Tag: Sandra Aistars

Categories
Conferences Copyright

The Evolving Music Ecosystem Conference: Day Two Recap

The following post comes from Bradfield Biggers, a graduate of Boston College Law School and Founder & CEO of Timshel Inc., a music fintech company that provides data-driven cashflow solutions to musical artists in Los Angeles, California. This is the second of three posts (see day one recap and day three recap) summarizing our three-day The Evolving Music Ecosystem conference that was held online from George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School on September 9-11, 2020.

Rosanne CashBy Bradfield Biggers

On September 9-11, 2020, the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) hosted The Evolving Music Ecosystem conference online from George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia. The conference featured a keynote address by singer, songwriter, and author Rosanne Cash.

This unique conference continued a dialogue on the music ecosystem begun by CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor while at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle. In its inaugural year in the D.C. area, the conference aimed to bring together musicians, music fans, lawyers, artist advocates, business leaders, government policymakers, and anyone interested in supporting thriving music ecosystems in the U.S. and beyond.

SESSION 3: WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF A MUSICAL COMPOSITION?

Music copyright is unusual in that it can consist of two separate kinds of registered works. Musical compositions are the underlying song, most easily thought of in terms of notated sheet music. Sound recordings are particular performances captured in a recording. This panel focused on current hot topics in the composition rights. Panelists considered: how to determine the scope of composition for composers not fluent in written notation (including social justice aspects); whether and how juries should be used in assessing substantial similarity between works; new distribution and licensing models; whether it makes sense to distinguish compositions from sound recordings in today’s beats-forward studio-based composition approach for pop music; and AI compositions.

The panel included Prof. Robert Brauneis from the George Washington University Law School, Richard S. Busch of King & Ballow, Robert Clarida of Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt, and Prof. Joseph Fishman from Vanderbilt University. The panel was moderated by CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor.

Robert Brauneis started the panel by clarifying that unlike the modern U.S. copyright landscape, the Copyright Act of 1909 required artists to deposit their compositions with the U.S. Copyright Office in the form of music notation to receive federal protection. If the artist submitted only a “lead sheet” with the lyrics and melody, the federal copyright protection was limited to what was in the lead sheet. However, after the passing the 1976 update to the U.S. Copyright Act, artists could deposit sound recordings instead of lead sheets, thereby providing protection for any musical elements in the entire recording. Prof. Brauneis then noted that the courts have regularly identified that the 1976 Copyright Act is retroactive. This means that artists with sound recordings made before 1972 could deposit their sound recordings and receive broad federal copyright protections in their work. This had a big implication because it allowed portions of a sound recording that may not have been notated in a lead sheet to receive copyright protection. This offered artists a broader set of rights in their music, which he argues is much more representative of how we perceive music rather than by the limited notations of lead sheets.

Richard Busch then used Prof. Brauneis’ presentation on the implications of offering copyright protections to sound recording instead of limited lead sheets to transition into a conversation about the notorious Williams v. Gaye lawsuit. Also known as the “Blurred Lines” case, it concerned whether Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” infringed the classic Marvin Gaye song, “Got To Give It Up.” The Blurred Lines case, which Mr. Busch litigated on behalf of the Gaye estate, furthered copyright jurisprudence by cementing that some combination of musical elements—even a unique combination of uncopyrightable elements—can maintain an infringement action. And to provide clarity and closure for those in the audience who did not follow the case, Mr. Busch explained how a similarly placed parlando present in both songs may have brought about the victory for the Gaye estate.

Robert Clarida then returned the conversation to the implication of allowing a sound recording to be deposited with the U.S. Copyright Office. Mr. Clarida noted that lead sheet deposit copies generally leave out many of the characteristic elements of songs, such as the guitar solo in “Hotel California” by the Eagles. To emphasize the importance of allowing copyright protection to exceed the lead sheet, Mr. Clarida highlighted how the strict observation of a lead sheet affected the Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin lawsuit. There, Led Zeppelin was sued for copyright infringement due to a piece that allegedly had similar elements to their megahit “Stairway to Heaven.” However, since Led Zeppelin had only deposited a lead sheet instead of the sound recording, the court remained ignorant about the true aspects of the song embodied in the sound recording. Consequently, the court did not consider the “undeposited authorship,” as Mr. Clarida put it, which could have resulted in an entirely different ruling.

Prof. Joseph Fishman turned the panel towards defining the scope of actionable similarity in copyright infringement cases. He recognized that this was a particularly interesting issue in the Blurred Lines case because it did not concern the top-line melody. Prof. Fishman explained that the earliest infringement lawsuits focused almost exclusively on whether there was a misappropriation of the top-line melody. However, there has been a modern trend of expanding protection to any combination of identifiable musical elements, as evinced by the Blurred Lines court. Prof. Fishman then went on to note that this modern shift in copyright jurisprudence increases the cost and complexity of litigating infringement cases because now they require expert testimony and jury verdicts.

KEYNOTE LUNCH / FIRESIDE CHAT

Singer, songwriter, Grammy winner, and best-selling author Rosanne Cash gave the keynote fireside chat from her home in New York. Ms. Cash is a devout artist advocate and a friend of CPIP, and she has testified to the U.S. House of Representatives on behalf of artists. She is also a major proponent of the Artist Rights Alliance organization.

Prof. Aistars opened the conversation by asking Ms. Cash about her personal music ecosystem. “I don’t ever think about it being all about me,” she responded. Ms. Cash believes the music ecosystem is about “provid[ing] work for each other” and that it relies on flight attendants, audio engineers, bus drivers, background vocalists, and all other tangential participants to function. She finds that everyone in the music ecosystem is family because they all speak the same language and inspire one another. As for her personal music ecosystem, Ms. Cash expressed her gratitude for all of her support—from road crews to studio assistants—and for the devotion of her fan base. However, her music ecosystem’s nucleus centers around her “in-house” producer, co-writer, sound engineer, and husband, John Leventhal.

Highlighting the expanse of Ms. Cash’s definition of what the music ecosystem includes, Prof. Aistars then queried Ms. Cash about what she thinks is the most important element for building a thriving creative community. Ms. Cash emphasized that “support for the arts is key.” She expressed her frustration with how quickly public schools have cut funding for the arts, thus demolishing the foundational support system of creative young students. Ms. Cash’s concern is that while schools are willing to provide support for students who are inclined to pursue math and science, there is a lack of educational support and nourishment for those with creative dispositions. This disparity contributes to a discounting of the arts in the public’s mind and stifles innovation in the American arts.

Ms. Cash also noted that a thriving creative community cannot survive if that community does not support its venues for showcasing the arts as well as those who create it. As small music venues continue to close due to COVID-19’s effective moratorium on in-person live music, Ms. Cash believes the creative communities that rely on those venues will disappear with them. She then stressed the importance of the Artist Rights Alliance and other nonprofit artists’ organizations that provide financial support and health care to artists. She also said that federal and state funding is crucial if artists are to survive this global pandemic. Ms. Cash brought attention to France’s recent budget allocation of $2 billion for supporting artists during the pandemic. She is disappointed that while U.S. legislators have supported other service industries, they are unwilling to put the same level of support towards protecting those who enrich and drive our American culture. As Ms. Cash put it, “We are in the service industry–we serve the heart and soul.”

Prof. Aistars then transitioned the conversation to the lighter subject of Ms. Cash’s creative process—specifically, as a songwriter and best-selling author, if her process varies depending on whether she’s writing prose or lyrics. Ms. Cash prefers to create lyrics in the comfort of her kitchen, which is supplied with a guitar, microphone, and digital audio workstation. Also, she finds that regular breaks are necessary for her creative process when writing songs. Ms. Cash notices that many times, after she’s taken a break to go to the store or run an errand, the song has found a way of finishing itself when she picks the guitar back up.

