New copyright changes coming with US stimulus bill

[Syt]

https://www.pcgamer.com/the-covid-19-stimulus-bill-is-full-of-copyright-enforcement-laws/

I think the CASE part might be relevant for Languishites?

US Congress passes a COVID-19 relief bill—and also some new copyright laws

Here's what you should know about CASE, a controversial piece of legislation stuffed into a giant US spending package.

US Congress didn't simply approve a $600-per-person COVID-19 relief package, unemployment aid, rental assistance, and other acts related to the coronavirus pandemic today. It voted to pass a paired government funding plan that includes thousands of pages of legislation unrelated to COVID-19, including some important changes to copyright law.

The change most relevant to you, someone who uses the internet, comes in an act called CASE, but I'll start with a different copyright-related part of the package, because it's being misunderstood by some. There's a section from Republican Senator Thom Tillis which defines a felony for operating a service dedicated to providing illegal streams, and I've seen this described as something that will "make illegal streaming a felony" in general—as in, "you can go to jail for streaming Nintendo games on Twitch." That's not really what it says.

What the Tillis illegal streaming law is all about

The entertainment industry (parts of it, at least) can find interesting ways to exploit any new law, no matter how narrow it is, so no legislation should be dismissed as no big deal. That said, it's worth clearing up what the Tillis proposal actually does and does not do. It does not target individuals who are streaming on Twitch, YouTube, or anywhere else, even if they're streaming copyrighted stuff without a license. It only targets, and the wording is quite explicit about this, people who operate a service (like a website) that is solely dedicated to making money off of streaming copyrighted stuff without a license. We're talking about platform owners, not platform users.

To be prosecuted under this law, you'd have to be operating a streaming service "primarily designed or provided for" streaming unlicensed material and which "has no commercially significant purpose" beyond streaming that unlicensed material and which is marketed as such. So, it won't mean anything for Twitch streamers, or even Twitch itself. However, if you run a site called ultrastreamz5431.biz which is dedicated to making money by illegally broadcasting UFC fights, you could be convicted of a crime punishable with a fine and a maximum of three or five years of jail time (depending on certain conditions) for a first offense.

That cleared up, the fact remains that jail time for enemies of the entertainment industry is perhaps not something that ought to be passed as part of a government spending package that's supposed to keep the government running and help people live through a pandemic (and doesn't even accomplish that).

The big one: CASE

A much bigger change to US copyright law comes from CASE, which was first introduced in 2019, and stands for Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement. It was passed with this big spending bill, too.

What the CASE Act does is create a new small claims system in the US that allows copyright holders to pursue damages for copyright infringement without filing a federal lawsuit. These claims would be decided by copyright officers, not judges and juries, and could involve no more than $15,000 per work infringed upon, and $30,000 total. Someone hit with a CASE Act claim could, if they're on top of things, opt out of the system, which would mean the copyright holder would have to make a federal case out of it (which they may not care to do).

Proponents of the CASE Act say that it would empower small copyright holders—say, individual graphic artists—to challenge copyright infringement, which is difficult right now because of the cost and complexity of launching a federal case, something big corporations are far more equipped to do than individuals.

"The small copyright claims tribunal proposed by the CASE Act would be an equitable and affordable option for graphic artists with small copyright infringement cases," wrote Graphic Artists Guild national president Lara Kisielewska last year. "It's a solution that is long overdue for individual creators and small copyright holders, for whom copyright has too often been a right without a remedy. And it's a necessary correction to a system in which infringers have been able to act with impunity."

CASE is also supported by the Recording Academy (which puts on the Grammys).

Opponents of CASE, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, say that it could be a disaster for normal internet users. "The CASE Act could mean Internet users facing $30,000 penalties for sharing a meme or making a video," wrote the EFF earlier this month. "It has no place in must pass legislation."

In other words, the EFF's take is that someone who uses the internet in a typical manner, without necessarily making any money off of their participation in social media, could be hit with CASE claims just for sharing memes or using copyrighted music in a video. "The only way out would be to respond to the Copyright Office—in a very specific manner, within a limited time period," writes the EFF. "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."

So, on one hand, you have frustrated creators who feel they have no recourse when larger entities use their copyrighted work without permission—sometimes, for instance, you'll see a fashion company rip-off the work of an independent illustrator—and on the other, you have fears that these tribunals will be abused, especially by larger copyright holders, such that $30,000 claims are chucked at people who may not know how to respond to them.

