Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4279.

While this administration can and should do more to protect intellectual property rights, I do not think that the answer lies in this bill's creation of new forfeiture provisions, a new ``IP Czar,'' or a new IP-only division within the Department of Justice.

In recent civil actions pursued by some within the content industry, we have seen unduly aggressive tactics that occasionally target innocent individuals. I am concerned that given the bill's thrust toward more aggressive enforcement of copyright infringement, enhanced forfeiture provisions similarly may sweep up wholly innocent students, parents, and consumers in larger enforcement actions.

I regret that more was not done to strike the appropriate balance between protecting copyright owners from those who unlawfully benefit from infringement and ensuring that we do not inadvertently punish innocent bystanders.

I also have concerns with Title III's creation of a new office of the U.S. IP Enforcement Representative. I appreciate the work that has been done to refine the scope of Title III. Nonetheless, Title III still creates a position that is a coequal of the U.S. Trade Representative in the Department of Commerce. There is a strong possibility that the USTR and the ``IP Czar'' will come to conflicting policy decisions in matters affecting both IP enforcement and international trade.

The bill offers little guidance with respect to how those conflicts will be resolved. Nor does it contain adequate safeguards to ensure that the IP Czar does not target legitimate innovation out of overstated concerns about contributory infringement.

Finally, I share the authors' frustration with this administration's failure to engage in a more constructive dialogue about how best to focus the DOJ's resources on IP enforcement without harming and disrupting equally important law enforcement priorities. Nonetheless, that potential harm and disruption cannot be ignored and has not been addressed adequately.

I share the goals of the authors of this legislation but not the means by which they sought to achieve them. I thank the authors for their work to improve this bill, but regret that it was not improved further.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source