Categories
Copyright

The CASE Act: Why Creators Need a Small Claims Tribunal


The Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) and the Intellectual Property Law Society (IPLS) at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, invite you to a panel discussion on the CASE Act.

2019 CASE Act panel flyer
Click on image for full-size PDF flyer.

The CASE Act: Why Creators Need a Small Claims Tribunal

Thursday
November 14, 2019
4:45 – 6:00 PM

Antonin Scalia Law School
George Mason University
3301 Fairfax Drive
Hazel Hall, Room 221
Arlington, Virginia

The event is free and open to the public. Please register in advance by emailing Kristina Pietro at kpietro@gmu.edu by 5:00 PM on Monday, November 11. Food will be provided.


EVENT DESCRIPTION

The Copyright Alternative Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act) would create a tribunal within the U.S. Copyright Office to hear small copyright claims. The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright cases, and the cost of bringing a federal lawsuit makes it difficult for many individuals or small businesses to sue for copyright infringement. The CASE Act would provide a cheaper and simpler alternative to resolve such claims, allowing copyright owners to sue without the need to hire an attorney. The bill would also create a cost-effective way for users of copyrighted works to fight back when challenged if they believe their use is noninfringing.

The CASE Act has broad bipartisan support, and it was passed by the House in a sweeping 410-6 vote on October 22, 2019. The bill heads next to the Senate, where two Senators have placed a hold on the bill that will make it more difficult to pass. While many artist advocacy groups, such as Copyright Alliance, American Society of Media Photographers, and Authors Guild, have applauded the CASE Act’s provision of remedies for disenfranchised copyright owners, other groups, such as Electronic Frontier Foundation, Re:Create Coalition, and Public Knowledge, have condemned the bill as an assault on civil liberties that will potentially bankrupt average Americans.

This panel features three leading experts who have each played an important role in advocating for the CASE Act. They will discuss the substance and history of the CASE Act, its prospect for being passed by the Senate, and what it means for individuals and small businesses who have welcomed the meaningful copyright protection that the bill would provide.


EVENT AGENDA

4:45 – 5:00 PM Welcome Reception

5:00 – 6:00 PM Panel Discussion

  • Prof. Sandra Aistars, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, Director of Copyright Research and Policy & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property
  • Terrica Carrington, Copyright Counsel, Copyright Alliance
  • Tom Kennedy, Executive Director, American Society of Media Photographers
  • Moderator: Prof. Devlin Hartline, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, Director of Communications, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property

Categories
Copyright

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Author T.J. Stiles Makes the Case for Copyright

a shelf full of booksOn October 12th and 13th, the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) hosted its Fifth Annual Fall Conference at Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia. The event brought together scholars, industry professionals, and practicing attorneys to discuss recent developments in intellectual property law and to present meaningful policy reform proposals. In addition to panels and presentations of recent scholarship in IP, the conference featured a keynote address by the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and copyright advocate T.J. Stiles in which he discussed his career in writing and made an inspiring case for the rights of creators.

Watch the keynote here:

Stiles, whose works include the award-winning biographies Custer’s Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America and The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt, began his speech by detailing his various book projects over the course of his career and explaining how he writes about topics that personally interest and compel him—stories which others authors sometimes overlook. He also made clear from the start that though he writes for creative fulfillment, writing books is his job, and he relies on the money they make to live.

T.J. Stiles speaking on stageSpeaking on the distinctions between academic and commercial publishing, Stiles explained that he relies on book sales to expand his audience.  He noted that, as a biographer, his books are a unique combination of fact-filled scholarship and non-fiction, artistic prose. It’s a genre of writing that has a broad market, but one with a dwindling number of authors due to diminishing incentives.

Providing a stark overview of the state of the writing profession, Stiles pointed out that the number of full-time authors is down 30% from 2009, and that annual income for full-time authors has dropped from $25,000 to $17,500. Freelance journalist income has fallen from between $1 and $4 a word to between 25 cents and $1.25. Moreover, Stiles explained that, as an author, he is his own employee, and that he is responsible for costs that others may take for granted:

Meanwhile, while we’re struggling with these constraints on income, I’m paying my own health insurance, I am saving for retirement on my own. There is no matching contribution to a retirement fund, and I’m paying self-employment tax.

He also pointed out that, depending on the stage of a book project, his income can vary wildly. While some years his expenses and taxes can be covered by book proceeds and publishing partnerships, other years bring burdensome costs. And though the small royalty streams from his older books may seem to some insignificant, Stiles explained that they are used to cover his mortgage, car payments, and health insurance for a family of four.

Stiles spoke to the importance of controlling the rights in one’s work, noting that sometimes overlooked rights such as the right to perform (as it relates to the recording of audio books) can generate important licensing income. In addition to the costs of living he detailed earlier in his speech, this income is reinvested directly into his current or future projects by paying for research trips and other expenses.

Addressing rampant piracy in the digital age, Stiles noted that though illegal downloading doesn’t affect books as much as music and movies, the unauthorized copying and digitization of books through massive internet archiving projects is devaluing works of authorship and threatening the creative marketplace.

