Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Hearing of the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee - Intellectual Property Act of 2007

Statement

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

Hearing of the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee - Intellectual Property Act of 2007

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. LINDA T. SANCHEZ (D-CA): I will make a statement in about two minutes, if I may.

REP. BERMAN: Oh, you've got it.

REP. SANCHEZ: I just would like to say that the hearing we had in October I thought was a good one, focusing on international piracy and what could bring us together. I -- one of the things I note is that when we inspect less than 1 percent of the containers coming into the United States, we're not -- this bill is not going to stop the piracy that we see that infuriates us, in -- especially in China and in Russia.

There are parts of this bill that I think are important. I would like to say I'm deeply troubled by Section 104, and I would ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter signed by myself, Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Boucher, including a letter signed by 25 law professors, intellectual property law professors, expressing concern on Section 104.

I do believe, as Mr. Boucher has --

REP. BERMAN: That will be included in the record.

REP. SANCHEZ: -- thank you -- has indicated, that the statutory damages are -- would have the effect of chilling innovation and preventing economic growth, and it's a grave concern to me. There are other elements of the bill that I'm sure we can work together on, but I -- absent some modification that would -- you know, these statutory damages would provide for $1.5 million in statutory damages for a single CD, I think that's unreasonable.

And I look forward to continuing to work with my friend from California on this, and I yield back.

REP. BERMAN: I can't resist just putting out that the 104 authority is a discretionary authority. It is not a mandate.

REP. SANCHEZ: If I -- just noting, the courts have plenty of discretion right now, and this section is unnecessary. But we'll have a long dialogue on this, I am sure.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source:
Skip to top
Back to top