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: 3, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Wednesday November 06 2019, @07:10AM (10 children)
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
Bad though the law may be, I'd hope that any sentient being would have the sense to actually read a letter or email from their government. I'm pretty sure that saying "Gee whiz Judge, I didn't actually look at the ticket under my windshield wiper, so I shouldn't have to pay" is not a valid defence.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @08:26AM
Get ready for all the scam/spam letters mimicking these letters then.
(Score: 4, Touché) by RandomFactor on Wednesday November 06 2019, @11:15AM
Or take a phone call from the IRS :-p
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:27PM (1 child)
How often do you check your spam folder?
Do you read every political advertisement that you get?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:23AM
- Daily (some times business emails wind up in the spam folder, would hate to leave any business on the table)
- Enough to determine that it is only a political ad, and not something else
(Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:51PM
What's the one thing you hear again, and again, and AGAIN from all Government agencies concerning their communications? YOU WILL NOT BE CONTACTED FOR PAYMENT BY EMAIL. WE WILL NOT ASK YOUR IDENTITY BY EMAIL.
What's the one thing you hear again, and again, and AGAIN from anyone who has half a brain regarding unsolicited emails? If you didn't ask for it, IGNORE IT.
No, one doesn't ignore a written legal notice through the postal service. That's stupid. Your written legal notice will also indicate exactly whom you may contact about it (a court) and you can independently find contact information for that court. Easy peasy.
But internet? Fuck that, because NOTHING YOU SEE ON THE INTERNET IS NECESSARILY REAL. NOTHING.
That's entirely aside from the ridiculous, completely laughable humor that our Federal government apparently believes that a $30,000 claim is a small claim. It also is completely laughable that the entertainment industry's lawyers can show up to what is described as a small claim, as historically that legal term of art is restricted to matters in which two parties appear before a judge without legal representation at the proceeding. And should either party desire to be represented by a lawyer it is remanded out of small claims to district court. Which this ain't.
And the funniest part is that I'm usually the first to defend the fact that artists deserve their compensation and even the middlemen can take their cut if the artists allows them to. I believe in copyright. But this is complete horseshit. Let the courts handle the claims in court as before. And if they don't want to go to that expense and afford people judicial due process protections then it wasn't important enough to sue over.
And that it has wide bipartisan support makes it clear that the legislature is the entertainment industry's bitch. By the way, I'm very much in support of
This sig for rent.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:55PM
..continuing...
very much in support of bipartisan legislation as well. It used to be proof that the government is still in fact willing to work when in agreement. But sadly that agreement, these days, seems only to occur when both sides have been well bought. My prediction is that this will sail through the Senate as well. Trump doesn't give a shit about individual people, so it gets signed.
So yeah, hopefully it will be struck down as unconstitutional. Maybe it's time to make a donation to the EFF for that purpose.
This sig for rent.
(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?"