The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2007 was signed by US President Bush 13 October 2008. The full text of the act can be read at:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_reports&docid=f:hr617.110.pdf

An article on Newsfactor.com (http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Bush-Signs-Tougher-Piracy-Law/story.xhtml?story_id=032002YEMWLC) noted that:

“Intellectual-property [IP] offenders face tougher penalties now…the [PRO-IP] law gives government agencies tools to gather evidence for prosecution of intellectual-property crimes, provides funds to the Department of Justice to better enforce IP-related crimes, and boosts collaboration between agencies seeking to stop piracy. PRO-IP also creates an IP enforcement overseer to provide federal, state and local agencies with tools to enforce IP protection and reduce the number of incidents.”

The Department of Justice has taken a stand against the IP enforcement overseer. And, in my opinion, the bill may be weighted more toward the protection of IP than to the protection of the customers who are victims of counterfeiting.

The figures cited in defending this bill are also not without controversy. I have previously argued that the $250 billion/year (in the US) estimate for addressable counterfeiting is about 150% too high. Still, $100 billion/year is no small amount (if I may use a litotes). But the same people who dislike those color laserjet yellow dots (http://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots) have an opinion on this bill as well: “In addition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation [EFF] has been outspoken about the bill, saying copyright laws often fail to distinguish between commercial counterfeiters and the average person. EFF also said the figures for lost revenue and job loss are ‘cartoonishly large.’"

My own opinion? Intellectual property owners will naturally overestimate the cost of counterfeiting, and EFF-like organizations will naturally underestimate it. Somewhere in-between is the truth. Increasing the penalties for counterfeiting-related deaths is certainly an important step forward. Incursions on privacy are (usually) a step backward.

Cheers,

Steve