Congress (Once Again) Sells Out To Hollywood: Sneaks CASE Act And Felony Streaming Bill Into Government Funding Omnibus

from the but-why? dept

As we warned about earlier this month, it appears that Congress has in fact put two very controversial copyright provisions into the government funding "omnibus" bill that will be voted on later today. As you may have heard, last night Congress worked out a "deal" on both a $900 billion Covid relief/stimulus package and the giant $1.4 trillion omnibus government funding bill, which is being voted on today. There had been concerns raised all month about how -- under pressure from Hollywood -- Congress might try to sneak two dangerous copyright provisions and one trademark provision into the omnibus.

Since the "deal" was announced last night, people have been scrambling to find out what's actually in the fucking bill which is being voted on shortly. It's just come out that, indeed, all three controversial copyright and trademark provisions are in the bill. The CASE Act will supercharge copyright trolling exactly at a time when we need to fix the law to have less trolling. And the felony streaming bill (which was only just revealed last week with no debate or discussion, includes provisions that are so confusing and vague no one is sure if it makes sites like Twitch into felons.

The fact that these are getting added to the must pass government funding bill is just bad government. And Congressional leadership should hear about this.

The full omnibus bill is over 3,000 pages long, so you can search through it for your favorite bit of nonsense. Felony streaming is on page 72. The CASE Act starts on page 77.

There's a reason that copyright is generally controversial. Small changes can not only have a massive impact, that impact can be on the public's ability to express themselves. The idea that two such bills should be jammed through in this manner is a total and complete travesty. People should be mad about this and should hold the Congressional leadership of both parties responsible. This is not good governance. This is sucking up to Hollywood at the expense of the public.

Filed Under: case act, congress, copyright, felony streaming, free speech, omnibus, small claims, thom tillis

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.

Filed Under: case act, congress, copyright, government funding, small claims
Companies: aclu

Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill

from the why? dept

I know everyone is focused on Trump's attempt to take away Section 230 in the NDAA, but an equally important issue is that members of Congress have been trying to do Hollywood's bidding and sneak massive copyright reform into a must-pass government appropriations bill. The CASE Act has many problems that we've discussed, including the fact that it would unleash a wave of copyright trolling for people accidentally or innocently sharing works they don't realize are covered by copyright. There are also significant Constitutional problems with it, in that it routes around the Title III courts by handing disputes about private rights to the executive branch. That's not allowed.

But rather than actually discussing and debating those issues, and fixing the bill to make sure it is constitutional and protects the public, we've heard from three different sources that Nancy Pelosi has given the go-ahead in the House to include the CASE Act in the spending bill. As we said earlier this week, if you're trying to ram through a bill by adding them to an appropriations bill, it's because you know it has problems and will cause major issues and you just don't care because the politics of pleasing donors is too important. Hollywood has been screaming for this bill, and Pelosi has agreed to put it in.

If you're a constituent of Pelosi, I would highly recommend reaching out to her office and making it clear that you absolutely oppose any effort to attach the CASE Act to any appropriations bill. To ignore the many concerns that have been raised about the bill and what it will do to people across the country (especially in the middle of a pandemic) is a travesty. There is no need to pass this bill now, and there is certainly no need to do it in this way. Even if you're not a Pelosi constituent, it's worth reaching out to your Congressional Representatives. The good folks over at EFF have a handy dandy form under the accurate headline: "Don't let a quasi-court bankrupt internet users."

Many people have raised thoughtful critiques of the CASE Act, and there are many suggestions out there for how the bill can be fixed. To date, Congress has ignored those fixes. This is a bill that is highly controversial and should not be put into law through a sneaky, underhanded move like this. Make sure that Congress understands this.

