Proposed Copyright Small Claims Court May Have A Bigger Impact Than The DMCA
from the watch-out-for-it dept
It's not surprising that a year-old proceeding launched by the U.S. Copyright Office, toying with the idea of creating a copyright-focused small claims court, has gone largely unnoticed. Private meetings in Dubai about the future of the internet, and copyright proposals in Germany that could change the way search engines work have been vying for people's attention around the same time.However, about a week ago, a small number of rights holders organizations, attorneys, and artists were invited by the Copyright Office for panels at Columbia & UCLA's law schools to debate the details of what a copyright small claims court should look like.
Here's some context about why these details are so important: if some of the more short-sighted special interests monopolize how these proceedings go, it could lead to a situation worse than bogus DMCA takedowns. Right now, internet users have to worry about abuses of the DMCA that lead to content takedowns; imagine adding to that a situation where it's even easier to have them bullied and brought into a real courtroom.
If this court is shaped without your input, we could be faced with a situation where it makes economic sense for media companies to sue many more average internet users over the photos they post on Facebook and Tumblr. The tens of thousands of Bittorrent filesharing lawsuits over the last two years might pale in comparison.
Even though it's a ways off from completion, a small claims system for copyright would have a bigger impact on the day-to-day of copyright law than any "reform" to copyright since the DMCA in the late 1990's, so we should pay attention.
Who wants a small claims copyright system, and why?
Some rightsholders say formal copyright lawsuits in the current system are too expensive. Evidence from the ABA IP law section shows that federal copyright trials are expensive (pdf), with cases where less than $1 million is at issue costing an average of over $200,000 in legal fees before trial, and nearly $350,000 once they've gone through to an appeal.
So the argument from some rightsholders is that it simply isn't practical to bring legitimate smaller disputes. This argument says that while attorneys fees and costs are available if you've registered your work, many smaller disputes involve unregistered works and fees and costs are unavailable..
The ABA's comments tried to give a sense of where the line is for attorneys to actually bring a federal lawsuit.
Approximately one-third of the respondents would turn away a copyright case where the likely recovery would be less than $60,000. But about two-thirds of the respondents would accept an uncomplicated case with a likely recovery of less than $60,000. Only about one-third of respondents would accept an uncomplicated case with a likely recovery of less than $30,000.In short, some rightsholders want a new forum to bring suits against small-scale defendants.
What is the practical impact of a small claims copyright court?
The organization I direct, New Media Rights, provides one-to-one legal services to all kinds of folks who would end up being both defendants and plaintiffs in the new system. Why we're participating so extensively is because we're in a unique position: we're (1) a user-oriented organization (for example, defending innocent internet-users who are wrongly implicated in filesharing cases). BUT we're also an organization for (2) independent creators: the type of people who make their livelihood by sharing their creativity online.
We see a lot of the bullying and trolling that takes place in the informal copyright system, where overreaching DMCA takedown notices and cease and desist letters are common. As many people reading this may know, bogus copyright claims are regularly misused to takedown otherwise legal content.
So we have to balance the need of independent creative people to get “justice” for their works being wholly misappropriated by bad actors, while keeping life sane for average internet users. These are some of the details that I shared with the Copyright Office to balance those interests...
How to keep a new small claims system fair?
1. Defendants need to have access to all defenses normally available to them including the fair use and DMCA safe harbor defenses. At least one misplaced comment suggested getting rid of the DMCA safe harbor all together and raising statutory damages to $650,000 (from $150,000).
2. Any small claims system will need to address current misuse of copyright law. Threats of lawsuits and settlement demands from copyright trolls are a big problem. Currently, because this abuse takes place outside the formal court system, there are few consequences for the troll. Our suggestions highlight the need to keep trolls out while allowing legitimate cases to go forward.
3. Defendants have to have adequate legal representation. Plaintiffs will have had months to prepare a complaint and consult attorneys. A small-scale defendant will have limited time and resources to figure out how to defend themselves. Small defendants without adequate representation shouldn’t simply get steamrolled or coerced into settlements by overreaching copyright owners (example: The mass filesharing lawsuits of the last two years).
Self-help systems like FLASH in Northern California, and legal assistance projects like New Media Rights in San Diego, provide help for these types of people. BUT as the Executive Director of New Media Rights, I can tell you that we don't have even 1% of the capacity to deal with and correct all of the misuses of copyright law that we see.