Aside from these copyright measures, $600 stimulus checks for adults and other COVID-19 relief acts, the government spending package contains reams of other legislation—it's over 5,500 pages long, allocates hundreds of billions of dollars, and was only received in its current form by congressmembers this afternoon. "This isn't governance," said Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "It's hostage-taking."

Republican Senator Mike Lee had similar feelings. "I've been in the Senate now for 10 years, and this is by far the longest bill that I've ever seen," he said in a video on Twitter. "One of the things that is extraordinary about this one is that, because of the length, it is impossible that anyone will have the opportunity to read it between now and the time that we will vote."

You can see the entire text of the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021" here. Now that the Senate has approved the package, it heads to President Trump's desk to be signed or vetoed.

[Valmy]

God damn it.

[The Brain]

"One of the things that is extraordinary about this one is that, because of the length, it is impossible that anyone will have the opportunity to read it between now and the time that we will vote."

Does US lawmaking have any quality assurance at all?

[Valmy]

"One of the things that is extraordinary about this one is that, because of the length, it is impossible that anyone will have the opportunity to read it between now and the time that we will vote."

Does US government have any quality assurance at all?

No. This is a famous problem.

Not only do the representatives often do not read the bills they are voting on, but the media covering the Congress often does not even read the bills and often misreport what was in the bills. Hardly anybody actually understands what the bills that are being debated and passed actually say and do. So here we have PCGamer reporting on a huge part of this bill, and despite the fact that we have been discussing this bill for literally months and it is very high profile, this is the first I have heard of this provision.

They seem designed to be as complicated and opaque as possible, because even if you do read the whole thousand page plus bill it usually references tons of other bills and documents that then you have to research to really understand what the bill does. It is crazy.

So as a voter it is weird. You elect this person to represent you in Congress. But, because of how it currently works, this person cannot propose legislation that is not approved by the leadership. And once legislation is submitted they lack the ability to amend it. So all they are really allowed to do is vote yes or no on legislation the leadership approves...which they then do not even read. So what the fuck are we even electing these people to do? I mean unless your Rep happens to be some inner circle power broker.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The USA seems to be designed to provide high and reliable incomes for lawyers. Discuss.

[Sheilbh]

No. This is a famous problem.

Didn't this sort of start with Gingrich? From my understanding until then there was some sort of impartial body in Congress to help people write bills. After that they more often rely on lobbyists's lawyers because they lack the necessary expertise or support.

So as a voter it is weird. You elect this person to represent you in Congress. But, because of how it currently works, this person cannot propose legislation that is not approved by the leadership. And once legislation is submitted they lack the ability to amend it. So all they are really allowed to do is vote yes or no on legislation the leadership approves...which they then do not even read. So what the fuck are we even electing these people to do? I mean unless your Rep happens to be some inner circle power broker.

Interesting that's more restrictive than Westminster. On the legal side there is Parliamentary Counsel or Legislative Counsel who are lawyers whose job it is to draft bills for the government to give effect to the politicians' intentions legally (government departmental lawyers draft secondary legislation like regulations). There's then also a Public and Private Bill Office which includes lawyers who are "servants of the House" whose job is to support MPs of all parties writing private members bills or making amendments to government bills, and each bill has a clerk who are running the procedural side and again are there to support MPs of all parties.

[The Brain]

"One of the things that is extraordinary about this one is that, because of the length, it is impossible that anyone will have the opportunity to read it between now and the time that we will vote."

Does US government have any quality assurance at all?

No. This is a famous problem.

Not only do the representatives often do not read the bills they are voting on, but the media covering the Congress often does not even read the bills and often misreport what was in the bills. Hardly anybody actually understands what the bills that are being debated and passed actually say and do. So here we have PCGamer reporting on a huge part of this bill, and despite the fact that we have been discussing this bill for literally months and it is very high profile, this is the first I have heard of this provision.

They seem designed to be as complicated and opaque as possible, because even if you do read the whole thousand page plus bill it usually references tons of other bills and documents that then you have to research to really understand what the bill does. It is crazy.

So as a voter it is weird. You elect this person to represent you in Congress. But, because of how it currently works, this person cannot propose legislation that is not approved by the leadership. And once legislation is submitted they lack the ability to amend it. So all they are really allowed to do is vote yes or no on legislation the leadership approves...which they then do not even read. So what the fuck are we even electing these people to do? I mean unless your Rep happens to be some inner circle power broker.

