SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On October 22nd, H.R. 2426 passed the House, as the EFF explains:
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.
The CASE Act also has bad changes to copyright rules, would let sophisticated bad actors get away with trolling and infringement, and might even be unconstitutional. It fails to help the artists it's supposed to serve and will put a lot of people at risk.
The EFF also criticized the bill in a previous article, pointing out its potential for abuse.
The president of the American Bar Association wrote in support of the bill:
While the CASE Act will provide more cost-effective protection for plaintiffs, copyright defendants will also benefit from the proposed legislation. Currently, defendants can be burdened with significant legal costs and drawn out suits, even where their use is a fair use or otherwise lawful. Participation in a small claims proceeding would cap their damages and likely provide a faster resolution of the dispute.
Participation in the program would be entirely voluntary, and parties could proceed with or without attorneys. Proceedings could be held through phone or videoconferences. Lawyers well-versed in copyright and alternative dispute resolution would decide the claims.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday November 06 2019, @04:19PM (3 children)
An old post from The Other Site I have saved in my files:
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:34AM (2 children)
> The charge/requirement to show up in court was mailed to him... at his old address, because he'd moved during the time in-between those two events.
This whole story seems suspect--
If he'd just moved, postal forwarding should have been in place. If he moved and didn't change the address on his driver's license before postal forwarding ran out, well, then he's got to accept the consequences. Also, when mail is undeliverable, the Post Office returns to sender.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:50AM
Stuff like summons are sometimes marked "do not forward" right there on the envelope.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:35PM
Define "undeliverable". Presumably his old address was still a valid address, and maybe the new resident just didn't bother to notify anyone?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"