Filed Under: appropriations, case act, christmas tree, congress, copyright, copyright office, copyright trolls, hollywood, nancy pelosi, small claims

Senators Wyden And Paul Put A Hold On Dangerous CASE Act; Will Propose Alternative

from the no-more-copyright-trolls dept

Last week we noted that the House (overwhelmingly) voted in favor of the CASE Act, which is presented as a "small claims court" for copyright issues, but which has significant Constitutional issues, and would almost certainly lead to an uptick in copyright trolling activity. As we noted, the bill still needed to go to the Senate, and it appears that this is (at least for now) being blocked by Senators Ron Wyden and Rand Paul who have put a hold on the bill, and will introduce an alternative approach.

Sen. Ron Wyden... is crafting alternative legislation to a bill that overwhelmingly passed the House and would create a voluntary small claims board within the Copyright Office... a Wyden aide told us. He and frequent partner here Sen. Rand Paul... recently placed holds on the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (Case) Act... according to aides.

Wyden notes that the concept of enabling more access to copyright holders to an enforcement/remedy makes sense, but he has problems with the nature of the CASE Act:

Wyden says he agrees small copyright owners "are less likely" to reap the full benefits of the copyright system than major corporations like Disney or Sony. But he said the bill would "create an extrajudicial, virtually unappealable tribunal that could impose statutory damages of $30,000 on an individual who posts a couple of memes on social media, even if the claimant sustained little or no economic harm." The threat of litigation could stifle fair copyright use and free expression and enable copyright troll harassment, he said.

From that, it sounds like Wyden is working on some sort of compromise version that deals with the problems (including the fact that it's probably unconstitutional) and seeking a better approach for setting up a form of a small claims court for copyright violations. He did this last year with the Music Modernization Act as well, taking a really, really bad bill, and turning it into something that was actually okay (not great, mind you, but was a general improvement -- and one that got more or less everyone on board). Hopefully this new bill will do the same.

Unfortunately, it looks like those who have already decided the unconstitutional pro-copyright trolling version is the approach to take don't really want to deal with Wyden and Paul seeking a better approach:

Bill sponsor Sen. John Kennedy... told us of "two headaches" in the Senate Thursday. "We're working on it. I'm going to make them an offer they can't refuse," he said, declining to name names.

Hey, Senator John Kennedy, did you license that quote from whoever holds the copyright on The Godfather? Or are you ready to pay up to $30,000 for it?

Either way, that quote is fucked up. Wyden and Paul are seeking to make sure the bill is (1) Constitutional and (2) won't destroy lives. And Senator Kennedy thinks that's deserving of a Godfather-style threat? What is wrong with him?

Filed Under: case act, copyright, john kennedy, rand paul, ron wyden, senate, small claims

House Overwhelmingly Votes To Empower Copyright Trolls And To Bankrupt Americans For Sharing Photos

from the sad dept

Perhaps not a surprise, but Congress did what Congress does and voted overwhelmingly to approve the CASE Act, which is better described as the "we need more copyright trolling" act, and which is very likely unconstitutional. Only 6 Reps voted against the bill, with 410 voting for it (15 didn't vote -- including, Doug Collins who infamously laughed that anyone might be inconvenienced by a "small" $30,000 fine). I will say kudos to the six reps who voted against it: Amash, Davidson, Gianforte, Kelly, Massie, and Norman. Frankly, the most surprising "yes" vote here was Rep. Lofgren, who historically has been great on copyright (and other issues). I'm surprised to see her on the wrong side of this bill and helping to enable trolling like this.

Rep. Hakeen Jeffries, who was the sponsor of the bill -- and who (coincidentally, I'm sure) offered lobbyists the chance to join him at the recording industry's biggest party for just a $5,000 contribution -- made a bunch of utter nonsense statements in support of the bill:

“There is no gun that is being held to anyone’s head, because the small claims court like tribunal is voluntary in nature,” Jeffries told The Verge. “Any argument made to the contrary, represents a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what’s at stake as part of the effort to do away with the content copyright laws that have been part of the fabric of our democracy since the founding of the Republic and in fact the Constitution.”

“The internet doesn’t change the Constitution,” Jeffries continued.

