US COngress about to pass a bill with a draconian copyright law inserted in it - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: TheNewLab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2020, 03:07:01 pm
content: Hey, I will also post this as a separate thread. It is realted.I get regular emails from the Elctronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).There is a bill before US congress, where in reading in detail says that if someone just "claims" copyright infringement, the new law would give us only a short window to respond, and then get hit with a $30,000 penalty. That is you and me, that is any one of us posting a meme or a video we make and post anywhere, including social media sights.THIS will affect all of usYou may also go to the eff website to learn even more.https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-don-t-let-a-quasi-court-bankrupt-internet-users-a9e11873-62f9-4fa1-a05e-675474e095e5Below is the text of the email:three stacked bills labeled 10,000 with a copyright symbol in the middleWe are at a critical juncture in the world of copyright claims. The “Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act”—the CASE Act—is apparently being considered for inclusion in next week’s spending bill. That is “must pass” legislation—in other words, legislation that is vital to the function of the government and so anything attached to it, related to spending or not, has a good chance of becoming law. The CASE Act could mean Internet users facing $30,000 penalties for sharing a meme or making a video. It has no place in must pass legislation.Take ActionStand up for free speech onlineThe CASE Act purports to be a simple fix to the complicated problem of online copyright infringement. In reality, it creates an obscure, labyrinthine system that will be easy for the big players to find the way out of. The new “Copyright Claims Board” in the Copyright Office would be empowered to levy large penalties against anyone accused of copyright infringement. The only way out would be to respond to the Copyright Office—in a very specific manner, within a limited time period. Regular Internet users, those who can’t afford the $30,000 this “small claims” board can force you to pay, will be the ones most likely to get lost in the shuffle.The CASE Act doesn’t create a small-claims court, which might a least have some hard-fought for protections for free expression built in. Instead, claims under the CASE Act would be heard by neither judges or juries, just “claims officers.” And CASE limits appeals, so you may be stuck with whatever penalty the “claims board” decides you owe.Previous versions of the CASE Act all failed. This version is not an improvement, and Congress has not heard enough from those of us who would be most affected by CASE: regular, everyday Internet users who could end up owing thousands of dollars. Large, well-resourced players will not be affected, as they will have the resources to track notices and simply opt out.How do we know that the effect of this bill on people who do not have those resources has not been understood? For one thing, Representative Doug Collins of Georgia said in an open hearing any claim with a $30,000 cap on damages was “truly small.” Of course, for many many people – often the same people who don’t have lawyers to help them opt-out in time – paying those damages would be ruinous.That’s why we’re asking you to take some time today to call and tell your representatives how dangerous this bill really is and that has no place being snuck through via a completely unrelated “must pass” spending bill.Tell Congress that a bill like this has no place being added to any spending bill. That it must rise or fall on its own merits and that there are people who will be harmed and who are speaking out against this bill.Thank you,Katharine TrendacostaActivism Team | Electronic Frontier Foundation

author: bson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 07, 2020, 09:35:42 pm
content: Uhm, it's an arbitration board. Participation is voluntary. It doesn't replace anything, and is intended to simplify and expedite copyright litigation. $30000 is a cap on the arbitration and anything beyond that needs to be taken to a regular civil court just like today. I know if I'm sued for copyright infringement I'd rather have it go to arbitration than have to deal with the costs, time, and uncertainty of the years of litigation involved with a court process. That could easily cost more than $30k in counsel bills alone!From the bill (HR 2426):Participation in board proceedings is voluntary with an opt-out procedure for defendants, and parties may choose instead to have a dispute heard in court. If the parties agree to have their dispute heard by the board, they shall forego the right to be heard before a court and the right to a jury trial. Board proceedings shall have no effect on class actions.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 08, 2020, 06:21:36 am
content: If the act imposes additional obligations to take down content on notification (as OP implied, though I don't see it in the quoted EFF letter) or reduces costs / expedites the process for the suing party then you bet your ass it will be abused by lawyered up companies in instances of fair use or even completely made up allegations. Business as usual.That being said, isn't it the same spending bill which Trump is supposed to veto over Section 230?

author: duckduck
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 08, 2020, 07:13:41 pm
content: I worked at an international law firm that (among many many other things) sued copyright infringers. We had at least one commercially available database subscription that listed all of the arbitrators and their past decisions (pro-corporate or against). Guess who this arbitration board will be stacked with? This new arbitration board proposal wasn't created in response to an outcry from the public, and it certainly won't do anything to improve the lives of common folk.

author: Tom45
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 08, 2020, 08:02:17 pm
content: Quote from: duckduck on December 08, 2020, 07:13:41 pmFew laws do.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 08, 2020, 08:15:15 pm
content: Quote from: duckduck on December 08, 2020, 07:13:41 pmI haven't read it, but it appears from the inclusion of the term 'opt-out' that they are trying to set up a trap for the unwary 'defendant-infringer' to get stung with the ultimate win for bulk litigators -- a default judgment. The next step will be to figure out how to technically satisfy the notice and service requirements without actually notifying or serving the defendant.

author: duckduck
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 08, 2020, 09:40:40 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on December 08, 2020, 08:15:15 pm“But the plans were on display…”“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”“That’s the display department.”“With a flashlight.”“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”“So had the stairs.”“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2020, 01:22:03 am
content: As they are pushing the developing countries very hard to implement much more stringent IP laws, and developing countries are trying to get the developed countries to treat lifesaving drugs differently, given coronavirus, a battle over IP is shaping up.Along with water, and jobs IP is shaping up to be one of the big issues of the 21st century.

author: S. Petrukhin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2020, 04:02:17 am
content: Quote from: TheNewLab on December 07, 2020, 03:07:01 pmAre you sure that this will affect non-commercial copyright vioaltion by an individual person? I.e. when the use of a particular intellectual property does not bring profit? Is that in the law there is no opportunity to apologize and to remove published content?