The Senate Judiciary Committee intends to vote on the CASE Act, legislation that would create a brand new quasi-court for copyright infringement claims. We have expressed numerous concerns with the legislation, and serious problems inherent with the bill have not been remedied by Congress before moving it forward. In short, the bill would supercharge a “copyright troll” industry dedicated to filing as many “small claims” on as many Internet users as possible in order to make money through the bill’s statutory damages provisions. Every single person who uses the Internet and regularly interacts with copyrighted works (that’s everyone) should contact their Senators to oppose this bill.
Making it so easy to sue Internet users for allegedly infringing a copyrighted work that an infringement claim comes to resemble a traffic ticket is a terrible idea. 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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday August 02 2019, @03:24PM
As AthanasiusKircher said, although as you note legislation can actually be drafted by industry as well and slipped to aides to be inserted. Not saying that's what happened here. In the end it is the legislator who puts his name on the bill as the sponsor and primary co-sponsors and it is those legislators who should bear the credit or blame for what the bills say and do even if they haven't read it themselves.
Basicallly any legislator in the lists above are saying they support this legislation's passage enough to attach their name to it in support. In the ideal world of federal republican discourse all citizens would pay attention to which bills their Representatives and Senators both support and vote for (and don't as well!) in order to become informed as to what the person actually does. We even have the bonus of having the Internet to help us figure that out and the data coming straight from Congress. But in practice I'd rather doubt the average voter knows much beyond what campaign ads they were last exposed to and what somebody they respect is also doing.
This sig for rent.