Last week, the Senate introduced the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008.

Last week, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced the “Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008,” a bill that proposes a number of alarming changes to copyright law. The bill is the Senate’s gift to big content owners, creating new and powerful tools — many of which will be paid for by your tax dollars — for the entertainment industry to go after infringers. But it doesn’t offer a lick of protection for legitimate innovators and technology users that may be buried by the copyright juggernaut.

One of the bill’s most disturbing changes would give the Attorney General new powers to sue individuals on behalf of rightsholders like the MPAA and the RIAA. Bill proponents claim that these new powers, which would allow the AG to bring “milder” civil as well as criminal actions, are necessary because some offenses don’t rise to the level of criminal conduct. This justification just doesn’t make sense. If it’s a low-level offense, why should our top cops pursue it? Traditionally, those types of offenses can and will be pursued by the parties who believe they have actually been harmed, namely the copyright owners. The real “problem” may be that some so-called “offenses” can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard for any crime. This new provision would allow the AG to sidestep that high burden of proof — a burden that gives the average citizen an important measure of protection from the overwhelming power of the government.

• EFF