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
> of the Family Movie Act, included in the bill, which gives families
> control over how they watch movies and television, preserving the right
> to skip over commercials. The bill will benefit consumers, both in
> 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
> 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
> Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies
> University of Georgia Libraries
> Athens, GA 30602-1641
> 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
>> 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
>> 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.