Stiles lamented that in addition to losing money from theft and misappropriation, creators are expected to police the Internet for infringement and enforce their rights on a case-by-case basis, a task that is virtually impossible. Stiles then compared this unrealistic expectation to a scenario in which a shopkeeper is expected to track down and arrest shoplifters, making a persuasive point about the absurdity of private copyright policing.

stack of books at T.J. Stiles speaking eventStiles warned that when authors lose control of their works, it chips away at the incentives that drive independent creation, thereby silencing important voices. This disregard for the rights of creators is part of a larger problem: the degradation of a social compact and understanding that we should pay for something that we want. It’s a troubling trend that could have disastrous consequences in an age when stolen content is available at the click of a mouse.

Cautioning against the embrace of certain large tech companies, Stiles explained that when digital platforms aggregate and distribute huge amounts of content, creators are separated from the income their works are generating. Platforms such as YouTube want to compile as much content as possible, pay as little as possible for it, and then turn a profit by inundating said content with advertisements. Stiles warned that this behavior skews price expectations and ultimately disincentivizes creators.

In closing, Stiles reiterated just how important copyright and creative control is to fostering individual voices:

I think it’s absolutely essential for our culture, for our knowledge, for just the sheer pleasure of living, to maintain these individual voices. But again, it’s our very individuality, our very disaggregation which provides our cultural value, which it also is the limiting factor on the economic, the financial value we get out of our work.

Though it may seem like an obvious construct, the fact that artists and creators rely on the income generated by their works to live is something that is all too often discounted in an era of endless content, and it’s one that needs repeating. T.J. Stiles’ story is one of success in writing, but it’s also a cautionary tale that shows how even acclaimed authors rely on copyright and control of their works to get by. Continuing to incentivize authors and creators and allowing them to make a living is more important now than ever before, and for T.J. Stiles, “that’s what copyright is all about.”

Categories
Copyright

New CPIP Policy Brief: Open-Access Mandates and the Seductively False Promise of “Free”

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriterCPIP has published a new policy brief entitled Open-Access Mandates and the Seductively False Promise of “Free.” The brief, written by CPIP Legal Fellow Bhamati Viswanathan and CPIP Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff, exposes the lack of evidence or justification for the proliferating legal mandates by federal agencies that coerce authors and publishers to make their scholarly articles available for free to the world.

The Introduction to the policy brief is copied below:

Introduction

Federal agencies are increasingly mandating or proposing free public access for copyrighted works that report on federally-funded research. These “open-access mandates” compel scholars and researchers to make their articles or other writings freely available to billions of people around the world. Furthermore, many of the mandates also allow the public to modify these copyrighted works without the authors’ consent. Countless authors and publishers must comply with this legal mandate of “free.” Federal agencies—such as the Department of Education, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Energy—disburse billions annually in research grants. As a result, open-access mandates encompass millions of published articles, test-related materials (including those relating to standardized tests and testing services), and even computer software source code.

Open-access mandates have the potential to significantly harm the publishing industry. In 2015, the American publishing sector generated $27.78 billion in net revenue, representing 2.71 billion published works in electronic and print formats. This includes over 500,000 works in higher education, as well as learning materials for primary and secondary education. Works of scholarship, such as scientific research, also account for a significant share of revenue-generating materials. Unfortunately, open-access mandates are a direct threat to the business model that enables the multi-billion dollar market in scholarly and educational publishing to thrive.

Open-access mandates require publishers to place their works in government-operated repositories that are openly accessible and free of charge to users. But publishers typically invest hundreds of millions of dollars in building and supporting their own innovative and sophisticated systems for delivering copyrighted works to the public. Open-access mandates frustrate these efforts, effectively undermining publishers’ proven business models. Further, they force publishers to compete with government-run systems that need not be efficient, advanced, or profitable. By inserting the government as a competitor to private actors in the publishing sector, open-access mandates undermine publishers’ incentives to invest in both copyrighted works and effective systems for disseminating those works.

Open-access mandates also strike at the heart of copyright law by depriving publishers of their right to own and commercialize their copyrighted works as they see fit. U.S. copyright law secures to copyright owners fundamental property rights in their works; these rights cannot be eviscerated by administrative fiat. By forcing publishers to forfeit their rights to commercialize their copyrighted works, open-access mandates in works that report on federally-funded research are incompatible with fundamental principles of copyright law.

The publishing industry is built upon a business model that is proven, realistic, and robust. Moreover, the industry is constantly investing in innovation and improvement of its products and services. Proponents of open-access mandates seek to replace this model with an untested set of systemic changes. Yet they have not offered any evidence that the open-access model is viable and sustainable. Barring such evidence, open-access mandates should not be adopted.

Open-access mandates should be rejected as a prime example of regulatory overreach. In this paper, we address four reasons why this is the case:

  • Open-access mandates undercut publishers’ ability to invest in producing and distributing copyrighted works.
  • Open-access mandates contradict basic principles of copyright law.
  • Open-access mandates are the classic example of a solution in search of a problem: there is no evidence of a systemic market failure in scholarly publishing requiring a massive regulatory intervention.
  • Open-access mandates are based on untenable economic models.

We begin, however, by noting that while open-access mandates raise serious legal, policy, and economic concerns, the open-access model itself is unobjectionable when done on a voluntary basis.

To read the policy brief, please click here.