In contrast to the loose framework of Ms. Cash’s songwriting, she admitted that when writing prose, she appreciates having a word count, a defined topic, and a due date. She believes that song structure is like a house with blueprints: the rhyme scheme and each verse are built together in an existing structure. However, when writing prose, the piece’s blueprint is not as apparent, so she finds it easier to get lost. Consequently, Ms. Cash finds subtle comfort in the certainty of having defined parameters to guide her construction of the prose.

Prof. Aistars then recounted when Ms. Cash testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of artists in 2014, which reference gave way to a discussion on Ms. Cash’s further artist advocacy work with the Artist Rights Alliance (ARA). The ARA seeks to achieve fair treatment and compensation for working musicians, performers, and songwriters online through advocacy work and by promoting its “Artists’ Bill of Rights.” Ms. Cash, who sits on the organization’s board, feels passionately about getting the voice of the ordinary musician heard. Although, she readily admits that she is “planting a garden I will never see bloom.” Ms. Cash discussed how she is particularly passionate about having the Artist Rights Alliance help artists receive attribution for their work, prevent politicians and other groups from using an artist’s work to promote their ideologies, and achieve just compensation.

In line with Ms. Cash’s conversation about politics, Prof. Aistars then asked her about how important the First Amendment is to her. Ms. Cash said that as a person who is loudly anti-gun violence and a regular public commentator on politics, she thinks the First Amendment is a crucial part of being an American. Ironically, she mentioned how many people expect musicians to not be involved in political discourse and instead “shut up and sing.” And while pointing out that this request is “anatomically impossible,” Ms. Cash emphasized—referring to a statement by American musician Tom Morello—that she “did not set down my First Amendment rights when I picked up my guitar.” She believes art is supposed to make the audience uncomfortable and arouse feelings, so artists should be encouraged to voice opinions that challenge the political beliefs of others.

Finally, Prof. Aistars concluded the keynote by asking about how Ms. Cash has been affected by the COVID-19 crisis and what others can do to help artists during these difficult times. Ms. Cash reflected on how interesting it is that COVID-19 shutdowns have made her “miss what I wanted to lose.” She discussed how before the pandemic she regularly missed home while touring because the road can be quite taxing. Also, her first true love is songwriting, which she finds difficult to do on tour. However, her long absence from touring due to the global pandemic has made her realize how much she misses connecting with her fans, working with the tour crew, and performing.

Ms. Cash encouraged everyone listening to the fireside chat to not take the message of this conference lightly. She stressed that music communities and ecosystems around the nation and the world are hurting, but there are certainly things people can do about it. She encourages people to donate to organizations that support independent artists directly, such as MusiCares and the Artist Rights Alliance. Also, to support music communities themselves, people need to donate to independent creative venues so that artists have a place to feature their work once people can return to public spaces and concerts. Finally, and most importantly—buy music! Ms. Cash says that if we are going to build a sustainable music industry for everyone, people need to move away from the free tiers of streaming platforms.

Ms. Cash ended the fireside chat with humbling words of appreciation for everyone involved in The Music Evolving Ecosystem conference and by showing a music video of her song “We’re All in This Together.” John Paul White and Ms. Cash wrote this song and made this video during the pandemic shutdowns, and all proceeds from the video go to the Music Health Alliance to help artists receive health care.

SESSION 4: THE NEW ROLE OF RECORD LABELS & PLATFORMS

From MP3s to YouTube to Spotify, the way we listen to music in the digital age has changed considerably over the past twenty years. At a time when physical copy records and full-length albums have been replaced by the streaming single, what role does a record label play? And as traditional lines between creator, copyright owner, and distributor continue to blur, how will labels and streaming services work together to ensure that artists are appropriately compensated and incentivized? This panel, moderated by Prof. Loren Mulraine of Belmont University College of Law, explored recent developments in copyright law as they apply to the music industry and looked ahead to how music ecosystems will evolve in the coming years.

Mitch Glazier of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) began the panel by highlighting that while the COVID-19 crisis has created a sudden shift in the performance and monetization of music, this is not the first time record labels have met the challenges of a seemingly overnight evolution of the music industry. Mr. Glazier explained that over the last twenty years there have been five major inflection points marking evolutionary bursts of the music industry. It began with a Supreme Court victory in MGM Studios v. Grokster that brought certainty to the prospect of legal recourse for rights owners in the lawless landscape of peer-to-peer music piracy of the early 2000s. This was followed by Apple’s iTunes, the first secure, consumer-friendly online music distribution platform. Then, as the 4G internet revolution made mobile music streaming feasible, record labels introduced an entirely new catalog licensing dynamic when they brought Spotify to the United States. Finally, Mr. Glazier identified that the music industry is in the midst of establishing its most recent inflection point, which involves social media. To achieve this inflection point, record labels will need to create a licensing regime with social media platforms that is beneficial to technology companies and profitable for artists.

Mark Baker from Warner Music Group (WMG) then discussed how modern record labels are evolving to fit the contours of this rapidly expanding music landscape. Baker identified that record labels have always amplified the creativity of artists by providing the marketing, licensing, and career development expertise of their staff. And while modern artists have unprecedented access to online distribution and licensing opportunities, putting together a comparable artist development team piecemeal to service an artist’s career is no easy feat. Mr. Baker finds that traditional full-service record label agreements remain essential for many artists, but the needs for other artists have evolved with music technologies. WMG recognized this a number of years ago, which caused the label to create the a la carte artist service company, Alternative Distribution Alliance (ADA). Unlike a full-service record agreement, ADA allows independent record labels and artists to select individual creative services to leverage WMG’s global infrastructure. Mr. Baker suggested that ADA’s a la carte model shows WMG’s commitment to keeping pace with music technology.

Garrett Levin of Digital Media Association (DiMA) then expanded the scope of the conversation from how labels are evolving to digital technology to how artists’ careers can shift to utilize the power of streaming technology. Mr. Levin explained that while record income has dropped dramatically since the late 1990s, streaming revenue and subscriber numbers have been increasing at a promising rate. In addition to the prospect of increased record income, artists receive a multitude of other benefits when they embrace streaming technologies. Specifically, artists have more access to fans and granular consumption behavior data that will change how artists create and operate their business. Mr. Levin went on to suggest that artist-to-fan relations will become closer than ever through this technology’s ability to create custom music programming and connect with fans through their mobile devices.

In contrast to Mr. Levin’s unbridled enthusiasm for digital technologies, Prof. Larry Miller from NYU Steinhardt painted a more cautious picture of streaming. Prof. Miller highlighted that streaming technology’s ability to give consumers access to millions of artists only makes it more difficult to rise above the noise. He insisted that theoretical discoverability in a vast pool of artists is not the same as practical discoverability that will allow artists to create sustainable music careers. Additionally, Prof. Miller suggested that the low royalty rates of streaming have converted music into a consumption business plagued by sales plateaus. These sales plateaus occur because low revenue rates, coupled with the physical consumption limitations of fans, require artists simultaneously to pursue a variety of revenue sources, such as streaming, merchandise, and vinyl. Prof. Miller notes that this is where the expertise, infrastructure, and connections of record labels provide the most value to artists. Finally, he emphasized the importance for music industry participants and students to have a basic understanding of data science to survive in our data-driven music industry.

Categories
Conferences Copyright

The Evolving Music Ecosystem Conference: Day One Recap

The following post comes from Bradfield Biggers, a graduate of Boston College Law School and Founder & CEO of Timshel Inc., a music fintech company that provides data-driven cashflow solutions to musical artists in Los Angeles, California. This is the first of three posts (see day two recap and day three recap) summarizing our three-day The Evolving Music Ecosystem conference that was held online from George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School on September 9-11, 2020.

Rosanne CashBy Bradfield Biggers

On September 9-11, 2020, the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) hosted The Evolving Music Ecosystem conference online from George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia. The conference featured a keynote address by singer, songwriter, and author Rosanne Cash.

