Well, it's just my personal opinion, but I think sending someone to
federal prison for videotaping a movie in a theater is a little harsh.
Aaron Luis Levinson wrote:
> What was the obnoxious legislation that was NOT stripped out?
> On Nov 22, 2004, at 1:26 PM, Matt Bailey wrote:
>> Alas, the bill already passed this weekend. Thankfully, most of the
>> really obnoxious legislation was stripped out:
>> November 22, 2004
>> For Immediate Release
>> Contact Info
>> Art Brodsky
>> Communications Director
>> Public Knowledge
>> [log in to unmask]
>> office: (202) 518-0020 x103
>> cell: (301) 908-7715
>> Background: The Senate late in its weekend session passed by unanimous
>> consent S 3021, a shorter version of the omnibus copyright legislation
>> (HR 2391) that had been introduced earlier in the session.
>> Statement of Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge:
>> Consumers won a major victory when the Senate passed legislation
>> removing the most egregious elements of the omnibus copyright bill that
>> had previously been under consideration. We strongly support the version
>> of the Family Movie Act, included in the bill, which gives families more
>> control over how they watch movies and television, preserving the right
>> to skip over commercials. The bill will benefit consumers, both in their
>> entertainment choices now, and from the innovation in technology that
>> will result in coming years.
>> We are also pleased that HR 4077 was dropped from the bill that passed.
>> That legislation would have lowered the standard for copyright
>> infringement. The Senate also wisely removed the PIRATE Act, which would
>> have made the government the entertainment industryís private law firm
>> at taxpayer expense.
>> The Senate should also be commended for including in the bill
>> legislation helping to preserve orphan works and reauthorizing the
>> National Film Preservation Board. These features of the bill are
>> important steps in preserving our nationís culture. We look forward to
>> working with Congress in coming sessions to make further progress in
>> advancing consumer interests and preserving copyright balance.
>> A copy of the bill is available at:
>> Matt Bailey
>> Audiovisual Archivist
>> Tim Brooks wrote:
>>> Copyright Alert
>>> Everyone should know about three pieces of legislation which copyright
>>> holders are trying to push through the lame duck session of the
>>> current U.S.
>>> congress before it adjourns for the holidays.
>>> The "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act"
>>> (HR 3261)
>>> would for the first time grant copyright protection to facts
>>> contained in
>>> databases. It is being pushed by some large directory publishers.
>>> This would put
>>> a lot of discographers out of business, not to mention comparison
>>> sites, and fact-gathering aids of all kinds. The "Induce Act"
>>> (S.2560) would
>>> make it a crime to "induce" someone to violate copyright, even if
>>> that person
>>> was not under your control or the violation was unknown to you. This
>>> might well
>>> shut down this chat list. Fortunately there is significant
>>> opposition to both
>>> A bill given a much better chance of passing is the "Intellectual
>>> Protection Act" (HR 2391), an omnibus bill that gathers in once place a
>>> Christmas tree of goodies for media companies. It would limit how
>>> libraries can make
>>> available copyrighted material, restrict fair use, and even make it
>>> to skip commercials on video recordings! There is a lot of good
>>> information on
>>> these bills at www.publicknowledge.org , which I highly recommend,
>>> a suggested letter you can send to your congressman (see below). If
>>> politicians don't hear from us when these kinds of bills come up
>>> they stand a much
>>> better chance of passing. I'm told the 1998 Copyright Term
>>> Extension Act (which
>>> keeps old recordings out of the public domain until 2067) was passed
>>> by voice
>>> vote at midnight!
>>> Here's their proposed letter:
>>> I write to you today to ask that you oppose the omnibus "Intellectual
>>> Property Protection Act," both as a whole and in its parts, and ask
>>> that you not
>>> allow it to come to the floor for a vote.
>>> I believe that intellectual property plays a critical role in the
>>> States as a means of fostering both artistic expression and
>>> innovation. However, the IPPA, which is comprised of a number of
>>> individual bills,
>>> contains provisions that may harm my long-established rights as a
>>> legal user of
>>> content. Additionally, the bill may harm the development of new
>>> There are a number of sections of the bill that particularly concern
>>> Title II:
>>> The Piracy Deterrence in Education Act (formerly H.R. 4077): This
>>> establishes "offering for distribution" as basis for criminal copyright
>>> violation and "making available" for civil violation, regardless of
>>> whether there is
>>> any distribution or copying, let alone infringement. This bill
>>> lowers the standards for what constitutes a criminal copyright
>>> violation. The
>>> standards are far too vague and could include as targets for
>>> material passively stored on computers or shared on networks.
>>> The ART Act (formerly S. 1932): This is a bill that prohibits the
>>> unauthorized use of a video camera in a movie theatre. While I do
>>> not support movie
>>> bootlegging, I believe that under some limited circumstances the
>>> public needs the
>>> fair use protections granted under traditional copyright law, which
>>> this bill
>>> would eliminate.
>>> The Family Movie Act (formerly H.R. 4586): This bill was originally
>>> to protect the my right to use technology to skip-over and mute
>>> parts of a
>>> movie that my family may find objectionable-- a proposition which I
>>> support. Unfortunately, the broadcasting industry and Hollywood
>>> added a section to
>>> take away my right of skipping over ads in DVDs and recorded
>>> broadcasts with a
>>> TiVo like device.
>>> Title III:
>>> The PIRATE Act (formerly S. 2237): This bill would allow the Justice
>>> Department to file civil suits against copyright infringers.
>>> Especially with the
>>> record profits that the media industry is making, it doesn't seem
>>> that I as a tax payer should have to fund a corporation's private
>>> right of
>>> action. The Justice Department has even said it did not want this
>>> There is too much in "The Intellectual Property Protection Act" that
>>> market innovation and my rights as a consumer. For the reasons
>>> above, I
>>> respectfully ask that you oppose H.R. 2391.