ILNews

President signs new federal IP law: Legislation considers piracy issues, creates 'copyright czar'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The United States is stepping up to better protect intellectual property.

If there was any doubt before, it's official now with a new law signed by President George W. Bush Oct. 13. Known as the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, or PRO IP for short, the law is designed to strengthen existing copyright laws, create civil forfeiture clauses so equipment believed to be used in an IP crime can be seized, and establish a cabinet-level position to oversee this country's IP enforcement and educate other countries about the laws in effect here.

Seen as sweeping IP enforcement legislation combating the billions of dollars in entertainment industry sales lost each year to piracy, the Senate unanimously approved the bill in its final form in September. Prior to that support, the legislation was widely seen as controversial in its earlier stages.

One of the most controversial measures of the bill gave the Justice Department the authority to sue copyright infringers on behalf of Hollywood and the music industry. That aspect was removed after the White House lobbied against those new powers, arguing it would create unneeded bureaucracy and would amount to federal prosecutors becoming "pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders regardless of their resources."

Though that aspect of the legislation was ultimately removed, the final version of this bill was backed by the movie and recording industry, unions, manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"This sends a stronger message that we're serious about IP rights and enforcement," said L. Scott Paynter, a partner with Krieg DeVault in Indianapolis. "Part of it parades our views on intellectual property, and in that sense we're trying to send a warning or message that we'll tackle this issue seriously."

One of the most publicized portions of the new law is an executive-level position of "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator," which is being dubbed as a copyright czar. This person would need Senate confirmation just as any federal judge or prosecutor, and the post is similar to the drug czar created by Congress in the 1980s to wage a war on drugs.

The new copyright czar will oversee what's now handled by various agencies and committees - government anti-piracy crackdowns and training for other countries about IP enforcement. That person's primary responsibility will be to chair the "intellectual property enforcement advisory committee," created in Section 301 of the act, a group brought together from several agencies that include the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Patent and Trademark Office, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The law says the person in this position "may not control or direct any law enforcement agency in the exercise of its investigative or prosecutorial authority" but that the primary function is to develop a "joint strategic plan" to wage war on those who infringe on copyrights, which includes facilitating the sharing of information among law enforcement agencies and other countries. The bill also doubles the penalties for copyright infringement and counterfeiting.

"The establishment of this federal position will focus our initiatives outside our borders," said Indianapolis attorney Todd Vare, who chairs Barnes & Thornburg's IP practice group. "We're trying to do exactly what happened when the drug czar was created, collaborating with other countries and working with them to eliminate IP infringement and these notorious piracy efforts."

Paynter, who often handles software registration issues for clients, said what strikes him about the new law more significantly than the copyright czar position is a harmless error provision.

All information from databases isn't always available and can lead to inaccurate or inconsistent data, he said. Prior to this law, that could result in harsh penalties if that information was deemed inaccurate.

"This helps insulate you from that," Paynter said. "That harmless error provision jumped out at me more than the czar aspect."

Vare said it's hard to tell what the impact will be in Indiana and across the country, but he doubts it will result in big companies filing suits to rake in damages for profit.

Attorney Jonathan Polak with Taft Stettinius & Hollister in Indianapolis said the cornerstone of the new law is the improved statutory damages scheme, but that practically nothing much is changing because judges will have the final say on what damages are awarded. This act provides guidance in clarifying what constitutes "use" of copyrighted material, which is necessary to avoid inconsistent court rulings, Polak said.

"What IP holders need is certainty as to the scope and enforcement of their rights, and legislation that promotes certainty in those areas is always good," he said. The court system takes it from there. In five years, we'll know whether this accomplishes those goals or whether it was, as its opponents feared, making government nothing more than Hollywood's proxy." •
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT