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: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @08:02AM (10 children)
Because it means the kangaroo court will probably go away fairly quickly.
And I think it probably is unconstitutional. This pseudo-court is created in the Office of Copyright, which is under the authority of Article I (Legislative branch). Courts for resolving material disputes between parties need to be created under the authority of Article III (Judicial branch). If it seems like the purpose of this court is to put their thumb on the scale, you're probably right, and that's exactly why it needs to be under Article III [wikipedia.org].
Tribunals under Article I are for things like patent review cases (not determining infringement or damages, but simply review of whether a patent should have been issued at all), or administrative law cases (such as detemining whether some activity is covered by a particular government regulation). The rule of thumb is that if the dispute in question could have been resolved by statute or regulatory powers, then it can also be determined by an Article I tribunal.
If, on the other hand, the dispute involves disputes between private parties, or involve substantive questions of fact, then they need to be resolved by Article III. This is all about resolving questions of fact in disputes between private parties. So it needs to be under Article III (which, in practice, means it needs to not exist at all, and the existing system is better).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @12:27PM (2 children)
How come an AC like you knows this but the lawmakers don't? You should put your knowledge to good use and become a congresscritter. Then the IP industry will pay you good money to look the other way...
(Score: 4, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday November 06 2019, @03:22PM
The US has the best lawmakers money can buy. The AC on the other hand thinks in terms of constitutionality and legality, because he thinks they apply equally to all in the US, but sadly have been a myth ever since the country was founded.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday November 06 2019, @09:34PM
Why do you assume that the lawmakers don't?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:59PM (6 children)
Depends on how it's actually phrased. If it is a 'court', yeah, gone. But there is long precedent to allow administrative agencies to adjudicate matters and allow for administrative fines and penalties to be applied. The key being that there is still the option for judicial oversight of the claim. I'm not sure that a regulatory branch can get away clean with default judgments from failure to respond or not; I'd hope that would be a court's purview.
So it gets shot down as unconstitutional, and the next cycle instead of an offshoot of the copyright board they'll use the precedent of Tax Court to establish a judicial Copyright Court. Then we're boned.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday November 06 2019, @04:14PM (5 children)
Then we're boned.
Not if we vote them out. Nobody is going to save us. We are on our own.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday November 06 2019, @08:02PM (4 children)
The trick there is that there has to be someone to vote in as well who's worthy. But I fear all we will have are choices between lizards.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Wednesday November 06 2019, @08:36PM (3 children)
I posted in another thread that we need to hunt down qualified people ourselves and put them under the Sword of Damocles, like jury duty. People that want the job are rarely, if ever, qualified.
Whatever, the outcome, lizards or otherwise, is always determined by the voters.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:53AM (2 children)
As someone elsewhere pointed out: "We voted our way into this mess. What makes you think we can vote our way out of it?"
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:43AM (1 child)
Not saying we can, but it is the only option available under the present system.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:54AM
So it is... absent revolution, a measure which usually results in markedly worse-than-before.
So, I grit my teeth and vote.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.