The past year has seen major changes to the music ecosystem and the laws and policies integral to its viability. For example, while the Music Modernization Act (MMA) provided a much-needed update to the way artists’ creative contributions are recognized and supported in the digital age, debates over royalties, infringement, piracy, and new distribution models remain. Diverse issues surrounding ownership and control of data, music festival arrangements, and the nature of artists’ roles in the gig economy have also made headlines. Despite encouraging steps forward and seemingly unlikely partnerships, arriving at a place of balance in music—where respect for artists and others on the music production side is just as important as facilitating innovative models for listener access—requires more work and cooperation.

This unique conference continued a dialogue on the music ecosystem begun by CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor while at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle. In its inaugural year in the D.C. area, the conference aimed to bring together musicians, music fans, lawyers, artist advocates, business leaders, government policymakers, and anyone interested in supporting thriving music ecosystems in the U.S. and beyond.

OPENING REMARKS & INTRODUCTIONS

CPIP Director of Copyright Research and Policy Sandra Aistars opened the conference by noting the aptness of coming together (albeit online) for music during a time when the global COVID-19 crisis has shut down much of the world. Prof. Aistars highlighted how music is a tool for eliciting solidarity during difficult times, and our current global pandemic is no exception. Prof. Aistars described how earlier this year, Italians banded together to play with and for each other from the balconies of their homes during the peak of their COVID-19 national lockdown. She found this brought home the importance of nourishing the music ecosystems that, in turn, nourish our communities.

Prof. O’Connor also wanted to emphasize that The Evolving Music Ecosystem would not be your garden-variety music law and policy conference. Where many music conferences fall into the mold of offering panel after panel of esoteric copyright infringement discussions, Prof. O’Connor wanted this conference to take a holistic approach that covered the entire music ecosystem. And while admitting there would be panels covering the copyright infringement landscape, his intention for this conference was to delve deep into pressing issues for working songwriters, performers, musicians, and other music stakeholders. By aligning with the broader music ecosystem, he hoped this conference would empower not just citywide music ecosystems, but also those spanning the national and the globe.

SESSION 1: IMPLEMENTING THE MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT

The Music Modernization Act (MMA) is a revolutionary legislative bill that was the result of complex negotiations and compromises among songwriters, publishers, record labels, digital service providers (DSPs), and other music industry stakeholders. The MMA, among other things, set the framework for a new composition database and blanket mechanical licensing system, and designated the Mechanical Licensing Collective, Inc. (MLC) to administer it. Although the MMA was enacted in 2018, discussions of how this licensing system will be implemented continue to be prominent in music industry and academic circles alike. With the MLC beginning to administer blanket licenses under this new licensing regime on January 1, 2021, there is no better time to discuss the implementation of this legislation.

The panel included Danielle Aguirre from the National Music Publishers Association, Adam Gorgoni from the Songwriters of North America, Lisa Selden from Spotify, and Regan Smith of the United States Copyright Office. The panel was moderated by Prof. Mark Schultz of the University of Akron School of Law.

Danielle Aguirre set the stage for the panel by offering background information about how the MLC will administer mechanical licenses as a blanket license and how revolutionary this is in light of the old system of individual licensing. Ms. Aguirre explained that while digital service providers (DSPs), such as Spotify and Google, will fund the MLC, it will be the publishers and songwriters that will actually govern the administration of their royalties. She hopes this separation of funding and administration will align the incentives of DSPs and creators, as well as offer trust and transparency for all music stakeholders. Ms. Aguirre believes that the data quality initiatives and software the MLC is developing internally will allow the MLC licensing system to run as smoothly as possible when it launches at the end of this year.

Regan Smith then offered her perspective from the U.S. Copyright Office. Ms. Smith explained that the MMA created criteria for the MLC to operate, but it also went on to grant the Office discretion to regulate issues or schemes that may arise during the MLC’s implementation that were not contemplated by the MMA drafters. Consequently, the Office has been working with all music industry stakeholders to ensure the MLC comes together smoothly. In addition to the regulatory function, Ms. Smith said that the Office focuses on providing educational programs and materials to educate artists and the public about the MLC.

Ms. Smith was followed by songwriter and Songwriters of North America (SONA) founder Adam Gorgoni, who discussed how the previous licensing regime was unsustainable for artists, spoke on the importance of educating artists about music metadata, and provided insight into how SONA represented artists in the MMA negotiations. Reflecting on the MMA negotiations, Mr. Gorgoni recognized that the legislation was not perfect and that tradeoffs were made, but he was confident that the most important points for artists were included. Ultimately, Mr. Gorgoni found one phrase regarding the creation and negotiation of the MLC to be the most applicable: “Don’t make the perfect be the enemy of the good.” This mantra resonated with rest of the panelists.

Lisa Selden then offered her opinion about the negotiations and implementation of the MMA through the perspective of the licensees. In addition to her work at Spotify, Ms. Selden represents Spotify on the board of directors of the Digital Licensee Coordinator (DLC), which is a nonprofit entity that coordinates and represents the interests of DSPs. The DLC board members include representatives from other prominent DSPs, such as Apple, Amazon, Google, and Pandora. Ms. Selden emphasized the importance of the DLC in relation to the MLC, but she also discussed the challenges of creating a single voice from the diverse motivations of each individual digital DSP.

SESSION 2: THE CHANGING NATURE OF SOUND RECORDING RIGHTS 

The sound recording category of music copyrights has been more limited in some ways than the composition category. Sound recordings received no federal protection before 1972 and then afterwards that protection did not apply to terrestrial radio broadcasts. The recent Music Modernization Act (MMA) extended a measure of protection to pre-1972 sound recordings, while proposed legislation would allow sound recording owners to seek compensation from terrestrial radio stations for public performances of their works similar to the system for digital webcasters and streaming. The panel, moderated by Prof. Steven Jamar of Howard University School of Law, discussed the current state of sound recordings, their curious history under U.S. law, and their future in the digital streaming age.

Producer Mikael “Count” Eldridge of Vertebrae Productions opened the panel with a sobering call for an artist-first focus to music industry discourse. He explained how the media and music industry often marginalizes the financial struggles of individual creators when it focuses purely on the macroeconomics of the touring and recording businesses. He believes this flaunting of aggregate music statistics—driven by the top 1% of artists—misleads the public as to the status of artists’ livelihoods and that this in turn perpetuates the myth that the artists on streaming services could earn a living by simply selling t-shirts and touring. Mr. Eldridge stressed that if we cannot increase streaming subscription fees to increase royalty rates for artists, we will lose the music and voices of thousands of independent artists who provide invaluable political and cultural contributions. He concluded by highlighting that many of these issues for independent artists are tackled in his forthcoming documentary Unsound, for which he is currently curating a lecture circuit tour.

Agreeing with Mr. Eldridge’s push for artist-first discourse, SoundExchange’s Brieanne Jackson gave a brief history of how her organization is empowering the lives of artists with its collection and distribution of digital performance royalties. Ms. Jackson then emphasized how SoundExchange not only fuels the lives of modern artists but was also instrumental in getting legacy artists compensation for their pre-1972 sound recordings. Before the MMA was enacted in 2018, artists prior to 1972 received no federal copyright protection or statutory compensation for their sound recordings. However, due in part to SoundExchange’s advocacy, pre-1972 sound recordings now receive protections under the MMA. Today, SoundExchange continues to push for artist sound recording rights in the U.S. by advocating for the Ask Musicians for Music Act (AM-FM Act), which was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in late 2019. Ms. Jackson explained that the AM-FM Act would finally provide sound recording rights owners with compensation when their music is played over terrestrial radio.

Attorney Eric Schwartz of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp carried forward Ms. Jackson’s conversation of pre-1972 sound recordings by diving into how Congress came to include federal protections in the MMA for pre-1972 recordings, as well as its implications for artists. Mr. Schwartz explained that before the MMA, pre-1972 sound recordings were only protected by state and common law instead of federal law. This meant that while pre-1972 sound recordings did not generate digital performance royalties from streaming companies, rights owners had hoped they could use their state rights to pursue more effective infringement actions for online piracy directly, rather than through the broken notice-and-takedown and safe harbors regime of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). However, once the Second Circuit held that the DMCA safe harbors applied to pre-1972 recordings, artists and policymakers began to pursue a digital performance right for rightsholders, which manifested in the MMA.

