A couple of highlights from this new bill:

SEC. 506a. CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 506.

(a) In General- In lieu of a criminal action under section 506, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who engages in conduct constituting an offense under section 506. Upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to a civil penalty under section 504 which shall be in an amount equal to the amount which would be awarded under section 3663(a)(1)(B) of title 18 and restitution to the copyright owner aggrieved by the conduct.

(b) Other Remedies-

(1) IN GENERAL- Imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, injunctive, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.`(2) OFFSET- Any restitution received by a copyright owner as a result of a civil action brought under this section shall be offset against any award of damages in a subsequent copyright infringement civil action by that copyright owner for the conduct that gave rise to the civil action brought under this section.’.

and

SEC. 401. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR.

(a) Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator- The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (in this title referred to as the `IPEC’) to serve within the Executive Office of the President. As an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate, any nomination of the IPEC submitted to the Senate for confirmation, and referred to a committee, shall be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

(b) Duties of IPEC-

(1) IN GENERAL- The IPEC shall–

(A) chair the interagency intellectual property enforcement advisory committee established under subsection (b)(3)(A);

(B) coordinate the development of the Joint Strategic Plan against counterfeiting and piracy by the advisory committee under section 403;

(C) assist in the implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan by the departments and agencies listed in subsection (b)(3)(A);

(D) report directly to the President and Congress regarding domestic and international intellectual property enforcement programs;

(E) report to Congress, as provided in section 404, on the implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan, and make recommendations to Congress for improvements in Federal intellectual property enforcement efforts; and

(F) carry out such other functions as the President may direct.

Yes, this bill designates a “copyright czar” that reports to the President and Congress, and enhances civil penalties available in the U.S. Copyright Act. The full text of the bill can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.3325:

Presumably the Senators in favor of this bill have been persuaded to take a greater role in copyright enforcement and to use taxpayer money to do so (just see section 503 that appropriates an additional $10,000,000 per year to both the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Attorney General of the Department of Justice).

If you think our Senators should be focused on the real issues in our country, and not pandering to hollywood, publishing and recording industries, email your senator and tell them what you think: http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

Now we have a case in California where the state made a similar claim regarding the presentation of their legal code. Local resident and activist Carl Malamud is scanning and posting online copies of federal, state and county codes, which is copyright infringement according to the state. Malamud’s next step is to take his case to court with the hopes of setting a precedent that would require state, federal, and county law to be free from copyright restrictions.

In reviewing Malamud’s website http://public.resource.org, I found that he’s actually digitizing and uploading the penal code as published by Lexis Nexis. While I think that Lexis Nexis has a strong case to argue that Malamud is infringing their copyright, I do hope that the courts will realize that it’s a complete disservice to the public that state and federal law is not freely viewable, searchable, downloadable, printable, and mashable online.