Sure. The internet doesn't change the Constitution. But Congress sure has gone a looooooooong way in changing copyright law, away from its Constitutional roots, to the point that it is almost unrecognizable. Let's remember that the Constitution only provides for copyright law if it is used to "promote the progress of science," which at the time it was written meant "learning and education." What about the CASE Act promotes education? Can Jeffries answer that?

Also, the Constitution promised us that copyright should only be for "limited times." Yet, Congress has extended copyright over and over and over again such that no one can honestly claim that it matches up with the initial understanding under the Constitution.

So, sure, if you're going to cite the Constitution as the reason for your new copyright law, I'm going to point out that, as originally interpreted in the very first Copyright Act, it was believed that the Constitution only provided for 14 years of protection for "maps, books, and charts." What we have today is kinda different, don't you think? Congress has made a mockery of the Constitutional concept of copyright. Rather than 14 years, it's "life plus another 70 years." Instead of "maps, books, and charts" it's literally every newly created work. Instead of only applying to things that are registered, it now applies to everything. Instead of applying almost entirely to commercial operations, it applies to everyday sharing. If you're going to cite the constitution for favoring a massive expansion of copyright trolling, you might want to at least acknowledge how unlike the original concept of copyright the law has become today. Or did the lobbyists paying $5,000 a pop to party with you at the Grammies forget to tell you that part?

The bill still needs to go to the Senate, but given the overwhelming vote in the House, it's not encouraging. The only bright side is that we'll have plenty of new stories to cover as this law gets widely abused by trolls.

Filed Under: case act, congress, copyright, copyright office, copyright trolling, hakeem jeffries, hosue, jerry nadler, small claims

Congress Looks To Rush Through Unconstitutional Pro-Copyright Trolls Bill, Despite Promising To Explore Alternatives

from the because-of-course dept

We've written a bunch about the CASE Act, which Congress (misleadingly) has referred to as a sort of "small claims court" for copyright claims. Supporters say that this is needed because actually going to federal court, where copyright claims are normally heard, is too expensive for smaller copyright holders. There are multiple problems with this, starting with the fact that an entire industry of copyright trolling firms has been built up around "helping" smaller copyright holders demand payment from anyone who uses their works, and the courts are already flooded with such cases (many of which are already dubious). Second, the CASE Act is not actually about "small claims" nor is it a "court." The process it can create -- a tribunal within the Copyright Office -- can order accused infringers to pay up to $30,000, which is not very small at all. Yet, Congress is so out of touch with the average American citizen that one member, Rep. Doug Collins, literally laughed about how $30,000 was such a "small claim."

Unfortunately, not everyone is like Doug Collins with multiple real estate holdings and a teacher's pension, and can afford a $30,000 fine for merely posting an image you like on social media.

Part of the insanity of the CASE Act is Congress's complete unwillingness to recognize that in making copyright trolling easier, we are guaranteed to see a significant increase in copyright trolling shakedowns. They act as if that won't happen -- which is quite incredible.

But, even worse, is the process behind all of this. As well-respected copyright expert Pam Samuelson explained, the CASE Act is likely unconstitutional, because it's fairly well established that the executive branch (Article 1) cannot route around the judicial branch (Article III) by setting up its own tribunals to handle disputes involving "private rights." While the courts have upheld other tribunals, including the important PTAB patent review tribunal, that's an entirely different matter. The PTAB is analyzing whether or not a patent was properly granted by the Patent Office, not whether or not there is infringement.

The tribunal established by the CASE Act, on the other hand, would be adjudicating questions of infringement, which is clearly an Article III issue.

Incredibly, with so many problems with the bill and so many concerns about the constitutionality of it, you'd think that Congress would be interested in exploring a more careful approach or in investigating the potential consequences of the bill. You'd be wrong:

While there was a hearing held at the end of the 115th Congress on September 27, 2018, there was no hearing in the 116th Congress. Most of the House Judiciary Committee has changed due to retirements and a new democratic majority in the House. Additionally, none of the numerous public interest groups or constitutional scholars that have issues with the legislation were invited to testify. Even so, with almost no notice, the bill was marked up late in the evening in the House Judiciary Committee on September 10, 2019, when Members were tired or simply leaving. Furthermore, the CASE Act was added to the markup after a marathon session on several highly controversial firearms bills. Fortunately, multiple Members raised concerns and were promised by the sponsors that amendments would be considered before bringing the legislation to the floor. Unfortunately, there has been no opportunity to amend the bill. The manager's amendment is nearly identical to the original bill.