Mr. Schwartz next highlighted that recent legislation in Canada, as a result of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and a judgment by the European Court of Justice will provide U.S.-based artists the same rights (e.g., national treatment) that Canadians and EU citizens enjoy in their own territories resulting in significant new payments to American producers and performers from these territories. Lastly, he mentioned that the U.S. Copyright Office has proposed a new rule to allow certain artists to register entire albums of up to twenty songs at once, which will greatly cut down the expense and headache of registering copyrights for multiple works.

The final panelist was Todd Dupler of the Recording Academy, who discussed the implications of the MMA’s new “willing-buyer-willing-seller” standard for rate court proceedings and the introduction of the AM-FM Act. Mr. Dupler explained that before the MMA, the standard used to set the statutory royalty prohibited judges from considering what a licensee might pay for a license in the open market. As a result, this standard prevented artists from receiving just compensation for their work. However, with the MMA’s new standard, judges can consider how the fast-paced technology market values music and what a potential licensee may be willing to pay for using music. Mr. Dupler concluded with highlighting the Recording Academy’s advocacy of the pending AM-FM Act, which would provide artists with an additional source of revenue by creating a performance right in sound recordings for terrestrial broadcasts. Importantly, this sound recording performance right would require the radio industry to finally compensate recording artists for their music. However, Mr. Dupler stressed that if artists are going to pass this transformative legislation, they and the public need to “speak out and speak up.”

Categories
Copyright

RBG’s Legacy Can Guide High Court In Oracle Copyright Case

This post first appeared on Law360.

U.S. Supreme Court buildingAs America mourns the passing of one of its great civil rights icons and judicial pathmakers — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — stakeholders and other observers must not only contemplate what her absence means for the upcoming election but also next month’s start of oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Among other cases on the docket, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the watershed copyright case Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. on Oct. 7.

Justice Ginsburg’s Legacy

Justice Ginsburg inspired documentaries and Oscar-nominated, full-length feature films and made cameo appearances in three operas: twice with Justice Antonin Scalia in Richard Strauss’ “Ariadne auf Naxos” and also in Johann Strauss’ “Die Fledermaus,” where she, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Stephen Breyer entered Prince Orlofsky’s ball in the second act of Fledermaus billed as “the Supremes.”

The justice had a deep appreciation for the arts that went beyond her love of opera. Two Mark Rothkos, a Josef Albers and a Max Weber — some on loan from the National Gallery of Art — hung in her chambers, and she took a literature class at Cornell University under Vladimir Nabokov, which she sometimes referred to in interviews and lectures, noting that law should also be a literary profession.

Given her love for the arts, it’s not surprising, then, that Justice Ginsburg was a knowledgeable justice in copyright matters. The justice authored numerous important opinions affecting creators’ rights and was highly respected for her ability to offer clear, concise judgments that were understandable even to ordinary readers.

Some of her most notable opinions in copyright law include: New York Times Co. v. Tasini — upholding protections for freelance authors in the digital age; Eldred v. Ashcroft — upholding Congress’ extension of the duration of copyright for existing and future works as consistent with both the copyright clause and the First Amendment; and Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. — articulating that the equitable defense of laches cannot be used to bar a claim of copyright infringement brought within the three-year statute of limitations window.

By the end of her career, she had earned the respect of arts and technology lawyers alike. For instance, in 2015 Justice Ginsburg was inducted into the Chiefs in Intellectual Property Hall of Fame for her commitment to the advancement of women in IP and technology careers. ChIPs was started by seven female chief counsels of patents and intellectual property at Silicon Valley companies to promote women in the high-tech industry.

Google v. Oracle: The First IP Case to Be Heard Without Justice Ginsburg

Now, with a momentous, tech-centered copyright case again making its way to the court, there’s a sad irony that one of the most thoughtful justices, able to cut to the heart of a matter and make it readily understandable, is no longer with us. But while Justice Ginsburg’s thoughtful scholarship and legal acumen will no doubt be missed by her colleagues in every case they consider, they’ll have her legacy to guide them in Google v. Oracle.

Google v. Oracle is a relatively straightforward case. Google committed an obvious act of copyright infringement for business convenience. Oracle Corp. owned Java, a creative and intricately crafted work of software, widely popular among device manufacturers and application designers.

Google wanted to compete but didn’t want to invest the time and resources needed to develop its own platform, nor did it wish to take any of the multiple licenses offered by Oracle, which would have required Google to make its platform interoperable with Java. So, Google copied over 11,000 key portions of code, along with the organizational structure and began competing with Oracle — earning billions of dollars in revenue using the code and structure it had copied.[1]

While Google doesn’t dispute that it took the code, it argues that the portions of Java in question are not copyrightable, that fair use justifies its unlicensed usage, and that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial prevents an appellate court from overturning a jury’s decision on fair use.[2] All of Google’s arguments are wrong.

Software is copyrightable.

Congress has protected computer code as a literary work under the Copyright Act since 1980, and it has never sought to limit protections applicable to software, despite the many opportunities it has had to do so.

As copyright scholars noted in an amicus brief to the court:

Even [in 1980,] at that relatively early stage in the development of the computer software industry, Congress considered versions of many of the arguments and issues present in this litigation, including whether computer code should be protected as a literary work, the degree to which computer programs can be considered “functional” or necessary “machine-controlled elements” (as opposed to expressive works protectable under the Copyright Act), and the interests of protecting and incentivizing innovation. After careful analysis and debate … Congress legislated that computer programs are protected under the Copyright Act with no qualifications that would differentiate software from any other type of literary work under the statute.

Since 1980, software development has grown exponentially, and its application continues to expand into new industries. Congress has amended the Copyright Act to address issues raised by technological advances in particular industries — by enacting, for example, the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act in 1990, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, and the Music Modernization Act in 2018. Congress has not, however, amended the Copyright Act to decrease the scope of protection for computer programs. Because the statutory protections for computer software remain the same as for all other creative works, adopting Google’s position would amount to a judicially created software-specific amendment. It would also result in singling-out the protections afforded to computer programs, which contradicts the plain text of the Copyright Act.[3]

Google’s copying of Java doesn’t qualify as fair use.

Google’s arguments that its theft of Oracle’s code should be excused as fair use — a defense to copyright infringement intended to excuse limited uses of works, especially for noncommercial purposes, where the use does not compete with the original work — also fall flat.

There is no business convenience exception under the fair use doctrine. As the copyright scholars’ amicus brief noted:

Google and its amici try to characterize [their infringement] as “efficient infringement,” or “permission-less innovation.” Yet its conduct is entirely contrary to the goals of copyright law as expressed in the Copyright Act or the Constitution.[4]

In her 2018 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in favor of Oracle, U.S. Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley said as much, writing, “There is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform.”[5]

While there is an essential role for fair use in copyright law, Congress and the courts have set reasonable parameters, which do not include business convenience or efficient infringement.

The Supreme Court can rule on fair use.

Having failed to convince past judges of the merits of its position, Google has now raised the argument that neither the appellate courts below, nor the high court’s justices can reverse the jury trial’s previous findings on fair use. Google made a last-ditch Seventh Amendment procedural argument challenging the standard of review applied by the courts, which the court will also consider.

That decision is also straightforward: The fair use issue was put before the court because of Oracle’s successful motion for judgment as a matter of law. A party is always entitled to a judgment as a matter of law if no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party.[6]

The Federal Circuit correctly found that only one finding is reasonable — that it is not fair use to infringe many thousands of lines of creative and intricately designed literary computer code for business convenience and to use it for the identical purpose in direct competition with Oracle.

Or, as Judge O’Malley put it: “There is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform.” Hence, Oracle was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law regardless of the standard by which fair use is determined.

There are of course other, more nuanced, reasons to find for Oracle on this procedural issue as well. On a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court determines matters of law de novo and assumes that all matters of fact have been found by the jury consistent with the verdict.

