ACLU Tells Congress: Do Not Add Copyright Trolling Bill To Government Funding Bill
from the this-is-not-a-bill-to-sneak-through dept
Last week we wrote about an effort in Congress, which appeared to be succeeding, to try to sneak through a controversial (and likely unconstitutional) copyright reform bill by adding it to a must-pass government funding bill. The ACLU has now stepped into explain why this a bad idea and should not move forward:
The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of its more than three million members, supporters, and activists, writes to you today regarding recently reported efforts to include S. 1273/H.R. 2426, the CASE Act in upcoming legislation to fund the government. The CASE Act is a controversial provision that would significantly alter the enforcement of copyright law and would have the unintended consequence of undermining free expression online. Because we recognize that it is essential to fund the federal government, particularly during the ongoing public health crisis, we ask that you decline to include the CASE Act in the upcoming funding bill and instead allow that provision to proceed through regular order where Members will have an opportunity to address the significant concerns raised by the bill before it passes into law.
Many supporters of the bill insist that those of us opposing it are against the idea of helping copyright owners, but nothing is further from the truth. What we oppose is the method set up in this bill, which will enable much more copyright trolling in a manner likely to stifle free speech. As the ACLU notes:
As we have said before, we do not oppose the CASE Act’s central idea of creating a small claims process to allow copyright owners to assert infringement and be awarded damages for the harm caused. There is evidence that strongly suggests a need for such a system, as many copyright holders have argued. However, because the CASE Act could affect every person that communicates online, we believe that changes are needed to ensure adequate safeguards for due process and the protection of the freedom of speech. In particular, the bill should be amended to provide for access to meaningful judicial review, a reduction in the damages available for small claims violations, and additional safeguards to ensure the process is procedurally fair for both parties. In order for those essential changes to be made, we ask that you decline to include this bill in any must-pass government funding bill, and instead allow the CASE Act to be considered through the regular order process where Members will have the opportunity to address these concerns.
What's been most upsetting and annoying throughout the process of the debate on this bill is the utter unwillingness of the bill's supporters to engage with people who have pointed out these fundamental problems with the bill. If they actually did engage and fix the problems in the bill, it would likely gain much more support across the board. Instead, they continue to try to shove it through in this form, using sneaky processes like adding it to the government funding bill.
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: case act, congress, copyright, government funding, small claims
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Supporters
A display of bipartisanship from the leadership.
S.1273 - CASE Act of 2019 - co-sponsored by the Senate Judiciary's Chairman of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Thom Tillis from North Carolina.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gosh, appears topic is locked down hard! Trying this to start.
Yes, it is. Not even able to even "innocuous leader" in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We get it, your Paul Hansmeier senses tingled.
Get over yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I'm STILL trying.
Just to get Techdirt's Form Contract to work for an on-topic comment in civil terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, I'm STILL trying.
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can get one in, then session is blocked!
Why is that, Maz? You're so fond of "Free Speech" that want Facebook to host videos of murders! But not my little bits of text here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO, you're FOR helping copyright owners?
Of course not. This is Techdirt, PRIATE CENTRAL, which has for 20 years run every story it can find attacking copyright.
At most you're for "the idea of helping copyright owners", without any practical effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO, you're FOR helping copyright owners?
OMG! Actually had to mis-spell "priate" to get it in! Are you down to THAT silly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A moral versus practical stance is all you've ever stated.
After YEARS of "antidirt" nagging you, here is what state is your FINAL answer on copyright:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-tel l-white-house-to-focus-innovation-rather-than-ip-enforcement.shtml#c986
Yeah, criminals have "a different moral view". And Maz refuses to condemn pirates, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A moral versus practical stance is all you've ever stated.
You really need to be taking your anti-psychotic meds, buddy.
You still don't get it that Techdirt users actively are aware you're trolling every single story and are using the flag button to mark you as spam the moment you comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO, yes, you're for "the idea of helping copyright owners"...
...so long as is no practical means for them to enforce their RIGHT.
Clever word trick to insert "the idea", Maz, but I KNOW how you dodge and weave, reverse like a snake, and can never be pinned down on the topic of copyright.