Yup. The original bill, which faced no hearings in the current Congress, and which the leadership has blocked any ability to fix or amend, is up for a vote tomorrow. It's time to call your Congressional Reps right now and tell them what you think of the CASE Act and the sorts of copyright trolling it will enable. As EFF explains:

The new tribunals will receive complaints from rightsholders (anyone that has taken a photo, video, or written something) and will issue a “notice” to the party being sued.

We don’t actually know what this notice will look like. It could be an email, a text message, a phone call with voice mail, or a letter in the mail. Once the notice goes out, the targeted user has to respond within a tight deadline. Fail to respond in time means you’ll automatically lose, and are on the hook for $30,000. That’s why EFF is concerned that this law will easily be abused by copyright trolls. The trolls will cast a wide net, in hopes of catching Internet users unaware. Corporations with lawyers will be able to avoid all this, because they’ll have paid employees in charge of opting out of the CASE Act. But regular Americans with kids, jobs, and other real-life obligations could easily miss those notices, and lose out.

The CASE Act creates a massive, incredibly detrimental, change to copyright law that will enable massive amounts of trolling, and huge fines for ordinary people doing ordinary things online, like sharing photos on social media. That Congress is rushing this through, ignoring all the concerns, is a travesty and should not be allowed.

Filed Under: $30000, case act, copyright, copyright trolling, doug colling, sharing, small claims, social media

House Joins The Senate In Moving Forward On Plan To Massively Increase Copyright Trolling

from the this-is-bad dept

For quite some time now we've been talking about why the CASE Act, which sets up a special copyright "court" with lower barriers to entry for copyright holders, is such a bad idea. There are all sorts of problems with it, starting with the fact that we already have a massive copyright trolling problem, and the CASE Act is deliberately designed to make it worse. While supporters like to pretend that the CASE Act is the equivalent of a "small claims" court, it actually can lead to damages awards up to $30,000, which is way higher than a standard small claims court.

That said, as with so many copyright bills before it, Congress ignores all the problems associated with the CASE Act, because a bunch of vested interests pretend that there's some real problems solved by this law. So, once again, the bill has moved forward, this time with the House passing the bill out of the Judiciary Committee, meaning that it can go to a full vote on the floor. The end result here would be really dangerous for free speech online, but no one in Congress seems to care about it. Yet.

EFF is asking people to contact their elected officials in Congress to let them know that theyshould not massively expand copyright in this manner, which will only lead to that much more extortion and shakedowns, while creating even more chilling effects for free expression online.

Filed Under: case act, congress, copyright, copyright trolling, small claims

The CASE Act: The Road To Copyright Trolling Is Paved With Good Intentions

from the this-will-be-bad dept

We've written a few times in the past about the serious problems with the CASE Act, a bill that will create a thriving industry of copyright trolling and shakedowns. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the CASE Act out of Committee, meaning that it could go to the floor for a full vote. Stan Adams, from CDT, has written a detailed, and thoughtful critique, noting that even if there are good intentions behind the CASE Act, it has many, many problems. We're reposting it here, under CDT's CC-BY license.

Sometimes ideas based in good intentions are so poorly thought out that they would actually make things worse. This seems to be especially prevalent in the copyright world of late (I'm looking at you, Articles 15 and 17 of the EU Copyright Directive), but the most recent example is the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019 (CASE Act). This bill intends to give photographers and small businesses a more streamlined way to enforce their rights with respect to online infringements by reducing the costs and formalities associated with bringing infringement claims in federal court. Pursuing infringement claims can be expensive and time-consuming, so this may sound like a good thing, especially for rightsholders with limited resources. It is not.

