Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008

Floor Speech

PRIORITIZING RESOURCES AND ORGANIZATION FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACT OF 2008 -- (House of Representatives - September 27, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

While we do need to focus our efforts to combat criminal activity related to intellectual property, the unbounded forfeiture provision in this bill isn't about going after criminals, it's about going after the Internet.

The language in the House bill, the bill that we sent over, although problematic in some ways, at least had some measures to ensure that there was a meaningful connection between the property subject to seizure and the underlying offense. This bill, back from the Senate, strips away those assurances. It subjects to seizure ``any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense.'' That unqualified language means that virtually anything through which Internet traffic passes is subject to seizure, no matter how incidental the connection to the offense or how innocent the owner.

This provision shifts the liability for infringement--and thus responsibility from enforcement--onto innocent intermediaries, whether they are ISPs, businesses, schools, libraries, or consumers. We have seen this before this year and will likely see it again as time goes on. We saw the same type of provisions--although not as wildly extravagant--in the Higher Education Act, even after colleges told us it would divert resources from their primary mission of education. We're seeing it in the secret negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that apparently is going to, in some manner, require ISPs to police the conduct of their users, potentially in violation of their privacy rights.

I understand why the content industry pushes for these measures. They're trying to protect an analog business model in the digital environment, and that's difficult and expensive; and treating one's customers like criminals is bad for PR. Accordingly, the content industry has every incentive to make others do the work for it.

What I don't understand is why Congress goes along with these proposals. With each successive Congress, copyright law and policy becomes less of a balanced system of rights to promote creativity and innovation and more of a set of tools by which certain corporate interests protect themselves.

In our unbridled zeal for IP enforcement and utter indifference to the rights of users and consumers, we are losing sight of the underlying principles of our copyright system. This bill takes us further away from those principles. And I would add that I can't think of a single other circumstance where civil libertarians would even consider the concept of seizing the property of innocent bystanders in any other legal scheme, whether it was fraud or any other matter. We wouldn't permit that, and we should not permit it in this case.

I urge that we defeat this bill. And although there are some provisions in it that are meritorious, there is consensus for those, we can certainly adopt them next year. I urge defeat and yield back to the chairman with thanks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source