Internal Fight Within The ABA Over Position On SOPA
from the legal-food-fight dept
We've noted in the past that there's been a bit of a debate within the American Bar Association concerning the position it should take on SOPA/PROTECT-IP. It seems that the fight is heating up, and different kinds of lawyers are fighting about it. The Trademark Legislation Committee agreed to and adopted (by a pretty wide margin) a resolution saying that SOPA needed significant changes to prevent abuse. A key change? That the private right of action should be filed "under penalty of perjury," rather than the toothless sanctions for those who file bogus takedowns. This seems like a reasonable suggestion to prevent abuse, and the Committee agreed.But... then the copyright lawyers flipped out. Despite this and other suggestions already being agreed to, the copyright folks proposed a bunch of changes -- including deleting the "penalty of perjury" inclusion. Another change? The trademark lawyers had agreed that the private right of action definition of "dedicated to theft of US property" should be much more limited, adding significant qualifiers to what is covered to deal with the vagueness of the definition. The copyright lawyers want that deleted as well.
Further on that point, the letter the trademark lawyers prepared highlighted serious concerns about how vague the definition of "dedicated to theft of US property" is, and pointed out how it has significant inconsistencies that "need to be addressed." The copyright lawyers? Apparently they don't want to address the inconsistencies and want the whole complaint about the language dumped. Specifically, here was the recommendation that had been approved:
As worded, the definition of web sites that are “Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property,” which forms the basis of liability pursuant to this bill, is vague and requires some clarification. Specifically, § 103(a)(1)(B)(i) provides three different ways in which a U.S. directed site could have exposure to action under this bill: 1) if it is “primarily designed or operated for the purpose of . . . offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates” a violation of 17 U.S.C. § § 501 or 1201, or counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) or 18 U.S.C. § 2320; 2) if it “has only limited purpose or use other than . . . offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates” the same violations; or 3) if it “is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates” the same violations.The copyright lawyers? Want that whole section left out. Basically, it looks like anything that highlights the serious problems of SOPA should be taken out, according to the copyright lawyers. The stuff left in is minor and inconsequential.
Option three in this series does not require a showing that the marketing efforts have a primary purpose of, or have a limited purpose other than, infringing these intellectual property rights. We believe this inconsistency needs to be addressed to reduce possibility of abuse that could result in the effective shut down (by disabling a revenue stream) of an otherwise legitimate web site that offered a single product later determined to be a counterfeit.
In order to effectuate this purpose, option three in the series identified above should be modified to reflect a narrow interpretation of the definition of “Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, lawyers, perjury, pipa, private right of action, protect ip, sopa
Companies: aba
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
SOPA disappears in a puff of logic
Well, as we all know, copyright infringement isn't theft, so none of this applies to online piracy of digital goods. Problem solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA disappears in a puff of logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA disappears in a puff of logic
When I think of our congress, this is the visual I get.......
Hedley Lamarr: Meeting adjourned. Oh, I am sorry, sir, I didn't mean to overstep my bounds. You say that.
Governor William J. Le Petomane: What?
Hedley Lamarr: "Meeting is adjourned".
Governor William J. Le Petomane: It is?
Hedley Lamarr: No, you *say* that, Governor.
Governor William J. Le Petomane: What?
Hedley Lamarr: "Meeting is adjourned".
Governor William J. Le Petomane: It is?
Hedley Lamarr: [sighs, then gives the governor a paddleball] Here, sir, play with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tremix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just end it already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just end it already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just end it already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course there is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course there is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since when do we care what lawyers think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should just enjoy their Mexican pastry ... SOPA-PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arr, matey, Laws be good for Lawyers!
This does make the copyright lawyers look like they want to appear as two-faced shysters, but really, that's their choice, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arr, matey, Laws be good for Lawyers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]