The CASE Act would establish a quasi-judicial body within the Copyright Office (part of the legislative branch) empowered to hear a limited set of claims, make "determinations" about whether those claims are valid, and assign "limited" damages. The bill structures the process so that it is "voluntary" and lowers the barriers to filing claims so that plaintiffs can more easily defend their rights. Without the "quotes", this description might sound like a reasonable approach, but that's because we haven't talked about the details. Let's start at the top.

The bill would establish a Copyright Claims Board (CCB) in the Copyright Office. This would not be a court and would be entirely separated from the court system. The only option to appeal any of the CCB's determinations, based on the CCB's legal interpretation, would be to ask the Register of Copyrights to review the decision. It would be theoretically possible to ask a federal court to review the determination, but only on the grounds that the CCB's determination was "issued as a result of fraud, corruption, misrepresentation, or other misconduct" or if the CCB exceeded its authority. So if you disagree with the CCB's legal interpretation, or even its competence to make a decision, you are out of luck. This raises red flags about potential due process and separation of powers problems under the Constitution.

The "small claims" part of the bill is also troubling, in that the CCB can award damages up to $30,000 per proceeding. This amount is only considered small in the context of copyright statutory damages, which range between $750-30,000 per work infringed, unless the infringement was willful, in which case, damages can be $150,000 per work. The $30K cap is a 2x-10x multiple of the maximum awards for small claims courts in 49 of 50 states. (Side note: what's going on, Tennessee?) So losing a single small-claims action before the CCB could be a financial disaster for many people, potentially for nothing more than uploading a few pictures to your blog.

You may be thinking, "I won't infringe copyright, I'll just make sure not to use any protected works." Here's why that will not be as easy as you might think. First, copyright is automatic. This means that when someone snaps a new photo, they immediately hold the rights to it. If you found a photo or other work that you wanted to use, you would need to get permission from the rightsholder. In some cases, determining who to ask is relatively easy. You may know the photographer or there may be clues indicating who likely owns the rights, such as watermarks or attribution information (photo courtesy of x). However, the only sure way to identify the rightsholder for any given work is to check with the Copyright Office to see who registered the work.

Even though the Supreme Court recently ruled that the registration process must be completed (either the Copyright Office granted or denied the application for registration) before filing infringement claims, registration is not required to bring an action under the CASE Act. This leaves everyone (other than the original author/photographer) with no guaranteed way to determine who holds the rights to unregistered works. Even if you identified someone as a potential rightsholder, it could be difficult or impossible to verify their claim of ownership without the official recognition by the Copyright Office. So even if you are acting in good faith and attempt to obtain permission before using a work, you may not be able to do so and there is no guarantee that you will have obtained permission from the correct party, leaving you exposed to claims via the CASE Act.

For example, you see an image (perhaps a vacation photo) on a friend's social media page and ask their permission to share it with your network. They agree and you share, not realizing that your friend copied that image from somewhere else, perhaps a travel company website. Your friend did not have the rights to that photo, and you made and distributed an unauthorized copy, exposing you to the possibility of an infringement claim from the actual photographer. Sharing that single photo could cost you $7500.

So, to recap, it may be impossible to obtain the correct permissions to use a work, and using a work with or without permission (relying on the fair use doctrine) may leave you exposed to claims up to $30,000, which will be determined by a panel of non-judges, whose decision you will have almost no way to appeal. Once their decision is final, you are also barred from relitigating your loss in federal court (unless you can prove fraud, etc). You may remember that this process is "voluntary." Let's talk about what that means in reality.

The process created in the CASE Act allows defendants to opt-out of the process. Specifically, defendants are given 60 days from when they are notified of the claim to tell the CCB that they do not wish to be subject to the procedure. (This is how the bill's drafters hope to skirt around all the constitutional issues—by getting people to voluntarily give up their due process rights and willingly accept the legal determinations of a non-judicial body.) So it's easy, right? Simply opt-out.

