According to Ars Technica, the House Judiciary Committee has unanimously passed a controversial bill known as the Pro-IP bill:

The House Judiciary Committee has unanimously approved the Pro-IP Act, a legislative proposal which aims to impose stronger penalties for copyright infringement. The approval is no surprise, since the bill's chief sponsor is committee chairman Rep. John Conyers.

The bill would create a new position for a federal copyright enforcement czar, establish a new copyright enforcement division within the Department of Justice, and would also permit law enforcement agents to seize property from perpetrators of copyright infringement.

You can read the full text of the bill, including its legislative history at GovTrack.  I blogged about this bill when it was first introduced in December.  As I reported earlier, the most fundamentally frightening aspect is the expansion of civil asset forfeiture laws being introduced with this bill:

The downright scary parts of the bill are the portions which grant the government civil asset forfeiture rights on "Any property used, or intended to be used, to commit or facilitate the commission of a violation of section 506(a) of title 17 that is owned or predominantly controlled by the violator or by a person conspiring with or aiding and abetting the violator in committing the violation."  In most cases of copyright violation, this would be your computer, and any computer equipment you own.  Though given the glee with which agencies like to use civil asset forfeiture, they might consider your house as property that is used to commit a violation of this law as well.

What's important to note here is that civil asset forfeiture does not require you to be found guilty of any crime.  Your property is actually taken to court, and not you.  In fact, you could be not guilty in a criminal trial, and your property can still be taken in a civil trial.  There is no presumption of innocence either.  In reality, it is a license by which the government is allowed to take your property at will.  You can read a good primer on civil asset forfeiture here.

I specifically call out Jim Sensenbrenner in this post because he used to be the chairman of this committee, and not only still sits on this committee, but also sits on the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.  He voted for this bill, and he is my representative.  It should also be noted that Sensenbrenner has received large donations from different sources who have a direct interest in this expansion of police power in this area of law.  If we go back to the 2006 election (when he still chaired that committee), he received money from companies such as Broadcast Music Inc., Clear Channel, Comcast, DirectTV, MPAA, Sony, Time Warner, Universal Music, Viacom and Walt Disney totally more than $54,000.  So far for the 2008 election cycle, he's only received a total of $7,000 from Comcast, Time Warner, Walt Disney and the Nat'l Accoc. of Broadcasters.  That just goes to show you how much of a difference losing the majority in Congress made to Republicans.  His top contributor so far this year has also been a company called Intellectual Ventures, which donated more than $11,000 so far this year on it's own.  By it's website, they are a company which specializes in different aspects of intellectual property, and would definitely benefit from this law.  And if you look at the top individual contributors from 2006, you'll see that many of his top contributors were also heavily invested in intellectual property law.

The consequences of this law are even more troubling once you take into account the shady tactics used by groups like the RIAA and MPAA to find and supposedly "prosecute" intellectual property scofflaws, and that they often times find the wrong people.  Combine that with the fact that civil asset forfeiture doesn't require a guilty finding in a court room, and you have a recipe for abuse.

I call on Jim Sensenbrenner to immediately work to significantly change or abolish this bill before it moves further along.