4. Defendants need to have access to fees and costs. Under section 505 of the Copyright Act, a court is permitted to award fees and costs to the prevailing party. Despite the Supreme Court's finding in the early 1990's in the Fogerty case that the standard is the same for plaintiffs and defendants, plaintiffs regularly get fees simply by registering while defendants have to show the plaintiff's lawsuit was in bad faith and frivolous. The result is a disincentive for defendants to challenge copyright holders, and an incentive for innocent defendants to settle. This is because even if a defendant wins in federal court, they will still likely have to pick up the tab for attorneys fees.
Why this is important and what you can do
Even though the small copyright claims discussion is speculative, making it difficult to simply be for or against it, it definitely isn't a discussion that should be ignored.
Internet users need to stay involved with the proceeding and make sure the new system is something more than a new venue for porn companies to coerce settlements out of internet subscribers. For now, the best thing we can do as internet users is raise awareness and be involved, so that by the time a full proposal is on the table at the Copyright Office, it includes safeguards that will make sure the new court provides a fair playing field.
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, dmca, small claims
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I don't see adding litigation as a solution. This just moves us one step closer to everyone being a criminal.
I believe that the unwillingness of maximalists to give and bend will result in a backlash that ends up with copyright being eliminated.
Unless the maximalists get a sudden dose of reason and start to look at solutions that don't make everyone a criminal they are doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this what we need right now?
This is just wrong on so many levels. It's an unnecessary cost to our society with little resulting benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this what we need right now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this what we need right now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this what we need right now?
The Graphic Artists Guild responded to the Copyright Office's Second Notice of Inquiry with an interesting view on defendant's rights. The Guild wants plaintiffs to have the option to waive the rights of defendants.
The Guild does not attempt to explain how a defendant forced to “comply with the rights holder's choice of court system” voluntarily agrees “to waive their Seventh Amendment right”.
The Guild goes on with another interesting view on the proper role of attorneys in their system.
Well maybe that looks fair after all: the rules on representation are facially even-handed — theoretically applying equally to both plaintiffs and defendants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this what we need right now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this what we need right now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure there are issues and proposals in the write-up, but the single phrase is a conflict of interest. The office should be doing more to correct the problems of its own reason for existence, yet this is clearly just another example of side-stepping them and throw up a more (troubling) band-aid to the problem.
The fact the 1976 changes to the law to grant copyright upon inclusion into the public domain was the biggest mistake ever made.
Go back to forcing people to register their work (which comes with a hefty fee itself) or tell them to shut the hell up and stop trying to game the public into broadening this ridiculous welfare system.
Change the law, and people will follow it if they respect it.
People will not respect this idea, if it's turned into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a reason they are called small claims courts. In a quick search I found that a majority of the US states limit the maximum amount to the four figure range - not six. There are several states which allow suits asking for amounts in the range of five figures. In addition, these courts are governed at the state level, will there be a 50 pronged effort to get the states on board or is this an attempt at another federal level court system? The whole thing smells like a fishing expedition and they want to use dynamite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Federal government has preempted the field of copyright. In short words, “preemption” means the states have no business there.
I rather suspect this “copyright small claims” court will be along the lines of Judge Judy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This may be true, but they want to call it small claims court, which is still governed by the states. Seems they have a dilemma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Believe it or not, The People's Court is not a state court! In fact, it isn't even owned by the people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh, heh. Pirates don't want any legal process at all!
Law is evolving in this area: the dinosaaurs are beginning to march and stamp out you little pirates with their big blunt feet. -- While all of Marauding Mike's notions are based on dinosaurs just sitting there and law being static. Though, just because it became easy to rip content, then upload and download it to "share" out to absolutely everyone, hasn't changed the principles of who owns content by reason of created it.
The internet is a two-way process, ya know, not all FREE for the taking: just pay for the content you want. If that causes you to consume less crap, you're better off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh, heh. Pirates don't want any legal process at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh, heh. Pirates don't want any legal process at all!
We are Legion,
We never forget,
We never forgive,
We are watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Heh, heh. Pirates don't want any legal process at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Heh, heh. Pirates don't want any legal process at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh, heh. Pirates don't want any legal process at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh, heh. Pirates don't want any legal process at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh, heh. Pirates don't want any legal process at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh, heh. Pirates don't want any legal process at all!