In applying the law to the facts, the court determines de novo any mixed questions of law and fact, especially where it is required to “expound on the law, particularly by amplifying or elaborating on a broad legal standard.”[7] Whether a use is a fair use is exactly the kind of determination that presents a mixed question of law and facts to be determined by a judge de novo.[8]

In making fair use rulings, judges routinely are called upon to balance the interests of property owners and the public, to ensure that the intent of the framers of the constitution are upheld by enforcing both the copyright clause and the First Amendment and to apply each of the four fair use factors in a manner that ensures the body of law develops in a stable fashion that the public can rely on. De novo standard of review for such an examination is thus entirely appropriate.

Conclusion 

While debates over who will replace Justice Ginsburg are focused on the political makeup of the court, for this case, as well as for many other IP-related matters, decisions are rarely influenced by a justice’s political leanings. The court of course aspires to politically unbiased justice in all matters, but copyright law in particular has always been an area where decisions are rendered without a view to whether one’s politics are progressive or conservative.

Nevertheless, the stakes in Google v. Oracle are high, and a strong opinion from the court is needed to ensure a company cannot blithely assert business convenience when it wishes to appropriate the creative work of another.

Although unlikely, it would be alarming if the court should be split 4-4 in its decision, but were that the case, the Federal Circuit’s ruling in favor of Oracle would stand, and the Supreme Court would not issue an opinion. Such a result, while technically correct, would be anticlimactic for copyright scholars and a missed opportunity for the court to once and for all time do away with the outlandish notion of efficient infringement.

[1] Brief of Respondent Oracle America Inc., Google v. Oracle, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/93436/20190327160337558_190311%20for%20E-Filing.pdf.

[2] Brief of Petitioner Google LLC, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/127663/20200106172508533_18-956%20ts.pdf.

[3] Brief of Amici Curiae Nine Professors and Scholars of Intellectual Property Law In Support of Respondent, Google v. Oracle, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/133538/20200219155838307_18-956%20bsac%20Nine%20Professors%20and%20Scholars%20on%20Intellectual%20Property%20Law.pdf.

[4] Id.

[5] United Sates Court of Appeals, Google v. Oracle (2017), http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1118.Opinion.3-26-2018.1.PDF.

[6] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50 https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-vi-trials/rule-50-judgment-as-a-matter-of-law-in-a-jury-trial-related-motion-for-a-new-trial-conditional-ruling/.

[7] U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Village of Lakeridge LLC , 138 S Ct 960, 967-68 (2018).

[8] See Harper & Row Publishers Inc v Nation Enters , 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985) ([w]here the district court has found facts sufficient to evaluate each of the statutory factors, an appellate court ‘need not remand for further factfinding but may conclude as a matter of law that the challenged use does not qualify as a fair use of the copyrighted work.).

Categories
Copyright

Copyright Notebook: The Importance of Artists’ Agency

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriterI am looking forward to hosting a keynote conversation with Grammy-winning composer, performer, songwriter, best-selling author, and essayist Rosanne Cash this week at CPIP’s The Evolving Music Ecosystem conference. One part of Rosanne Cash’s “music ecosystem” is the Artist Rights Alliance (ARA), where she serves as a member of the board. Preparing for that conversation, I am thinking a lot about the importance of artists’ agency. Over the summer, the ARA “rebooted,” relaunching itself with a powerhouse music council of artists and experts. The ARA is “an alliance of working musicians, performers, and songwriters fighting for a healthy creative economy and fair treatment for all creators in the digital world. [They] work to defend and protect artists, guided by [their] Artists’ Bill of Rights, which outlines fundamental principles for today’s music economy.”

Those principles:

The Right to Control Our Work
The Right to Economic and Artistic Freedom
The Right to Attribution and Acknowledgment
The Right to a Music Community
The Right to Competitive Platforms
The Right to Information and Platform Transparency
The Right to Political Participation

 

All share one core attribute—an artist’s agency—over their work, their livelihood, their community, themselves. That the ARA found it necessary to relaunch this summer is not surprising. The triple threat of a pandemic decimating artists’ livelihoods, the surging power of technology platforms, and the challenges of ensuring one’s work is not distorted by others or used to send disagreeable political messages has heightened awareness among artists about the issues for which ARA stands.

Several notable lawsuits have also brought these issues to the forefront this summer that may shape the nature of artists’ agency over their work for years to come. Here are some thoughts about why they are significant and some issues you may not have noticed.

Hachette Book Group et al. v. Internet Archive

On June 1, 2020, four of the world’s preeminent publishing houses sued Internet Archive (IA) for willful mass copyright infringement. The IA styles itself an online library, open to anyone to borrow books, music, and other works. It scans millions of copyrighted as well as public domain works and makes them available to “borrowers” for free. It had previously operated under an already controversial policy of “controlled digital lending” (more on that below), but in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, dropped even these minimal restrictions on its distribution of works. As the Authors Guild put it in an open letter to the IA:

[B]y declaring a spurious “copyright emergency” and making a massive trove of copyrighted books available for free without any restrictions, Internet Archive has demonstrated a shocking disrespect for the rule of law—the cornerstone of our civil, democratic society—at a time when we most need it to prevail. You cloak your illegal scanning and distribution of books behind the pretense of magnanimously giving people access to them. But giving away what is not yours is simply stealing, and there is nothing magnanimous about that. Authors and publishers—the rights owners who legally can give their books away—are already working to provide electronic access to books to libraries and the people who need them. We do not need Internet Archive to give our works away for us.

 

In their complaint, the publishers argue that IA’s assertion that it should not be liable for infringement is based on “an invented theory called ‘Controlled Digital Lending’ (‘CDL’)—the rules of which have been concocted from whole cloth and continue to get worse.” As the complaint sets forth:

[A]t first, under this theory IA claimed to limit the number of scanned copies of a title available for free download at any one time to the number of print books of that title in its collection—though no provision under copyright law offers a colorable defense to the systematic copying and distribution of digital book files simply because the actor collects corresponding physical copies. Then, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, IA opportunistically seized upon the global health crisis to further enlarge its cause, announcing with great fanfare that it would remove these already deficient limitations that were purportedly in place. Today, IA offers an enormous universe of scanned books to an unlimited number of individuals simultaneously in its “National Emergency Library.” IA’s blatant, willful infringement is all the more egregious for its timing, which comes at the very moment that many authors, publishers, and independent bookstores, not to mention libraries, are both struggling to survive amidst economic uncertainty, and planning deliberatively for future, changing markets.

 

The publishers’ lawsuit is important because it is the first “live” judicial challenge to the legal theory of “controlled digital lending”—a legal theory which was announced by certain academics and internet advocates in 2018. They argue that it should be fair use for libraries to scan or obtain scans of physical books they own and lend them electronically, provided certain restrictions are applied, such as limitations that attempt to emulate the limitations of lending in the physical world (e.g., limits on lending periods and on numbers of copies that can be loaned at a given time).

I refer to this as the first “live” judicial challenge because, while it is the first time CDL has been challenged in the courts, the supporters of CDL sought and failed to receive the blessing of the Second Circuit for IA’s original Open Library service when that court was reviewing the decision in Capitol Records v ReDigi. Unsurprisingly, the court declined to do so. In an opinion written by Judge Leval, the Second Circuit rejected ReDigi’s and its amici’s fair use argument because market harm would be likely since the sales of ReDigi’s digital files would compete directly with those of Capitol Records. Because “used” digital files do not deteriorate like used physical media, there would be no reason for customers to buy new licenses from Capitol Records if they could obtain the files from ReDigi at a lower price.

One imagines that the impact of free CDL on e-book sales would only be worse—first, because it is free, rather than merely a reduced price for “used” files, and second, because it would be usurping a valuable market authors and publishers have continued to actively develop and license for several years since the ReDigi decision. This includes licensing to libraries for free lending via services like OverDrive. It is likewise significant that the “Emergency Library” at issue in the publishers’ case against IA is far less restricted than the version of IA’s “Open Library” the amici sought and failed to have blessed by the Second Circuit in ReDigi.

