WaPo on the passage of the pared-down IPPA

Bootlegging just got even more dangerous:

People who secretly videotape movies when they are shown in theaters could go to prison for up to three years ...

This one was for all those reviewers for the Oscars who have been handing out copies of films they get from the MPAA:

Hackers and industry insiders who distribute music, movies or other copyrighted works before their official release date also face stiffened penalties under the bill.

As for the PIRATE Act:

That bill would have also directed the Justice Department to pursue file-traders more actively through civil lawsuits.

Consumer groups, consumer-electronics makers and the American Conservative Union had sought to derail those measures, portraying them as a radical expansion of traditional copyright protections.

That material was dropped from the bill, but the Justice Department said on its own last month it plans to take a more aggressive approach to policing intellectual-property crimes.

There is good news for the ClearPlay company:

The bill also shields "family friendly" services like ClearPlay that strip violent or sexually explicit scenes from movies. Hollywood groups say such services violate their copyrighted works by altering them without permission.

Although I find the actual purpose of the ClearPlay technology (for those opposed to sex and cursing, mainly on religious grounds, to skip over naughty bits of movies) to be disagreeable, I was never convinced that the "moral rights" of the writers and directors who make the films should override my right to utilize media I purchase in any way that I choose - such as by skipping parts. To me the ClearPlay issue went to the heart of what I, and other media consumers, are allowed to do with their media purchases in their own home. I think the standards for what is ok to do with media in the privacy of the home must be far more liberal than for what a purchaser of media can do when distributing media to other people, whether online or via a CD-R (in which case there is probably real and damaging infringement taking place anyway). You can see the ClearPlay ad here (it was a good idea, poorly executed).

As for that whole commercial skipping thing, someone on The Hill is still sane. This bill would've knocked out a main point of TIVO/DVR technology:

A section that would have made it illegal to edit out commercials was removed.

Finally, as for The Induce Act (IICA):

Another measure that would have made it easier to sue peer-to-peer networks died in committee last month, though insiders expect Congress to take it up again next year.

Here's the article: The Washington Post: U.S. Senate Passes Scaled-Back Copyright Measure.

All in all this has been a good fight by those of us who believe copyright laws are already broad enough to provide adequate protection for the content industries. As we can see content makers are already adapting their business plans to emerging technology. Maybe now the RIAA and MPAA will put more effort into figuring out how to make money using the new tech instead of just trying to kill it off. Oh who's kidding who...we all know this battle will rage on until the Betamax doctrine is either killed or enshrined in a statute.

With us bloggers and groups like Public Knowledge and the EFF (who, by the way, just announced a new advisory board) focusing attention on the copyright issues and the tech industry dumping money into the lobbying effort it looks like the legislative outcomes are actually quite fair. This year the content industries got some extra help via tougher penalties for infringement, but they do not get a veto over new mixed-use technology (the induce Act), nor do they get to have the Dept. of Justice as their private law firm (the PIRATE Act). I have always been of the opinion that we need strong copyright protection because these industries are huge engines of growth for the U.S. economy, however, I think those protections need to balanced against the interests of the media consumer and other industries as well (such as the technology producers). Although some of the new legislation was pushed through, I think we can all pat ourselves on the back for a few minutes, until the next Congressional session is called to order that is.

UPDATE: Here is an informative article in WIRED News (featuring quotes from Wendy Seltzer) about the new copyright legislation: Wired News: A Kinder, Gentler Copyright Bill? Go, read it.

Here's what they had to say about HR 4077:

Senators dropped that section -- HR4077 -- which would have lowered the standard for copyright infringement. "It took 'willfulness' out of the definition of a criminal violation, so you could be judged a criminal without willfully infringing copyright," Seltzer said. A person who had 1,000 songs on their computer in a music folder and who didn't intend to make the files public could be nabbed.