Authors Guild on Small Copyright Claims Court Legislation

[AnemicOak]

Small Copyright Claims Court Legislation, Long Supported by Authors Guild, Introduced by Rep. Jeffries

Today Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill, entitled the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2016, H.R. 5757, that would establish an accessible and efficient forum to resolve “small” copyright claims. The legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA), would allow individual authors to protect their intellectual property rights without having to file expensive and complicated federal lawsuits.

The Authors Guild has been actively advocating for a small copyright claims court since 2006, when we testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the need for such a venue, citing an Authors Guild survey that revealed most authors do not have effective access to the courts for many of their copyright infringement claims. As the threats to authors’ copyright incentives have increased since that time—due to the growth of digital book piracy and courts’ reluctance to enforce digital rights—so have our efforts to establish a small claims court. The Guild has been working with Congressman Jeffries’ office on this proposal for several months. It deals with many of the difficult issues involved with creating an effective small copyright claims tribunal.

https://www.authorsguild.org/industr...-rep-jeffries/



Mods: Wasn't sure if this needed to go into the P&R forum or not. If so, please move.

[fjtorres]

Try this:

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/2016/...ims-an-update/

It's not a good thing.
Mostly because the "court" would be three guys in DC.

[DiapDealer]

In otherwords: they're looking for a faster-responding, three-person, rights-holder-friendly, "yes man" in D.C. to help shortcut due-process when it comes to questions of copyright infringement.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

In otherwords: they're looking for a faster-responding, three-person, rights-holder-friendly, "yes man" in D.C. to help shortcut due-process when it comes to questions of copyright infringement.

Like the article linked above says, the devil is in the details.

It sounds like a great idea on the surface. I'm all for giving the little guy better and cheaper access to the courts.
Having had to deal with the county superior court this past week, on a matter that was personally significant but not worth a lot of money, I can tell you the current system is sorely lacking.

[DiapDealer]

I agree that the system IS lacking for "The Little Guy" (but only to a certain extent). But on the other hand, "The Big Guys'" advantages are already too many. The ability to initiate takedown notices (either manually, or or auto-bot-ically) that are then acted upon with no investigative oversight (a la the Hugos' live stream being shut down for showing a clip of the Dr. Who episode they were giving an award to) is a step too far already. A rights-holder-friendly committee in D.C. would grant them even more autonomy in being able to "self-police" their own interests, in my opinion.

I understand that the legal system can seem to move too slowly in this digital rights age. I just don't believe that making it even easier/quicker for rights-holders to move against possible infringers is the right answer. There's too much room for abuse the other direction. Such as the bullying or villification of consumers over fair-use disputes. The takedown notice is already too often the beginning and the end of any dispute in my mind. Which 3-man tribunal does the consumer turn to when their fair-use rights get stomped on by an ISP who's just blindly honoring a takedown notice initiated by a party who is the least capable of exhibiting any impartiality on the subject?

It is my opinion that these issues should never be handled quickly and/or easily. Matters of rights-infringement should be exhaustively deliberate, IMO. Get to the right decision, not the fast one. There are always at least two parties involved in any copyright infringement dispute. Any legislation that makes it easier for the same "side" to always get its own way is fraught with peril in my book.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Small Copyright Claims Court Legislation, Long Supported by Authors Guild, Introduced by Rep. Jeffries

https://www.authorsguild.org/industr...-rep-jeffries/

------.

I believe that this is on the whole a good thing.

[JSWolf]

Take down notices should never be allowed by bot. It should only be allowed by human. There are too many mistakes with bots.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by ApK

Like the article linked above says, the devil is in the details.

It sounds like a great idea on the surface. I'm all for giving the little guy better and cheaper access to the courts.
Having had to deal with the county superior court this past week, on a matter that was personally significant but not worth a lot of money, I can tell you the current system is sorely lacking.

No. It sounds like a corrupt usurpation of due process even at the most casual glance.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Phogg

No. It sounds like a corrupt usurpation of due process even at the most casual glance.

No, smaller claims are due less onerous process. That's why small claims court exists.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by ApK

No, smaller claims are due less onerous process. That's why small claims court exists.

So is this going to be "tiny claims court"?

Shari

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I agree that the system IS lacking for "The Little Guy" (but only to a certain extent). But on the other hand, "The Big Guys'" advantages are already too many. The ability to initiate takedown notices (either manually, or or auto-bot-ically) that are then acted upon with no investigative oversight (a la the Hugos' live stream being shut down for showing a clip of the Dr. Who episode they were giving an award to) is a step too far already. A rights-holder-friendly committee in D.C. would grant them even more autonomy in being able to "self-police" their own interests, in my opinion.

I understand that the legal system can seem to move too slowly in this digital rights age. I just don't believe that making it even easier/quicker for rights-holders to move against possible infringers is the right answer. There's too much room for abuse the other direction. Such as the bullying or villification of consumers over fair-use disputes. The takedown notice is already too often the beginning and the end of any dispute in my mind. Which 3-man tribunal does the consumer turn to when their fair-use rights get stomped on by an ISP who's just blindly honoring a takedown notice initiated by a party who is the least capable of exhibiting any impartiality on the subject?

It is my opinion that these issues should never be handled quickly and/or easily. Matters of rights-infringement should be exhaustively deliberate, IMO. Get to the right decision, not the fast one. There are always at least two parties involved in any copyright infringement dispute. Any legislation that makes it easier for the same "side" to always get its own way is fraught with peril in my book.

The article does say that use is voluntary by both parties and does not supersede the right to a jury trial. My question is what problem is this suppose to solve? Is there really a big need for this?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The article does say that use is voluntary by both parties and does not supersede the right to a jury trial.

Then what use is it? Because if it's voluntary, I don't see any big company willing to use it unless they think it's to their advantage.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Then what use is it? Because if it's voluntary, I don't see any big company willing to use it unless they think it's to their advantage.

This.

If copyright thieves were willing to listen to optional Alternative Dispute Resolution channels, there are plenty available already. But generally speaking, they won't be.

Such methods only work if both sides are willing to accept the judgment. That is kind of the point.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

This.

If copyright thieves were willing to listen to optional Alternative Dispute Resolution channels, there are plenty available already. But generally speaking, they won't be.

Such methods only work if both sides are willing to accept the judgment. That is kind of the point.

That's kind of my point. It's not of any use against hard core pirates and probably won't be of any use for the border line fair use cases, so what exactly is the problem they are trying to solve with this? Some guy posting a copyrighted material on some site?

[murg]

Originally Posted by shalym

So is this going to be "tiny claims court"?

Shari

It'll only be for alleged copyright violations of short stories or jingles.