That does sound unsound. Stuff like this bugs me, regardless of what the bills say (which is political) there's no excuse for not doing good lawmaking in a purely technical sense.

[Valmy]

Yeah Gingrich started really clamping down on the independence of the Congress and every successive Speaker has continued the process. The Congress is almost completely under the thumb of the party leadership now. I don't know about the lawyer issue. That is a new disastrous innovation from that era I did not know about if true. But I have no reason to doubt that it is true.

That is the thing about how our government currently works. No matter how bad you think it is, you only ever seem to find out it is somehow worse than that.

[Syt]

And of course it doesn't help with people having trust in the system.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

"One of the things that is extraordinary about this one is that, because of the length, it is impossible that anyone will have the opportunity to read it between now and the time that we will vote."

Does US government have any quality assurance at all?

No. This is a famous problem.

Not only do the representatives often do not read the bills they are voting on, but the media covering the Congress often does not even read the bills and often misreport what was in the bills. Hardly anybody actually understands what the bills that are being debated and passed actually say and do. So here we have PCGamer reporting on a huge part of this bill, and despite the fact that we have been discussing this bill for literally months and it is very high profile, this is the first I have heard of this provision.

They seem designed to be as complicated and opaque as possible, because even if you do read the whole thousand page plus bill it usually references tons of other bills and documents that then you have to research to really understand what the bill does. It is crazy.

So as a voter it is weird. You elect this person to represent you in Congress. But, because of how it currently works, this person cannot propose legislation that is not approved by the leadership. And once legislation is submitted they lack the ability to amend it. So all they are really allowed to do is vote yes or no on legislation the leadership approves...which they then do not even read. So what the fuck are we even electing these people to do? I mean unless your Rep happens to be some inner circle power broker.

and people are surprised that the masses loose faith in democracy? my my. (it's not better over here though: particracy is so embedded the country is basically ruled by the party leaders of the parties forming goverment. That's 3 people currently because what the fracophones want goes)

[The Minsky Moment]

Copyright law is already one of the most pro-plaintiff domains of law in America.  It does not matter whether the copyrighted item has any value because the plaintiff can elect per work statutory damages.  Violations are strict liability (innocent intent is not a defense).  Copyright is one of the few exceptions to the American rule that each party bears their own legal costs - winning plaintiffs - but NOT defendants - can recover their legal fees.  Combine all this with the fact the copyrights are have absurdly long terms, well beyond any conceivable legitimate purpose.  Of all the urgent things that need to be done in America, slanting copyright in more favor of plaintiffs is about as far down the list as can be imagined.

One of the consequences of big data is that plaintiff's law firms now have algorithmic tools to canvass the internet looking for uses of individual photos and music files.  There is already a very significant cottage industry around this - precisely because a copyright plaintiff can seek statutory damages and this suits can be brought on any registered image, without any need to provide actual harm or value of the image. So plaintiffs lawyers ferret out meaningless uses of worthless images and then bring mass lawsuits.  Pretty much any US lawyer that does any IP work has seen these. The business model is high quantity and seek quick greenmail settlements.

In normal world where the GOP is always crowing about tort reform, one would respect people like Tillis to be trying to shut this down.* Instead he is weaponizing a broken and stacked system against ordinary people.  (although in fairness the CASE act does weaken the attorneys fee recovery provision) The CASE act will not really have any impact on sophisticated defendants (i.e. corporate or very well-heeled individuals) who will hire counsel and opt out of the new Kopyright Kangaroo Kourt.  The target here is ordinary Joes who won't know well enough to do this or be scared about choosing a federal court option.

* This is not just a GOP initiative - it is bi-partisan and Hakim Jefferies sponsored the House bill. But GOP support seems particularly hypocritical given the party position backing immunities and liabilities shields for corporate defendants.

[Barrister]

The USA seems to be designed to provide high and reliable incomes for lawyers. Discuss.

God Bless America!

[The Minsky Moment]

Also I'd like to point out that putting limits on Fed crisis lending authority is like sewing up the parachutes shut before getting on the transport plane because we wouldn't want to encourage people to use them.

[Grey Fox]

Maybe not it seems that Trump is not down with giving Sudan 700 millions.

[Valmy]

Maybe not it seems that Trump is not down with giving Sudan 700 millions.

Awesome. Sometimes nationalists do the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons. This bill should be vetoed.

Edit: Wait I don't think he is actually going to veto it but just ask for bigger direct cash payments. Well that is great news but still potentially leaves this shitty thing in there. But I don't know.