The President recently signed into law, S. 3325, “the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO IP) Act of 2008.”  The bill had been passed bby the U.S. House by a suspension vote of 381-41.  (Those opposing included Reps. Boucher, Kucinich and Lofgren.  The vote was bipartisan, with Democrats voting 205-22 and Republicans voting 176-19.)  What was supposed to be a non-roll call vote on Saturday the 27th ended up being a roll call vote on Sunday, when a couple of members of Congress insisted on an up-and-down vote.  Being on the suspension calendar, S. 3325 needed a 2/3 vote to pass, and it did so easily.  Two days earlier the bill had passed by the Senate by voice vote. 

The final version of the bill would, among other things:

• Create an IP Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) within the Executive Office of the President.  The IPEC would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The coordinator is tasked with drafting a joint strategic plan for combating infringement and counterfeiting, including cooperation with foreign government agencies, and is required to submit an annual report.  Once the IPEC is confirmed the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC) would be abolished and replaced with another interagency advisory committee under the control of the IPEC.  In a September 23rd letter, the administration voiced its objections to the creation of an IPEC in the Executive Office of the President House.  The objection was based on: (i) the bill’s directive that the office be part of the president’s executive staff, and not in the Department of Commerce, where a similar position currently exists; and (ii) the bill’s granting the Senate authority to approve the president’s choice of appointment for the position, saying that it constitutes a violation of the separation of powers.
  
  
• Allow copyright owners to request impoundment and protection of records relating to infringement in civil cases;
  
  
• Clarify that the law prohibits the exportation of infringing and counterfeit goods as well as their importation.
  
  
• Reauthorize programs for granting $25 million annually to state and local law enforcement agencies and public interest educational groups for training and enforcement activities;
  
  
• Increase Department of Justice (DOJ) staffing of FBI agents and assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to IP rights enforcement and providing an additional $10 million to the DOJ for IP rights enforcement; and
  
  
• Clarify that the Copyright Act’s jurisdictional and remedy requirements are satisfied by a copyright registration certificate regardless of inaccurate information in the certificate, unless the inaccuracies were knowingly included or would have precluded registration if disclosed.

The bill also harmonizes forfeiture procedures in civil and criminal IP proceedings, increases statutory damages for intentional trademark counterfeiting against direct infringers and those who provide necessary goods and services to engage in the illegal acts, and requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to produce a study on the impact of counterfeit goods.

A few provisions that were included in the bill at one point but were subsequently removed or changed include, among other things:  (1) amendments were made to ensure greater privacy protection was afforded to materials and information subject to the new civil forfeiture provision, (2) amendments were made to the IPEC position to reassure the Administration that the IPEC would not get involved or direct active cases being pursued by the DOJ; (3) Title I of the bill, which would have allowed the DOJ to bring civil actions on behalf of rights holders, was removed at the urging of the Administration; and (4) the IP liaison positions that would be located in various regions was removed.

The press coverage being given this bill is quite interesting.  All the press seems to refer to the bill as being "controversial." However, in reality the bill is not terribly controversial, at least among the public or other stake holders.  Sure, the likes of EFF and Public Knowledge oppose the bill.  But then again they oppose every copyright-related bill, even if the bill might help combat piracy a smidgen.  The only other groups that raised concerns were agencies within the adminsitration that opposed the so-called IP Czar position.  Unfortunately, the majority of these concerns seemed to be based more on protecting a particular agency's "turf"  than any "real" concerns that the IP Czar position would adversely affect the criminal enforcement activities of the federal government.

In short, this bill is not and should not be considered to be controversial.  What the bill is, is necessary.  It should help copyright owners and government agencies pursue copyright criminals.  These criminals are not people who are deserving of our sympathies.  They have no fair use claims or any other legitimate defense that might permit their illicit activities.  These are the people that engage in large-scale piracy.  They are the ones that cause increased prices of copyrighted products for the average consumer.  They are the ones that also engage in child pornography, identity theft, drug trafficking and countless other crimes just to make an easy profit.  The public should be supportive of this law as it will hopefully lead to improved enforcement here and abroad and therefore, also lead to a greater variety of, greater availability of,a nd reduced prices for copyrighted movies, music, software and other content that is so often pirated.