Maria Schneider et. al. v. YouTube

Another case to watch is the class action lawsuit filed by composer and jazz performer Maria Schneider against YouTube and its parent companies Google and Alphabet in July. The lawsuit alleges that “YouTube has facilitated and induced [a] hotbed of copyright infringement [on its website] through its development and implementation of a copyright enforcement system that protects only the most powerful copyright owners such as major studios and record labels.” Because members of the class are denied access to the copyright management tool YouTube offers its corporate partners—Content ID—the lawsuit alleges that rather than preventing repeat infringements of works, the tool “actually insulates the vast majority of known and repeated copyright infringers from YouTube’s repeat infringer policy, thereby encouraging its users’ continuing upload of infringing content.”

This is all part of a deliberate strategy, according to the complaint:

Defendants Alphabet, Google, and YouTube reap billions of dollars annually from the online hosting of videos, including millions of works that infringe on the exclusive copyrights of Plaintiffs and the Class. Defendants permit and facilitate this infringement because it furthers their growth and revenue strategies and because they have determined that Plaintiffs and the Class—unlike YouTube’s preferred Content ID partners—lack the resources and leverage necessary to combat copyright infringement on the scale at which it is perpetuated on YouTube.

 

Maria Schneider argues many of the same things she and other artist advocates have asserted before Congress, the U.S. Copyright Office, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in hearings and roundtable proceedings exploring the provisions of Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA):

Faced with litigation by major music studios and other significant rights holders, Defendants have crafted distinct and disparate systems of copyright “enforcement” on their platform. For those entities with vast stores of copyright material and thus the leverage to require Defendants to appease their copyright management concerns, YouTube created its Content ID program, which allows qualifying copyright owners automatically to identify and manage their content on YouTube. . . . Smaller rights holders, including [Schneider], are, however, denied access to Content ID and thus are relegated to vastly inferior and time-consuming means of trying to police and manage their copyrights such as scanning the entirety of YouTube postings, searching for keywords, titles, and other potential identifiers.

 

They must then send notices identifying infringements URL by URL, filling out cumbersome webforms, often laden with advertising, struggle with captcha codes, and contend with requests for additional information or challenges from employees reviewing the requests.

While many artists have neither the pocketbook nor the backbone to stand up to an adversary like YouTube in federal court, this lawsuit seems particularly well-timed given that the ongoing focus on Section 512 in multiple government venues over the past decade has developed a solid record articulating the scope and the magnitude of the problem, as well as that the complaints against YouTube and other web platforms by individual artists seem to be almost universally shared.

Regardless of Maria Schneider’s lawsuit, the Senate and the U.S. Copyright Office are not done considering the issue. The Copyright Office released its much-anticipated Section 512 Report earlier this May and engaged in a subsequent exchange of letters with Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy regarding additional statutory clarifications that the Senate might consider and other approaches that could improve the operation of the DMCA without legislative amendment. Among the issues addressed in that letter is a request from the Senators to the Copyright Office to conduct stakeholder meetings to identify and adopt standard technical measures (STMs) as was anticipated in Section 512(i) of the DMCA. It is notable that Maria Schneider has herself been an active participant in the Copyright Office’s Section 512 proceedings, and in February of 2017, she submitted comments to the Copyright Office urging that Content ID be recognized as a STM under the DMCA and that all creators be granted access to it in order to be able to more efficiently police YouTube’s platform. The Copyright Office did not take up her suggestion.

In answer to the Tillis/Leahy request, on June 29, 2020, the Copyright Office responded in part that it will convene virtual meetings in late summer/early fall “focused on identifying any potential obstacles to the identification of potential STMs, as well as the requirements that must be met in order to adopt and implement an STM,” and to “begin identifying the kinds of technologies that may meet the statutory definition. Once the bounds of potential qualifying technologies have been identified, the Office would then convene further discussion to evaluate whether individual technologies meet the other requirements of section 512(i), including discussions to learn more about the terms upon which the technologies are offered in the marketplace.”

To date, hypothetical discussions (as well as lawsuits and licensing) have focused on digital fingerprinting technologies. Such technologies are designed to identify content by taking a “fingerprint” of a file that is being or has been uploaded to a platform and matching it to a database of sample content submitted by copyright owners. Regardless of the technology identified as an STM, the challenge may come not from choosing the technology, but rather in applying it. What one copyright owner is willing to tolerate in the name of marketing and fan word of mouth, another will not be. What a technology platform may set the technology to overlook, a filmmaker on the eve of a festival premiere will consider a “match.” Hence the importance of artists’ agency. Or as the ARA would have it: the right to competitive platforms and the right to information and platform transparency. Unless artists are informed about the STMs platforms apply and how they apply them, and unless they have the ability to keep their work from platforms that don’t meet their requirements, identifying an STM on its own won’t make much of a difference. Without artists’ agency and the right to control what happens to their creative output, we may just have the digital fingerprint version of the notice-and-takedown “whack-a-mole” game.[1]

Neil Young v. Donald J. Trump for President

Musicians have perpetually battled with political campaigns over the unauthorized use of their music at rallies and other campaign events. Given the particularly heated nature of this year’s presidential contest, it is perhaps not surprising that Neil Young has sued the Trump campaign for copyright infringement for publicly performing his musical works Rockin’ in the Free World and Devil’s Sidewalk at numerous campaign rallies and events, including one in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The complaint alleges: “The Campaign has willfully ignored Plaintiff’s telling it not to play the Songs and willfully proceeded to play the Songs despite its lack of a license and despite its knowledge that a license is required to do so.”

Neil Young is not the only musician battling the Trump campaign. Leonard Cohen’s estate is considering whether to file suit for the campaign’s use of Halleluiah during the last night of the Republican National Convention, and the Rolling Stones are working with ASCAP and BMI to persuade the Trump campaign to stop playing You Can’t Always Get What You Want at rallies. Campaigns typically assert that they are permitted to play any songs included in the Performing Rights Organizations’ political entities licenses, from which artists may seek to exclude their works if they object to use at political rallies. The allegations by Neil Young, the Cohen estate, and the Stones seem to be that the particular uses by the Trump campaign have gone beyond what a venue license for a political gathering envisions and that the campaign is instead using the songs to either distort their meaning or suggest an endorsement by the artist.

As the members of the Artist Rights Alliance wrote to all of the Republican and Democratic National Campaign Committees this July: “Like all other citizens, artists have the fundamental right to control their work and make free choices regarding their political expression and participation. Using their work for political purposes without their consent fundamentally breaches those rights—an invasion of the most hallowed, even sacred personal interests.”

These lawsuits are interesting because, until now, due to a combination of the veneer of protection offered by the venue licenses, and the time constraints imposed by campaign season, the only viable mechanism for discouraging unwanted uses of an artist’s work by a campaign has been public shaming via social media or statements by the artist publicly disowning and rejecting the candidate. Consequently, neither the moral rights or right of publicity-like qualities of the complaints nor the availability of damages for the infringing use have been explored. Since the Trump campaign is unlikely to settle a lawsuit, this case may define the boundaries of political entities licensed uses or add a new tool to musicians’ arsenals in ensuring they are not unwillingly conscripted into the service of a campaign they do not support.

RIP Matt Herron[2]

A civil rights era photographer I admired and came to know when I was CEO of the Copyright Alliance—Matt Herron—recently passed. Matt was inspiring on many levels. He described himself as an “activist with a camera,” and he covered some of the most meaningful moments in the effort to gain voting rights for Black people in the 1960s—including the Selma to Montgomery march.

