.

These new federal bureaucrats would essentially have one responsibility – protecting the business interests of the biggest names in movies, music, and software. All of these industries are profitable, many of the corporations are foreign, and yet they want the American taxpayer to pick up the tab. Surely, Americans would rather see their tax dollars spent helping businesses and individuals who don’t have ample means to help themselves.

Stay tuned.

Slashdot it!

Also See:

Ars Technica - Copy a CD, owe $1.5 million under “gluttonous” PRO-IP Act, January 29, 2008
EFF – “PRO IP Act” Aims to Increase Infringement Penalties and Expand Government Enforcement, December 7, 2007

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!

Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 31st, 2008 at 9:21 am and is filed under Music, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

HOME

Viewed 3659 times