What was the obnoxious legislation that was NOT stripped out?

aaron
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:
>
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/pressroom/pressrelease.2004-11 
> -22.6500991518
>
> 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 industry’s 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 nation’s 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:
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/S3021.pdf.
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt Bailey
> Audiovisual Archivist
>
> Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies
> University of Georgia Libraries
> Athens, GA 30602-1641
> (706)542-5788
> http://www.libs.uga.edu/russell/
>
>
> 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  
>> shopping
>> 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
>> acts.
>>
>> A bill given a much better chance of passing is the "Intellectual  
>> Property
>> 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  
>> illegal
>> to skip commercials on video recordings!  There is a lot of good  
>> information on
>> these bills at www.publicknowledge.org , which I highly recommend,  
>> including
>> 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  
>> United
>> States as a means of fostering both artistic expression and  
>> technological
>> 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  
>> technologies.
>>
>> There are a number of sections of the bill that particularly concern  
>> me:
>>
>>     Title II:
>>
>> The Piracy Deterrence in Education Act (formerly H.R. 4077):  This  
>> section
>> 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  
>> drastically
>> lowers the standards for what constitutes a criminal copyright  
>> violation.  The
>> standards are far too vague and could include as targets for  
>> prosecution
>> 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  
>> intended
>> 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  
>> fully
>> 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  
>> appropriate
>> 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  
>> authority.
>>
>> There is too much in "The Intellectual Property Protection Act" that  
>> harms
>> market innovation and my rights as a consumer.  For the reasons  
>> above, I
>> respectfully ask that you oppose H.R. 2391.
>