The laws are falling behind and loosing face with the public. The more they stomp their feet and make noise trying to garner more favor from the government, the less the public respects them and their paid-for laws. At this rate, unless you're relying on the status quo, you likely think it's all a pretty pathetic.
The internet isn't a two-way process (and in your mind that means content out, money in, but that's not two-way). It's a one-to-many process. Everyone is connected to everyone else. It's an ecosystem where everyone produces content, shares it, transforms it, and then republishes it to be shared all over again. That process repeats over many times and it proceeds much like evolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, the original article states:
I read that as angling for a suspension of the 17 U.S.C. § 411 registration requirement:
Now, in context, it could just be that the proponents merely want to get rid of § 412.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
2) get court to force ISP to reveal street address of IP addr
3) send threat letter with offer to settle out of court
4) drop suit if mark gets lawyer
5) profit
And this so called small claims court will make this cash cow all that much more streamlined - and they do not have to prove anything. They could simply pull shit out of a phone book and I doubt the DA would stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA take-down mis-use correction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA take-down mis-use correction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA take-down mis-use correction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA take-down mis-use correction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The expense of copyright
Now it's starting to make sense. The MAFIAA rejects reduced damages because the lawyers know they aren't getting a dime from the media bosses for their their expenses. That's just not how they roll. They want everyone else to do all of the work and take on all of the expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that as a “small claims court”, there won't be an Article III judge nor any right to a jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The copyright companies always claim that their evidence is rock-solid and can absolutely identify the guilty party. If they take someone to court and that person is found not guilty, not only should they have to pay the attorney's fees, but they should also have to pay the same amount to the defendant as they were seeking.
Let's say that they're seeking $300,000 in damages. They lose the case, they have to pay the defendant $300,000, plus attorney's fees.
If they're so sure of their evidence, let's see them put their money where their mouth is.
Oh wait, I forgot that this is a totally one sided system being devised to make it as cheap and easy as possible to extort money from people. It's not so much a court as getting the government to be their legal muscle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If that many people are doing it...
They haven't looked at the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If that many people are doing it...
Oh, c'mon. Look at the great job the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has done on patent law.
A special court, with Article I judges, might be just the ticket to get rid of Feltner v Columbia Pictures Television (1998).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nasty Thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nasty Thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nasty Thought
Automation is being considered.
In their comments submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office, two authors, Fritjof Haft, Professor of Law and Legal Informatics at EBS Law School in Wiesbaden, Germany, and Robert Kunstadt, Managing Attorney of the law firm R. Kunstadt, P.C., propose an automated procedure.
In their summary, they recommmend “a two-pronged approach”:
The two authors go on to flesh out their rules for “Simple Justice”, including, among other points:
I'm not quite sure how "Half-hour Trials, as on TV" is quite reconciliable with a secret tribunal (“Proceedings and rulings are private and confidential”). But perhaps American ingenuity could improve upon this proposal. If the proceedings are only shown on closed-circuit television, they won't have enough audience share to be advertising-supported. Maybe a video-on-demand solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nasty Thought
- Is this a court of law or forced binding arbitration?
"Proceedings and rulings are private and confidential"
- Meaning a gag order. What are the possible penalties for divulging details of the proceedings?
This sounds like a really bad idea ... and it is certain to violate many rights of the accused no matter which country they reside in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nasty Thought
There is little doubt that —under appropriate circumstances— an Article III court has some inherent power to punish contempts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nasty Thought
What is even more warped in their nightmare world is that the plaintiff can force the defendant into such a kangaroo court with the governments blessing. Bunch of sickos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nasty Thought
Nobody can monitor the court for conviction rate, so the MAFIAA could lose most cases and still be able to use the threat of court against people. This avoids th HADOPI problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$650,000
That would be Gear Publishing Company's response to the Second Notice of Inquiry. They recommend the $650,000 increase on p.2 of their submission. In that submission, they also tell us (p.1):
We don't want to let Bob Seger’s exclusive publisher get too misplaced now, do we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correction
Which explains why, in response to the First Notice of Inquiry, the American Society Of Media Photographers (ASMP) commented:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]