Justice Department Comes Out Against PRO-IP, While Howard Berman Complains That It's Not Strong Enough
from the compare-and-contrast dept
We've made no secret of how ridiculous we think the new "Pro-IP" bill is. If anything, it's actually anti-IP. Surprisingly, it appears that the Justice Department actually agrees. In hearings on Thursday about the bill, the Justice Department slammed the bill as unnecessary and counterproductive. That's a bit of a shift from the DOJ's point of view under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who started pitching ridiculous IP legislation to have something to talk about other than the controversy surrounding everything else he was doing. Of course, the real reason why the DOJ is against it appears to be that they don't want enforcing copyright laws to be taken away from the DOJ itself, which would happen if the bill becomes law and an "IP Czar" position is created within the Whitehouse.Of course, not everyone feels that way. Howard Berman, affectionately known as the Representative from Disney, who really should not be in charge of the intellectual property subcommittee, spent some time at those same hearings to suggest that the PRO IP bill doesn't go far enough, and it's time to get rid of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions. Yes, he wants to take about the only reasonable part of the DMCA and get rid of it. Safe harbors for service providers make perfect sense. They make sure that third party tool and service providers aren't held liable for the actions of their users. It's about making sure that companies can't just blame whoever is biggest or easiest to serve with a lawsuit -- but those actually responsible for breaking the law. Berman wants to get rid of those safe harbors, of course, because the entertainment industry hates them. Safe harbors mean they can't get away with, say, suing YouTube for $1 billion, which is much easier than adapting to a changing market place. Berman has always insisted that he's not just pushing Hollywood's perspective, but it's hard to see how that's the case when he makes statements like this.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, howard berman, justice department, pro-ip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pro-IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if the full extent of safe harbor is unde
- YouTube, P2P, etc. Obviously, this is what he's targeting at the behest of major media.
However, with no safe harbor protections, I see all of the following as being in jeopardy as well if taken to extremes:
- Blogs. A large number of blogs are run by "service providers" (e.g. Blogspot).
- MySpace/Social Networking. A lot of these sites allow user-generated content which would include copyright violations.
- eBay, Craigslist, etc. Auction and Classifieds sites provide a way for infingers to market their wares.
- Comments such as this one. Users can post protected text or links to protected items.
- Mutliplayer games such as WoW. Player to player advertising of ingringement web sites.
I'm sure there are many more examples, but I'm going to stop here. What's worse is that if you add in the absolutely ridiculous civil asset forfeiture provision, it's theoretically possible that "big media" could end up owning every newspaper and internet related company out there.
Scary stuff indeed that one of our "representatives" is this far out of the loop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eye Pee in America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
asshat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocked
Wow, I'm shocked!
Of course, the real reason why the DOJ is against it appears to be that they don't want enforcing copyright laws to be taken away from the DOJ itself, which would happen if the bill becomes law and an "IP Czar" position is created within the Whitehouse.
I take that back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Polo Outlet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]