“I photograph things I believe in. I try to photograph the things that are important in my life,” said Herron during a panel I moderated in 2011. He felt so strongly about what he saw happening in the 1960s south that he picked up his family and moved from Philadelphia to Mississippi because he thought they could be more relevant there. In doing so, through his photographs, he gave countless generations a front row seat to history. He described the five days he spent documenting the march from Selma to Montgomery:

As photographers, we are mostly voyeurs. We stand a little bit aside from an event. Part of our mind is clicking through F Stops and the rest of it is trying to figure out where images and angles are. But sometimes something happens that sucks us in and we lose that voyeuristic element and become part of the event itself. Certainly for me, the Selma March—five  days of walking in rain and sunshine and all kinds of conditions—was one of those moments. I have no memory of where I slept, what I ate, how I handled any of my basic physical problems. All I remember is the camera, the walking, and the faces.

 

Matt Herron lived by the copyright of his photographs and used them to further education about the social causes he covered. Besides the Selma march, he shot whaling protests by Greenpeace and the AIDS quilt. He explained that copyright laws help him keep collections of his images together and allow him to present them for the benefit of the causes covered:

I’ve put some effort into making not just single photographs but collections. I have historical collections and copyright allows me to decide how these images will be presented and how these historical moments can be disseminated. If I didn’t own the copyright some of these pictures of Martin Luther King might be used to advertise shoes. As it is, I can disseminate these images in ways that add to our national heritage, in educational ways for school children and to preserve a piece of history. Copyright allows me to retain this control not so I can keep them to myself but present them to the world in a way that’s coherent.

 

Matt Herron’s lifetime of work demonstrates in a way that is perhaps clearer this summer than any in recent memory why ensuring that artists are guaranteed agency over their creative output—whether they be photographers chronicling our history, musicians expressing our yearning, or authors giving words to our conscience—is crucial to democracy.

[1] Although it is approximately a decade old, this article, The (Im)possibility of “Standard Technical Measures” for UGC Websites, written by then student, now partner at Wilson Sonsini, Lauren Gallo, is the most thorough, balanced, and articulate examination of the issues the USCO is undertaking to date. Gallo notes that already in 2011 when her note was published, rights owners and UGC service providers were deploying fingerprinting technology to protect copyrighted works on the internet and operate repeat infringer policies. She writes: “In light of the widespread use of this successful technology and Congress’ mandate that ‘standard technical measures’ be developed ‘expeditiously,’ individual or infrequent holdouts should not obstruct the consensus necessary to define the term. . . . [F]ingerprinting technology should qualify as ‘standard technical measures’ under section 512(i), so that right holders and service providers may be on notice of their statutory obligations and may continue to develop ‘best practice’ applications for that technology.”

Ms. Gallo’s current practice focuses on novel legal questions online, involving among other issues, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and she has represented Google and YouTube in cases challenging their decisions regarding whether or not to remove or limit access to online content.

[2] Portions of this section appeared as a blog post in June of 2011 on the Copyright Alliance website, when I was CEO of that organization.

Categories
CPIP Roundup

CPIP Roundup – August 31, 2020

Greetings from CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor

Sean O'Connor

August has seen the beginning of a highly unusual school year, but I hope everyone is continuing to stay safe. And, since even a pandemic can’t keep the world from having a busy back-to-school month, I’ll keep this month’s note short.

First, we’re gearing up for The Evolving Music Ecosystem conference on September 9-11, 2020. The conference will be held via Zoom and feature a keynote address by singer, songwriter, and author Rosanne Cash. Registration is still open, and we hope you’ll join us!

Second, I’d like to welcome University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Professor Chris Holman as CPIP’s new Senior Fellow for Life Sciences. He will be taking over the role from Professor Erika Lietzan of University of Missouri School of Law, who has been supporting CPIP in that capacity for the past year. (Clearly, we have an affinity for the Show-Me State!) We’re excited to have him join us, and by way of an introduction, we encourage you to check out his recent guest column for The Phoenix advocating for protection of new uses for old medicines.

Third, we are finalizing the schedule for our Eighth Annual Fall Conference, to be held via Zoom on October 7-8, 2020. This year’s theme is 5G at the Nexus of IP, Antitrust, and Technology Leadership.

In other news, CPIP Senior Fellow for Innovation Policy Jonathan Barnett is now blogging at Truth on the Market, a platform for academics and economists to discuss various aspects of business law. You can read his inaugural post here. CPIP Senior Scholar Erika Lietzan has been appointed a Public Member at the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), which focuses on improving the administrative process. CPIP Director of Copyright Research and Policy Sandra Aistars spoke this past month on a copyright licensing panel hosted by Artomatic with the goal of informing visual artists about essential aspects of copyright law. It has also been a busy month for CPIP Senior Scholars Kristen Osenga and Mark Schultz—I encourage you to keep reading below to keep up with their recent news!

Registration Closing Soon for Evolving Music Ecosystem Conference with Rosanne Cash on September 9-11

Rosanne Cash

Please join us for The Evolving Music Ecosystem conference, which will be held online from Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia, on September 9-11, 2020. The event features three days of panel presentations by leading experts and a keynote address by Grammy-winning singer, songwriter, and author Rosanne Cash.

This unique conference continues a dialogue on the music ecosystem begun by CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor while at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle. In its inaugural year in the D.C. area, the conference aims to bring together musicians, music fans, lawyers, artist advocates, business leaders, government policymakers, and anyone interested in supporting thriving music ecosystems in the U.S. and beyond.

For more information, and to register, please click here.

Spotlight on Scholarship

a pair of glasses, an apple, and a stack of books

Kristen Osenga, Patent-Eligible Subject Matter… Still Wielding the Wrong Weapon–12 Years Later, 60 IDEA: L. Rev. Franklin Pierce Center for Intell. Prop. 104 (2020)

CPIP Senior Scholar Kristen Osenga has published a new paper on patent-eligible subject matter at IDEA entitled Patent-Eligible Subject Matter… Still Wielding the Wrong Weapon–12 Years Later. The paper looks at changes to patent eligibility that have developed since Prof. Osenga published an article on the same subject in 2007. At the time, she concluded that the Patent Office was using the “elephant gun” of new guidelines on the “ants” of patent eligibility. In the new paper, Prof. Osenga traverses the Supreme Court’s subsequent Section 101 decisions that drove the courts and Patent Office to continue wielding an “outsized elephant gun” when it comes to patent eligibility. However, she does note that recent activities at the Patent Office and Congress offer some hope that things may be changing for the better.

Mark F. Schultz, The Importance of an Effective and Reliable Patent System to Investment in Critical Technologies (USIJ July 2020)

Venture capitalists pouring money into a small startup has become a sort of new American Dream for many innovators. The success stories of big American companies starting with nothing more than an idea have pervaded their way into pop culture, inspiring TV shows, movies, and the like. However, CPIP Senior Scholar Mark Schultz has released a new report for USIJ entitled The Importance of an Effective and Reliable Patent System to Investment in Critical Technologies showing that this dream may be harder to attain today due to recent shifts that have weakened the patent system and driven away venture capital investment. Our blog post summarizing the report is available here, and you can read the summary at IPWatchdog here.

Activities, News, & Events

a lit lightbulb hanging next to unlit bulbs

On August 5, 2020, CPIP Director of Copyright Research and Policy Sandra Aistars joined Jaylen Johnson, Attorney Advisor at the U.S. Copyright Office, and Kim Tignor, Executive Director at the Institute for Intellectual Property & Social Justice (IIPSJ), for a virtual panel presentation on copyright protection for visual artists that was hosted by Artomatic. The panel focused on explaining key concepts of copyright law pertinent to visual artists and sharing resources that they can use to learn more about the basics of copyright protection. It also touched on common pitfalls among visual artists when it comes to protecting their creative works, including those that befall joint authors, and common misconceptions about fair use. Our blog post summarizing the event is available here.