Yes, for many would-be defendants, especially the more legally sophisticated ones like large internet companies, opting out of each claim brought against them is not likely to be difficult, even if it is time and resource intensive. However, think about what you might do if you received an envelope claiming to be from a governmental body you have never heard of and asserting that you are potentially liable for infringing copyright. Many would simply ignore it or simply not understand the significance or the potential consequences. Others might perceive this notification as a form of phishing or a potential scam. 60 days elapse and you are now subject to the determinations of the CCB. The next letter you receive may be correspondence from a law firm (on behalf of the claimant) offering you a settlement deal that lets you buy your way out of the legal fight and the possibility of a $30,000 liability. Now what should you do: settle or try to defend yourself at the risk of a higher liability amount?

This litigation model is often called "trolling" and the CASE Act sets up a process that serves that model well. Sure, the process is voluntary, which means that only the least legally savvy people will be defendants. Yes, the statutory damages are reduced (compared to those available through federal courts), but they are still plenty high enough to push defendants toward settlement, especially given the limited options for appeal.

Despite its good intentions, the CASE Act is a legal disaster waiting to happen.

Filed Under: case act, copyright, copyright trolling, good intentions, small claims

Congress Moving Forward With Copyright-For-Censorship 'Small Claims' Act

from the this-is-a-bad-idea dept

For a while now, we've been explaining why a plan to create a copyright "small claims" process would be a disaster for free speech and a boon to copyright trolling. Unfortunately, it appears that the latest bill proposing this awful idea has a real chance to move forward. EFF has put up an action page urging people to contact their elected officials and ask them not to approve the CASE Act.

As EFF's Ernest Falcon details in the latest blog post there are so many reasons why this is a bad idea. Despite all the claims that this is just about "small claims" and therefore can't be used for trolling/shakedowns, this shows just how insanely out of touch lawmakers are with most Americans. A $15,000 award would bankrupt plenty of people:

Proponents of the legislation argue that the bill’s cap on statutory damages in a new “small claims” tribunal will protect accused infringers. But the limits imposed by the CASE Act of $15,000 per work are far higher than the damages caps in most state small claims courts—and they don’t require any proof of harm or illicit profit. The Register of Copyrights would be free to raise that cap at any time. And the CASE Act would also remove a vital rule that protects Internet users – the registration precondition on statutory damages.

[....]

For many Americans, where the median income is $57,652 per year, this $7,500 price tag for what has become regular Internet behavior would result in life-altering lawsuits from copyright trolls that will exploit this new law. That is what happens when you eliminate the processes that tend to ensure only a truly motivated copyright holder can obtain statutory damages.

I cut out the paragraph in the middle because there's a separate point around that. It explains how this new act would remove the current requirement that a work be registered with the Copyright Office before the copyright holder could sue. This would open up a vast trove of potential infringements. And just think of all the copyright trolling operations that will swoop in and promise anyone posting random photos to social media that they can go out and collect "free money" for them:

Today, someone who is going to sue a person for copyright infringement has to register their work with the Copyright Office before the infringement began, or within three months of first publication, in order to be entitled to statutory damages. Without a timely registration, violating someone’s copyright would only put an infringer on the hook for what the violation actually cost the copyright holder (called “actual damages”), or the infringer’s profits. This is a key protection for the public because copyright is ubiquitous: it automatically covers nearly every creative work from the moment it’s set down in tangible form. But not every scribble, snapshot, or notepad is eligible for statutory damages—only the ones that U.S. authors make a small effort to protect up front by filing for registration. But if Congress passes this bill, the timely registration requirement will no longer be a requirement for no-proof statutory damages of up to $7,500 per work. In other words, nearly every photo, video, or bit of text on the Internet can suddenly carry a $7,500 price tag if uploaded, downloaded, or shared even if the actual harm from that copying is nil.

