U.S. House Passes Copyright “Small Claims” Bill with Overwhelming Majority

[Matrix]

 

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the CASE Act, a new bill that proposes to institute a small claims court for copyright disputes. Supporters see the legislation as the ideal tool for smaller creators to protect their works, but opponents warn that it will increase the number of damages claims against regular Internet users. The new bill, which passed with a clear 410-6 vote, will now progress to the Senate.

In May, new legislation was tabled in the U.S. House and Senate that introduces the creation of a “small claims” process for copyright disputes.

 

The CASE Act, short for “Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement,” proposes to establish a copyright claim tribunal within the United States Copyright Office.

 

If adopted, the new board will provide an option to resolve copyright disputes outside the federal courts, which significantly reduces the associated costs. As such, it aims to make it easier for smaller creators, such as photographers, to address copyright infringements.

 

The bill is widely supported by copyright-heavy industry groups as well as many individual creators. However, as is often the case with new copyright legislation, there’s also plenty of opposition from digital rights groups and Internet users who fear that the bill will do more harm than good.

 

Supporters of the CASE Act point out that the new bill is the ‘missing piece’ in the present copyright enforcement toolbox. They believe that many creators are not taking action against copyright infringers at the moment, because filing federal lawsuits is too expensive. The new small claims tribunal will fix that, they claim.

 

Opponents, for their part, fear that the new tribunal will trigger an avalanche of claims against ordinary Internet users, with potential damages of up to $30,000 per case. While targeted people have the choice to opt-out, many simply have no clue what to do, they argue.

 

Thus far legislators have shown massive support for the new plan. Yesterday the bill was up for a vote at the U.S. House of Representatives where it was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. With a 410-6 vote, the passage of the CASE Act went smoothly.

 

The news was welcomed by proponents of the bill, including the Recording Academy. In recent weeks the group actively rallied support from nearly 2,000 creators, who helped to lobby legislators.

 

The Copyright Alliance was equally delighted with the favorable vote. CEO Keith Kupferschmid notes that it further attests to the tremendous support the bill has gained so far. At the same time, it shows that legislators were not swayed by the CASE Act’s opponents.

 

“Today’s vote by the House demonstrates not only the tremendous support for the bill but also the fact that members of Congress could not be bamboozled into believing the numerous falsehoods about the CASE Act,” Kupferschmid comments.

 

According to the Copyright Alliance CEO, these alleged falsehoods are shared by people who “philosophically oppose any copyright legislation that will help the creative community and who will use any means to achieve their illicit goals.”

 

These comments illustrate that the tensions between supporters and opponents of the CASE Act are high. In recent months, both sides have accused each other of misrepresenting the bill.

 

Meredith Rose, Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge, is in the opposing camp. She’s not happy with the vote at all and hopes that the Senate will slam on the brakes to prevent it from progressing in its current form.

 

“The CASE Act was rammed through on suspension with no hearings, no opportunity for amendment, and no opportunity for meaningful comment from public interest and consumer groups. We urge the Senate not to take up this bill as written, but to instead open the dialogue to all affected parties to craft meaningful, functional solutions,” Rose says.

 

Public Knowledge and other groups, such as EFF and Re:Create, fear that the bill will lead to more copyright complaints against regular Internet users. Re:Create’s Executive Director Joshua Lamel hopes that the Senate will properly address these concerns.

 

“The CASE Act will expose ordinary Americans to tens of thousands of dollars in damages for things most of us do everyday. We are extremely disappointed that Congress passed the CASE Act as currently written, and we hope that the Senate will do its due diligence to make much-needed amendments to this bill to protect American consumers and remove any constitutional concerns,” Lamel notes.

 

The 410-6 House vote shows that, thus far, there is not much interest from lawmakers to change the proposal. However, with several weeks of lobbying ahead from both supporters and opponents of the CASE Act, the battle is not over yet.

 

 VIEW: Original Article.

[zanderthunder]

Copyright trolls will surely also make use of this act.

[steven36]

10 hours ago, Edward Raja said:

Copyright trolls will surely also make use of this act.

Thats only  if it passes  the  senate  it only has  4% chance of ever being enacted .

 

Edit Even if it passes witch is highly unlikely   they is a big loop hole in it were if your a defendant  you have to volunteer to small claims court . So  smaller copyright  holders will be scared to pursue it because the  defendant can opt out of small  claims  court  who  in there right mind is going to volunteer to a kangaroo court  were you have to pay a $30,000 fine if you lose  unless  your have $30,000 to blow  and dont want take to higher court to fight it?

Opt-Out Provision Makes Small Claims System Voluntary for Defendants

The CASE Act, which enjoys a great deal of support from industry groups, is certainly a noble gesture favorable to copyright owners who cannot afford to bring a claim for infringement to district court. However, some individuals who have familiarized themselves with the language of the CASE Act point out that provisions of the bill could undermine much of the good intentions it’s meant to serve by giving alleged copyright infringers an opportunity to avoid any sort of proceeding at the Copyright Claims Board altogether.

 

“I think that this act is great in theory,” said John E. Patterson, Attorney at Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice. He noted that copyright cases in district court are expensive proceedings and many copyright owners don’t have the resources to foot that bill. “My entire issue with the CASE Act comes down to the opt-out provision.” This provision is outlined in Section 1506(i) of the bill, found on page 36. It gives an alleged infringer a 60-day time period after being served with notice of an action at the Copyright Claims Board during which they can provide notice to the Board that they’ve chosen to opt out of the proceeding. If the respondent opts out during that 60-day period, the action is dismissed without prejudice. In exceptional circumstances, the Board may choose to extend that 60-day period to provide notice of opting out.

 

“The average copyright holder who chooses the Copyright Claims Board as a forum is going there because they can’t afford to file a federal case,” Patterson said. If an alleged infringer decides to opt out of a Board proceeding, that copyright holder’s only alternative becomes U.S. district court—the very venue they were trying to avoid in the first place. “Sophisticated infringers are going to realize that and are going to automatically opt out of all these cases. What’s left over will be unrepresented people suing other unrepresented people, and that could be a mess.”

 

While he acknowledged that he didn’t have a perfect perspective on the bill’s drafting process, Patterson surmised that a couple of factors could have led to the inclusion of the opt-out provision in the CASE Act. Those could include political factors meant to engender wider support of the bill or constitutional issues that could have arisen if potential defendants had their right to a trial in U.S. district court taken away from them. Still, Patterson said that the bill would be a lot more useful to the everyday content creator without that provision in the law. “

 

Source

 

[TheEmpathicEar]

4%? R U saying that Senate republicans are actually good for something? 😀

[steven36]

15 hours ago, TheEmpathicEar said:

4%? R U saying that Senate republicans are actually good for something? 😀

It would be interesting to see the president even sign this  into law after they went after him for pirating  bits of Music .  Yes there good for something leaving 90% of bills passed by the house on there desk and never voting for them . If they vote something in or out they going make some voters mad . If they leave it on there desk like they been doing they just blame it on the democrats are not getting nothing done . Right now hardly anything even gets voted on ,

[steven36]

Stuff is already so bad  that The Movie Database email me about a take down they  had  because i have access to there api  and told me to remove it if i downloaded  it . And they only host info images and words  and i don't share my api key  with the public no way and I dont know what info they  talking about they just gave me some numbers that identifies i guess like i know what those numbers are  and i doubt i downloaded it ?  And my email is just a burner  made with fake info. (I cover my tracks) .