If are any new readers, just search for "Mike supports copyright", back when he and his fanboys pretended. You will not find any slight support for copyright from Maz / Techdirt these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SO, yes, you're for "the idea of helping copyright owne
To emphasize when I'm now getting comments in: after about 40 tries, more than ever, suddenly like a switch was turned when mis-spelled "priate"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does Maz actually support copyright? Here's his gooey position:
Yes, that SOUNDS reasonable, but he next ADMITS:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/14473121743/global-hackathons-prepared-to-carry- forward-work-aaron-swartz.shtml#c377
He's free to change any time suits his purpose.
Maz is flexible. But LAW must be precisely specified so known in advance: therefore Masnick is actually LAWLESS on this topic, CANNOT claim to "support copyright", and is only honest in that doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyhoo, CASE is good for creative people, NOT pirates.
Oddly enough, that's it's purpose. Congress doesn't take much note of, er, "priates", NOR fall the ACLU's crap about "free speech".
We also all know that Maz does NOT "support copyright" that's just his ongoing cover to attack it.
Easily proven: can any of you fanboys even bring yourself to affirm this: "Mike supports copyright". Just copy and paste it. Bet ya can't. And of course if DO then I can point and hoot because it's SO obviously false. You can't find a single piece where Maz does anything but attack any enforcement to copyright, it's just "a moral question", NOT practical LAW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyhoo, CASE is good for creative people, NOT pirates.
You realize it's the site's own users who consistently flag you for spam the moment you comment right? Cause, y'know, your comments are hot garbage and you're batshit crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Many supporters of the bill insist that those of us opposing it are against the idea of helping copyright owners"
I wouldn't give such insistence too much weight,
If they really felt they had any legitimate arguments to support the bill they touting those merits to try to pass it not trying to force it through as a rider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'You oppose me, that means you WANT people to be robbed!'
Many supporters of the bill insist that those of us opposing it are against the idea of helping copyright owners, but nothing is further from the truth.
Ah good old projection and poisoning the well. 'If you object to me then clearly you hate creators' has been the go-to for dishonest parasites like that from the start as far as I know, a quick and easy way to deflect and avoid having to defend their arguments/claims/bills on the merits(which would be difficult as more often than not they don't have any) and instead put the other side on the defensive with the focus on them. It's a grossly dishonest tactic that's blatantly obvious, but unfortunately a very effective one because people are hesitant to call them out on their bullshit when they make use of it.
If that's the way they want to go though seems only fair to return the favor, and as such I say that anyone supporting the CASE act and similar bills are doing so because they want people to be sued, potentially into bankruptcy, for activity involving no measurable harm and that people engage in without a thought on a regular basis. Of the two strawman it would seem that 'starving and homeless because you shared a song/picture' is a hell of a lot worse than 'creators won't have an additional way to go after people for infringement'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'You oppose me, that means you WANT people to be robbed!'
"Ah good old projection and poisoning the well. 'If you object to me then clearly you hate creators' has been the go-to for dishonest parasites like that from the start as far as I know..."
And in particular for Baghdad Bob/Bobmail who has been running that crappy rhetoric ever since he got schooled on torrentfreak about how it's not the fault of Pirates that he can't translate a mailing list of some kind into cold hard cash.
We're talking about a moron who ten years or more ago had his cheap con crushed by reality, found the scapegoat called "piracy" to explain away his inability to be a Winner In Life, and now spends most of his time letting his Dunning-Kruger present his conspiracy theories to any audience not actively throwing him out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, where does members of Congress get their greatest amount of campaign contributions, aclu or elsewhere? Exactly! From elsewhere! So that's what will be given the greatest notice! It wont matter on the damage that will be done as long as the politicians get funded and the public get fucked, while aiding the entertainment industries! Lets face it, tgese industries run the country and will soon tun the internet, given that their every whim is catered for!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its very unlikely the industries soon run the internet. Contact congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's correct to an extent, however if it looks like something is going to cause enough public backlash that it might threaten their re-election chances they can(though it doesn't always work) be convinced to back down because all that 'donation' money doesn't do them much good if they aren't electable, and if they make themselves too toxic then their 'donors' are likely to start funding someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Election chances
Of course, almost all of these people just got re-elected last month. Including, for instance, Georgia's Hank Johnson. He just got re-elected last November.
Representative Johnson's donors seem delighted with the work he's doing.
“Our Hero on the Hill: Hank Johnson”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have called the House member for my district on the CASE issue.
Have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And guys... Don't leave me out here as the only one reading this blog who has made the call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am but an anonymous coward but I called too! You're not alone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I called, emailed, and then typed up a letter and mailed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]