House Votes in Favor of Disastrous Copyright Bill...

[Ingomike]

The House of Representatives has just voted in favor of the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act) by 410-6 (with 16 members not voting), moving forward a bill that Congress has had no hearings and no debates on so far this session. That means that there has been no public consideration of the serious harm the bill could do to regular Internet users and their expression online.


The CASE Act creates a new body in the Copyright Office which will receive copyright complaints, notify the person being sued, and then decide if money is owed and how much. This new Copyright Claims Board will be able to fine people up to $30,000 per proceeding. Worse, if you get one of these notices (maybe an email, maybe a letter—the law actually does not specify) and accidentally ignore it, you’re on the hook for the money with a very limited ability to appeal. $30,000 could bankrupt or otherwise ruin the lives of many Americans.


https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/house-votes-favor-disastrous-copyright-bill

 

[nonobaddog]

Now that the vote is done - maybe they will actually read it to see what it says.

 

[res04]

We have to pass the bill to see what’s in the bill.

 

[HoughMade]

Meh

Participation in board proceedings is voluntary with an opt-out procedure for defendants, and parties may choose instead to have a dispute heard in court. If the parties agree to have their dispute heard by the board, they shall forego the right to be heard before a court and the right to a jury trial. Board proceedings shall have no effect on class actions.

The board shall be authorized to hear copyright infringement claims, actions for a declaration of noninfringement, claims that a party knowingly sent false takedown notices, and related counterclaims.

The bill provides for various procedures, including with respect to requests for information from the other party and requests for the board to reconsider a decision.

The board may issue monetary awards based on actual or statutory damages.

The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs except where there is bad faith misconduct.

A board's final determination precludes relitigating the claims in court or at the board. Parties may challenge a board decision in federal district court only if (1) the decision was a result of fraud, corruption, or other misconduct; (2) the board exceeded its authority or failed to render a final determination; or (3) in a default ruling or failure to prosecute, the default or failure was excusable.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2426

 

[BugI02]

Meh

Participation in board proceedings is voluntary with an opt-out procedure for defendants, and parties may choose instead to have a dispute heard in court. If the parties agree to have their dispute heard by the board, they shall forego the right to be heard before a court and the right to a jury trial. Board proceedings shall have no effect on class actions.


The board shall be authorized to hear copyright infringement claims, actions for a declaration of noninfringement, claims that a party knowingly sent false takedown notices, and related counterclaims.


The bill provides for various procedures, including with respect to requests for information from the other party and requests for the board to reconsider a decision.


The board may issue monetary awards based on actual or statutory damages.


The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs except where there is bad faith misconduct.


A board's final determination precludes relitigating the claims in court or at the board. Parties may challenge a board decision in federal district court only if (1) the decision was a result of fraud, corruption, or other misconduct; (2) the board exceeded its authority or failed to render a final determination; or (3) in a default ruling or failure to prosecute, the default or failure was excusable.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2426

Full employment for lawyers (with a side of structural bias against those of limited means) == Meh?

 

[HoughMade]

Full employment for lawyers (with a side of structural bias against those of limited means) == Meh?

The other option is that it starts in court to begin with.

 

[ATOMonkey]

What specific problem does this solve?

 

[HoughMade]

Allows relatively small copyright issues to be decided with less expenditure of money by all concerned.

 

[Ingomike]

Allows relatively small copyright issues to be decided with less expenditure of money by all concerned.

There seems to be more to it than that. EFF is a good representative of the people vs big corporate holders and trolls.

One of the most disastrous changes to copyright law the bill creates is granting huge statutory damages to copyright owners who haven’t even registered their works. Under current law, if you copy a work that isn’t registered—meaning, the vast majority of things that are shared by users every single day—you’re only on the hook for the copyright owner’s actual economic loss. This is called “actual damages,” and very often, it’s $0. Under CASE, however, every copyrighted work will automatically eligible for $30,000 in damages—whether or not the owner has bothered to register it.


Under current law, when I take a photo of my kids and someone shares it without my permission, the most I can sue them for is nearly always $0. The CASE Act is a radical departure from this sensible rule. If it passes, sharing most of what you see online—photos, videos, writings, and other works—means risking crippling liability.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/house-votes-favor-disastrous-copyright-bill

 

[ATOMonkey]

Allows relatively small copyright issues to be decided with less expenditure of money by all concerned.

Is that an actual problem? Are courts bogged down with small copyright cases?

 

[nonobaddog]

So will this open floodgates of copyright issues? If not than no problem, but if it does...

 

[Ingomike]

The type of behavior outlined in this local article illustrates the situation that will only get worse when it takes place in DC...

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...anapolis-skyline-photo-jury-finds/3778000002/

 

[Leadeye]

I'll go out on a limb here and say...

Always follow the money

Figure out who stands to make the most cash from this legislation and you'll find the motivation for it and who pushed it.

 

[nonobaddog]

Time to start posting photos all over hoping somebody will use them. After adding a hidden digital marker of course.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Think of it this way, get someone unrelated to you to upload lots of pictures and articles that you've written. All under your personal copyright mind you. Wait a few days until they've been hosted by Facebook Twitter etc, and go to the new copyright troll office and apply for your free money.

Profit!!!

Okay, sarcasm off.

 

[indykid]

So will this mean that the photos shared in the girls with guns and girls with fish threads could open this site to suit?

 

[ATOMonkey]

So will this mean that the photos shared in the girls with guns and girls with fish threads could open this site to suit?

That has always been a liability, but just not a big one. You may not remember about 10 years ago there was a big kerfuffle about copyright on the interwebz. Ford scoured the net for everything Mustang related and gave a cease and desist to all websites until they paid for licensing.

Copyright law is kind of funny in that it allows for hostile takeover. If you don't vigorously defend your copyright, you lose it.

Anyway, most people just don't give a **** about copyright, because it's a pain in the ass to defend and most of the time the material isn't worth anything. By putting in an express lane with minimum compensation, you just elevated the value of every fart joke to half a year's salary.

I dunno.... Sounds like a bad idea to me. Just my lowly opinion though.

 

[BugI02]

Since the left can't meme, perhaps they seek a tool to shut down an effective political weapon

Who owns the copyright to the much used pictures of Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka?

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Since the left can't meme, perhaps they seek a tool to shut down an effective political weapon

Who owns the copyright to the much used pictures of Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka?

^^^This was my immediate thought as well^^^

In for answers since I'm not all that familiar with this topic. I know "artistic" re-use is allowed, but defending your artistic use could become a real problem. Basically, the process would be the punishment and used to shutdown political memes.