Related to this is how much more massively this bill will allow censorship-by-copyright. This is already a problem under the notice-and-takedown system of the DMCA's Section 512. But the CASE Act will make this much, much worse:

Another major problem with the CASE Act is how it transforms a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Notice into a long-term censorship tool. Under current law, if a copyright holder submits a takedown notice to an online platform alleging that your post infringed their copyright, you have a right to file a counter-notice if you disagree. There are many times when false takedown claims occur on the Internet and perfectly lawful speech is suppressed, and counter-notices are an important, though flawed, check on abuse. But the CASE Act would allow a party that filed a takedown notice to also bring a claim with the new “small claims” tribunal. When they do so, the Internet platform doesn’t have to honor the counter-notice by putting the posted material back online within 14 days. Already, some of the worst abuses of the DMCA occur with time-sensitive material, as even a false infringement notice can effectively censor that material for up to two weeks during a newsworthy event, for example. The CASE Act would allow unscrupulous filers to extend that period by months, for a small filing fee.

And that doesn't even get into the due process concerns:

This bill creates a situation where Internet users could easily be on the hook for multiple $5,000 copyright infringement judgments without many of the traditional legal safeguards or rights of appeal our justice system provides.

The legislation would allow the Copyright Office to create a “determination” process for claims seeking up to $5,000 in damages:

Regulations For Smaller Claims.—The Register of Copyrights shall establish regulations to provide for the consideration and determination, by at least one Copyright Claims Officer, of any claim under this chapter in which total damages sought do not exceed $5,000 (exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs). A determination issued under this subsection shall have the same effect as a determination issued by the entire Copyright Claims Board.

This could be read as permission for the Copyright Office to dispense with even the meager procedural protections provided elsewhere in the bill when a rightsholder asks for $5000 or less. In essence, what this means is any Internet user who uploads a copyrighted work could find themselves subject to a largely unappealable $5,000 penalty without anything resembling a trial or evidentiary hearing. Ever share a meme, share a photo that isn’t yours, or download a photo you didn’t create? Under this legislation, you could easily find yourself stuck with a $5,000 judgment debt following the most trivial nod towards due process.

There are so many problems with this legislation it's truly disturbing that it appears to have some momentum. The idea that anyone adequately informed on the state of copyright law today can look at it and think there's too little litigation is preposterous. But, that's where we are.

Filed Under: case act, copyright, free speech, small claims

Why Is Congress Moving Forward With Its Plan To Encourage Copyright Trolling?

from the shameful dept

You would be hard pressed to think what the world needs is more copyright lawsuits. As we've discussed for years now, the US is already inundated with copyright lawsuits, many (perhaps most) of them filed by so-called "copyright trolls" who are seeking to shakedown recipients with "settlement" demands. A competent Congress would respond by looking at this abuse of the court system for extortionate purposes and maybe make it less inclined to abuse.

But not this Congress.

Instead, it has decided to bring back a truly awful idea: a special copyright trolling court, which it likes to say is the equivalent of a "small claims court" for copyright. The latest version of the CASE (Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Act of 2019) in the House and the Senate was introduced recently, and is getting lots of love from all the usual sources.

We should note, that the House bill is sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, along with Jerry Nadler. You may recall that those two Congressman were recently seen hosting a giant $5k per ticket fundraiser at the Recording Industry's biggest party of the year, the Grammys. And, right afterwards, they suddenly introduce a bill that will help enable more copyright trolling? Welcome to the world of soft corruption.

As we explained last year when this monstrosity was introduced as well, the bill is written in a manner totally disconnected from reality. Supporters insist it is "too difficult" to sue over copyright, yet provide no evidence that this is true. But, more importantly, the entire framing of the bill is based on the idea that those who sue for copyright infringement only do so when they have valid claims. Indeed, anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention to copyright lawsuits over the last decade would know this is laughable.

The entire bill is disconnected from reality and would only serve to make copyright trolling become an even bigger problem, and would enable an even more significant level of the copyright shakedown game, in which dubious claims of infringement are tossed around in hopes of extracting settlement fees. At a time when we should be looking to stop such extortionate acts, these bills move in the other direction. It's a joke.

Filed Under: case act, copyright, copyright trolling, hakeem jeffries, jerry nadler, small claims