@keithkup: Why is No One Talking About this Provision of the CASE Act? It’s Because It Benefits Users of Copyrighted Works

[Google shilleries are shifting into overdrive to attack the copyright small claims legislation–Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Engine have launched their FUD campaign (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) to create their usual maelstrom of half truths and outright fraud against consumers as directed by their corporate masters from Silicon Valley. The truth doesn’t fit the narrative.]

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019 (the CASE Act), H.R. 2426 and S. 1273, a bill that would create an optional small claims tribunal within the U.S. Copyright Office, was introduced by Congress in May 2019. Before that, it had been introduced in different forms in prior Congresses as well. Over that time, and especially this year, just about every aspect of the bill has been held under a microscope, poked and prodded and discussed ad nauseum. There has been so much analysis and discussion of the provisions of the CASE Act that it’s hard to believe that there could possibly be some aspect of the bill that has gone unnoticed. But in fact, there is one aspect of the bill that has largely gone undiscussed. It’s time for that to change….

Anti-copyright groups like EFF, Public Knowledge and Engine counter that these protections are essentially ineffective because most of the recipients of takedown notices are individuals who do not have the money to sue in federal court [2] and because these recipients are often too afraid to file DMCA counter-notices because of the requirement in the DMCA that the counter-notice include a “statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located.…” [3] As a result, these groups argue that, despite the statutory protections and defenses afforded to recipients under the DMCA, the DMCA takedown process is being misused because users with meritorious fair use and misrepresentation claims are not able to avail themselves of them.

If only there were a solution for this—perhaps some legislation in Congress that might help address these concerns. In fact, there is and it’s called the CASE Act, a bill that would create an optional small claims tribunal to resolve the following types of claims by both copyright owners and users of copyrighted material…

Read the post on the Copyright Alliance blog.

@keithkup: Fighting for the Future by Misrepresenting the Past

It’s generally well known by those following copyright issues, that the U.S. Copyright Office is engaged in a study of Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the provisions of the Copyright Act that provide for (among other things) the notice and takedown process and Online Service Provider (OSP) safe harbors.

Unfortunately, one group – Fight for the Future (FFF) – seems to be doing its best to disrupt and derail the Copyright Office’s efforts and to make people think that the process is “rigged against the public interest.”

For example, during the Copyright Office’s request for written comments period, they, along with YouTube channel ChannelAwesome, orchestrated a last-minute campaign in which they urged their followers to protest DMCA abuse by submitting comments to the Copyright Office which were generated merely by clicking on the “I’m in” button at www.takedownabuse.org. While they did suggest that submitters could alter the model comments on the site, in fact relatively few actually did. (I should point out that the site no longer provides model comments.)

The campaign resulted in so many comments being submitted in such a short period that it crashed government servers and made it very difficult for interested parties to review all the comments.  FFF could have notified its followers earlier so that the comments were not submitted at one time.  Better yet, since virtually all the comments were identical, they could have simply submitted a petition with 80,000 or so names included, rather than 80,000 identical submissions that crashed the system.

More recently FFF posted a blog that misrepresented the two-day section 512 roundtable discussion that occurred in San Francisco in an effort to get its followers upset enough to rail against the process, the Office and others, like the Copyright Alliance, who simply do not share many of FFF’s views.  I know because I was there.

Read the post on the Copyright Alliance site.