Congress passes, President Bush signs strict anti-piracy law
Posted by Liz Surette on October 15, 2008Pursuant to their power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress has passed the Intellectual Property Act–loathed by most consumers, loved by publishers, and praised by the CEO of the ESA.
As Gameslaw reports, relevant provisions of the statute include the creation of an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator under the Executive Branch who will coordinate the Department of Justice’s enforcement efforts, the expansion of the definition of a “work” that can be protected under the Act, and a broadening of the government’s ability to “permanently seize goods”.
The law amends the Trademark Act of 1946 by enhancing civil and criminal remedies against those found liable or guilty, and makes provisions for the reconciliation of criminal seizure procedures with intellectual property laws. A more detailed synopsis of the statute will be posted when the full, final text is made available in law reporters.
Although the Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to enact this law, a Constitutional challenge could still be raised in the future on the grounds that the statute does not use the least restrictive means of preventing piracy and enforcing intellectual property rights. Analysts of other industries the Act covers–particularly the music industry–predict an increase in legitimate sales. However, whether that is true is yet to be seen, especially in light of the flood of piracy that followed EA’s Spore fiasco.
There is no doubt that the provisions of this law are heavy-handed to a point that is unprecedented at the federal level. However, I plead with my readers to remember that on the flip-side of consumer outrage, there are hard-working, often underappreciated developers pouring their blood, sweat, and tears into these games that we so enjoy. I am by no means advocating the statute’s methods of IP protection, but please remember that Congress shall have the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts*, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”.
*It has always been my view (and the view of US Federal Courts) that video games are a legitimate art form. However, I go even farther in my ardent belief that the video game industry has given us some of the finest music, storytelling, and visual art in human history. Indeed, tying all of those elements together to create an interactive experience is a fine art in itself. My readers should know up front that my first loyalties and sympathies do not belong to the publishers, but to the developers–the individuals who draw, write, compose, program, animate, design, direct, and perform the other essential functions of the creative endeavor.
Popularity: 6% [?]
My primary gripe with this act is that it is effectively “wolf in sheep’s clothing” legislation. Going back to English common law, the purpose of copyright and trademark law was to protect the creative and artistic expressions of those who create them. The interested parties who will claim protection under this act are those who have the least amount to do with actual creativity and art. It seems very back wards to me.
Yes, but remember that for every game you purchase, an amount goes straight to the developer in royalties. It may be small potatoes compared to what the publisher gets, and I wish it were more, but that’s how developers make their money. Even though publishers stand to gain the most from the Act, I can’t ignore the benefit to developers–who I side with first and foremost. In a perfect industry, the relationship between publishers and devs would be a completely symbiotic publicity-for-product tradeoff, but unfortunately there will be economic pressure and exploitation. Even though this law makes publishers richer and therefore more powerful, developers in turn receive more money and possibly a greater degree of financial independence. Again, I’m not condoning these methods of piracy prevention, but the idea that piracy does not substantially hurt developers is ridiculous.
I doubt anyone would reasonably argue that piracy does not hurt developers, but I side with consumers first and foremost, then developers. I am sure that if we woke up tomorrow and digital distribution was magically the new standard for releasing games, empowering developers to either side-step or act as their own publishers, they would employ the same tactics and arguments for limiting consumer rights in order to maximize profits. Generally I have no object to the industry making as much money as it can, but when it punishes consumers in the name of anti-piracy I tend to object.
If the statute is well drafted and interpreted strictly by the courts, I would hope that no innocent consumers would be punished. I should think that anti-piracy laws punish piracy, not lawful purchases. If that isn’t true, then the statute should be void for vagueness or overbreadth. Only time will tell…
Add A Comment