SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Advertisement


Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • This is certainly a good move, but perhaps this is... »
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Bush Administration Pushes For Stronger Copyright Protection, Enforcement

    Published on 22 May 2007 @ 3:12 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Dugie Standeford for Intellectual Property Watch
    The United States government and the US creative industries last week signalled a new crackdown on intellectual property (IP) infringement at home and abroad. In a flurry of activity, the Bush administration proposed unprecedented changes to copyright enforcement laws, key entertainment industry groups and companies partnered to fight for stronger IP rights, and a bipartisan congressional panel named and shamed five countries for uncontrolled piracy.

    US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales outlined his legislative proposal, the “Intellectual Property Protection Act (IPPA) of 2007,” in a 14 May letter to Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Senate President Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia).

    Among the provisions in the letter are one that allows prosecutors to file infringement charges even if a copyright has not been registered and another that criminalises attempted copyright infringement. The IPPA harmonises civil and criminal forfeiture laws, and authorises seizure not only of property used to manufacture infringing copies but also of items “intended to be used” for such purposes.

    Another section treats export of infringing copies as an infringement of the distribution right, aligning it with current law that treats importation of such copies as infringement, and subjects both to criminal as well as civil sanctions. In addition, the IPPA creates new forfeiture, destruction and restitution provisions for offences contained in the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and boosts penalties for repeat criminal offenders.

    The measure also stiffens sanctions for counterfeiting offences that endanger public health and safety, raising the maximum from 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment where a defendant knowingly and recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury, and increasing the maximum to life imprisonment where the perpetrator knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death. In addition, IPPA adds criminal infringement of copyright and trafficking in counterfeit goods or services to the list of offences for which law enforcement agencies can use wiretaps.

    The IPPA’s future is uncertain at this point since no one in Congress appears to have come forward to sponsor it. The Justice Department did not reply to a request for information.

    Public interest group Public Knowledge accused the government of recycling a 2005 legislative package which “continues to be full of bad ideas today.” Public Knowledge, along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and others, is part of a Digital Freedom Campaign to safeguard the right of creators to use digital technologies “without fear of unreasonable government restrictions or costly lawsuits.”

    The newly launched Copyright Alliance, however, welcomed Justice’s tougher stance. The alliance – which opened for business 17 May and whose 29 members include the Recording Industry Association of America, Motion Picture Association of America, Microsoft and Walt Disney – is “pleased that the US Attorney General recognises the harm caused by piracy of copyrighted works,” said Executive Director Patrick Ross. “We would be supportive of congressional efforts to provide hard-working law enforcement officials more resources to enforce copyright laws.”

    Dow Lohnes IP attorney James Burger questioned the meaning of attempted infringement. “If I copy and widely distribute something that has no copyright (e.g., the Constitution of the United States) but ignorantly believe is copyrighted, have I ‘attempted to infringe’?”

    In US law, the “fair use” defence blurs the line between infringing and non-infringing conduct, so bringing into copyright a crime of an attempt to infringe “just isn’t a good idea,” Burger said. In cases of organised crime, where CDs and DVDs of commercial quality are produced, the full weight of civil and criminal law should fall on the perpetrators, Burger said. “But holding a kid who loads a peer-to-peer programme on his computer liable for ‘attempting to infringe’ is going too far.”

    Also last week, the bipartisan Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus unveiled its 2007 international piracy watch list, accusing China, Russia, Mexico, Canada and Malaysia of “alarming levels” of copyright infringement that cost US firms US$18 billion annually in lost sales.

    Lawmakers said they will focus particularly on China and Russia, which “stand out because of the scope and depth of their piracy problems” and their lack of political will to confront them. The US Trade Representative’s office released its annual watch list several weeks ago.

    Meanwhile, Justice announced its fiftieth felony conviction from global anti-piracy initiative Operation FastLink. Christopher Eaves of Texas pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement for his involvement in the pre-release music group Apocalypse Crew, which acquires digital copies of songs and albums before they are commercially released in the US and distributes them online, the agency said. Eaves, who will be sentenced in August, faces up to five years’ imprisonment and a US$250,000 fine.

    Enforcement Up in Europe

    Stronger copyright enforcement also is an issue in Europe, where the European Commission’s controversial IP Enforcement Directive is under review by the European Council of ministers (IPW, European Policy, 26 April 2007). It would outlaw commercial-scale, intentional infringement as well as its aiding, abetting and inciting, but not attempts to infringe.

    On 21 May, police in the United Kingdom made their first arrest for the unlicensed sale of music under legislation introduced in January 2007 to combat online fraud. The arrest followed a pan-European investigation by the International Federation for the Phonographic Industry and the British Phonographic Industry into an online voucher system allegedly launched by Russian music site allofmp3.com when major payment companies such as PayPal withdrew their payment facilities due to copyright piracy, the industry groups said.

    Finally, a report this month by the UK Parliament Culture, Media and Sports Committee urged the government to lobby the European Commission to extend copyright protection for sound recordings to at least 70 years. MPs also want Internet service providers to shoulder more responsibility for policing their networks for infringing content.

    Dugie Standeford may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.