New Proposed Ittelctual Property Bill

After hearing about this from friends and reading somethings on the net from DeviantArt and Cnet I decided to post what I find from the official white house pdf to be of interest.


I contend, this isn't about just busting Americans at home, but this may have implications with trading partners like China who have a tone of IP and copyright violations.

Increase Intellectual Property Statutory Maxima
Increase the Statutory Maximum for Economic Espionage: Economic espionage is one of the most serious intellectual property crimes. A defendant committing that offense, however, faces a statutory maximum sentence of only 15 years in prison. 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a). We recommend that Congress raise that statutory maximum given the severity of the conduct inherent in the offense. Other non-intellectual property offenses that have higher statutory maxima include mail fraud (20 years; 18 U.S.C. § 1341), bank fraud (30 years; 18 U.S.C. § 1344), smuggling goods into the U.S. (20 years; 18 U.S.C. § 545), and coun- terfeit U.S. currency offenses (20 years; 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 472, 473). Moreover, under the U.S. Sentencing Guideline that applies to economic espionage, U.S. Sentencing Guideline (USSG) § 2B1.1, an offense with a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years or more in prison triggers a base offense level of seven, as opposed to the base offense level of six triggered by an offense with a statutory maximum sentence of less than 20 years in prison. USSG §§ 2B1.1(a)(1),(a)(2). Increasing the statutory maximum to at least 20 years in prison, thereby triggering the higher base offense level, is appropriate for this serious offense.

Providing Enforcement Agencies the Tools They Need to Discover and Combat Infringement
Ensure Felony Penalties for Infringement By Streaming and by Means of Other New Technology: It is imperative that our laws account for changes in technology used by infringers. One recent technological change is the illegal streaming of content. Existing law provides felony penalties for willful copyright infringement, but felony penalties are predicated on the defendant either illegally reproducing or distributing the copyrighted work.2 Questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works (and thereby is a felony) and/or performance of those works (and thereby is a not a felony). These questions have impaired the criminal enforcement of copyright laws. To ensure that Federal copyright law keeps pace with infringers, and to ensure that DOJ and U.S. law enforcement agencies are able to effectively combat infringement involving new technology, the Administration recommends that Congress clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances.

Give Wiretap Authority for Criminal Copyright and Trademark Offenses: The Joint Strategic Plan committed Federal agencies to identify gaps in current intellectual property laws and ways that the U.S. Government could enhance enforcement. One such gap involves wiretapping authority (that is, authority to intercept wire, electronic, and/or oral communications). Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516 contains an extensive list of offenses for which the U.S. Government is authorized to seek wiretap authority from a court to obtain evidence of those offenses, including for economic espionage (18 U.S.C. § 1831) and theft of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1832). See 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1)(a) (listing offenses under chapter 90). Omitted from this list are criminal copyright (17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2319) and criminal trademark offenses (18 U.S.C. § 2320). Wiretap authority for these intellectual property crimes, subject to the existing legal protections that apply to wiretaps for other types of crimes, would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses, including targeting organized crime and the leaders and organizers of criminal enterprises.

Enhance Information Sharing About Enforcement Activity
Ordinarily, DHS is able to inform rightholders after infringing goods have been seized, which can help rightholders to enforce their own rights, including bringing a civil suit, if appropriate. The Administration has identified two areas in which DHS is not expressly authorized to share information post-seizure.