On August 25, 2020, CPIP Senior Fellow for Innovation Policy Jonathan Barnett published a new essay at Truth on the Market entitled Will Montesquieu Rescue Antitrust? In the post, Prof. Barnett examines recent pressure on state and federal regulators to use antitrust laws against firms that have established market dominance, and he praises the genius of the eighteenth-century philosopher Montesquieu for developing the theory of separation of powers that allows the judiciary to police overly zealous antitrust prosecutors today. Traversing recent—and failed—antitrust enforcement actions, including AT&T’s acquisition of Time-Warner, Sabre’s acquisition of Farelogix, and FTC v. Qualcomm, Prof. Barnett explains how the judicial branch has become an important counterbalance to prosecutorial antitrust overreach that betrays the fundamental objective of promoting the public interest in deterring anticompetitive business practices.

On August 25, 2020, CPIP Senior Scholar Kristen Osenga published an op-ed in the Washington Times entitled If We Want Innovation, Companies Must Be Able To Rely on Patent Law To Protect Their Investments. The op-ed explains the importance of effective patent protection for innovative companies to develop and commercialize their new technologies. In particular, Prof. Osenga praises the recent antitrust victory of Qualcomm over the FTC in the Ninth Circuit, noting that a “race that results in innovation that other companies, and the public, dearly desires is exactly the point of competition.” Prof. Osenga also authored a recent op-ed for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, With Biomedical Research, Taxpayers Are Getting a Great Deal, explaining how the critics are wrong to argue that the government should take control of important biomedical inventions like remdesivir. She was also quoted in a recent article at Bloomberg Law entitled Court Split Over Driveshaft Patent Muddies Eligibility Question about the Federal Circuit’s recent 6-6 split on whether to review an important patent-eligibility case en banc.

Categories
Copyright

CPIP’s Sandra Aistars Joins Artomatic Panel on Copyright Protection for Visual Artists

The following post comes from Liz Velander, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

the word "copyright" written on a typewriterBy Liz Velander

As part of its ongoing series about the copyright licensing process, Artomatic hosted a virtual panel for visual artists last week to discuss how to protect their creative works. The panel focused on explaining key concepts of copyright law pertinent to visual artists and sharing resources that they can use to learn more about the basics of copyright protection. It also touched on common pitfalls among visual artists when it comes to protecting their creative works, including those that befall joint authors, and common misconceptions about fair use.

The panelists included CPIP Director of Copyright Research and Policy Sandra Aistars and Jaylen Johnson, Attorney Advisor at the U.S. Copyright Office, and it was moderated by Kim Tignor, Executive Director at the Institute for Intellectual Property & Social Justice.

Prof. Aistars explained that there are three important things visual artists should know about copyright law. First, the requirements for copyright protection. Copyright law protects original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium. An “original” work means that it was created independently and not copied from somebody else. Prof. Aistars noted that “this doesn’t mean the work has to be absolutely novel—if you have two artists who independently create something that is substantially similar, without copying from each other, both of those works are protected by copyright.”

Prof. Aistars also clarified the distinction between ideas and expression, noting that copyright law only protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Visual artists cannot “copyright the idea of painting a field of sunflowers,” but they can protect “the precise rendering of that work, the nuances of brushstroke, the layering of the paint on the canvas” because those are all elements of expression. A work must also be fixed in a tangible medium of expression, Prof. Aistars continued, which could include paper, canvas, or a digital medium. If a work meets all these elements, it is protected by copyright and the visual artist obtains a variety of exclusive rights that allow her to make a living from her creative pursuits.

The second important thing to know about copyright law, according to Prof. Aistars, is that copyright protection is automatic. A visual artist does not need to register a work with the Copyright Office to receive protection. Instead, copyright protection exists from the moment the artist sets a work down in a tangible medium of expression. However, Prof. Aistars noted that it is a good practice for visual artists to register their works with the Copyright Office. Registration gives copyright owners additional benefits and makes it easier for people to find the copyright owner to license her works.

Finally, Prof. Aistars explained that it is important to understand that a visual artist retains the copyright in a work when she sells a copy of it, even if it is the only copy she has ever created. Selling a copy does not transfer the underlying rights the artist enjoys as a copyright owner. Prof. Aistars pointed out that “you’re not transferring the rights to make copies of the work, print them up on t-shirts and postcards, and sell them on the internet to whoever buys the copy of your work—unless you enter into a separate agreement with that person.”

Ms. Johnson noted that the Copyright Office is an excellent resource for visual artists who want to learn more about copyright protection. As the primary agency in charge of administering copyright law, the Office advises Congress, facilitates rulemaking, assists in litigation efforts, serves on international delegations, and administers the nation’s registration and recordation system. In celebration of its 150th anniversary, the Office recently launched a new initiative called Engage Your Creativity that pulls together a variety of resources for creators. Ms. Johnson stated that the initiative is a great way to become familiar with the many resources available to the public through the Office’s website.

The panelists also identified common pitfalls visual artists encounter during the creative process. Many occur because artists are not sure what qualifies as fair use of a copyrighted work. Prof. Aistars explained that “fair use exists so artists can build and comment on existing works in their own work, and in so doing add to our cultural dialogue and engage with one another in artistic conversations.” She advised artists to treat fair use as the Golden Rule: “Think about the way you would feel if someone uses your work the way you’re proposing to use someone else’s work, and then be very honest.”

The courts have four factors that they evaluate together to determine whether a use is fair or not. Codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act, the four factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is commercial or educational; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. However, since these factors are neither dispositive nor exhaustive, courts typically explore fair use claims in an open-ended, case-by-case manner. This is an area where artists run into trouble, Prof. Aistars explained, because “there are no bright lines. There’s not a set rule that you can use this much, but no more. Artists are trying to make the best decisions they can, and sometimes that isn’t the decision the court would’ve made.”

The panelists noted that another common pitfall arises with jointly created works. Under the Copyright Act, the authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in a work. Each author can do whatever she wants with the work, as long as she accounts to the other. This is a problem when a collaborative relationship goes south, or if one author wants to use the work in a way that the other author disagrees with. Prof. Aistars advised visual artists to put an agreement in writing prior to starting a collaborative relationship.

Copyright law may seem like daunting subject to visual artists, but it can be easily understood with the right information. In closing, Ms. Johnson emphasized the importance of making resources accessible and engaging in public outreach because “copyright is for everybody.”

Categories
CPIP Roundup

CPIP Roundup – July 31, 2020

Greetings from CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor

Sean O'Connor

I hope summer is seeing you healthy and safe. Over four months have passed since the Washington, D.C., area began to feel the impact of COVID-19. Now, as summer progresses and we start anticipating and planning for fall, we’re looking to navigate the new normal in the classroom, workplace, and of course in the virtual space.

In June, CPIP hosted the WIPO-CPIP Summer School on Intellectual Property for the third year running. Usually the program is held at Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia, and both U.S. and international attendees gather to study and network for two weeks in June. This year, however, we opted to move the entire program online, streaming it via Webex. Nearly one hundred attendees from all over the world were able to attend live virtual lectures and panels by a great lineup of experts, both in IP and related fields. We’re grateful to the CPIP staff, our IT support at Scalia Law, and to all our speakers and students for helping make this year’s Summer School successful and memorable in many ways.

As part of the Summer School, CPIP co-hosted a public panel, Patents on Life: Diamond v. Chakrabarty at 40, with the Smithsonian Institution’s Lemelson Center on June 17. We’re grateful to all the speakers who lent their expertise to this interesting and timely discussion, and most especially Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty, the inventor at the heart of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case. Sadly, less than a month after the panel, we received the news that Dr. Chakrabarty had passed away. Our deepest condolences go out to his family and friends as we also remember his personal and professional legacy.

COVID-19 has complicated plans for many upcoming events, including ours. While we had hoped to hold our much-anticipated The Evolving Music Ecosystem conference in person by moving it from this past spring until the fall, best guidance now dictates that we move it online. We still look forward to a stellar event running from September 9-11, including a keynote address from Rosanne Cash. We will also move our Annual Fall Conference on October 8 to a fully online format. This year’s theme will focus on the IP issues surrounding the rollout of 5G wireless technology. Thank you for your patience as we pursue dual priorities: continuing to support the dialogue surrounding IP and keeping everyone involved safe and well.

I would like to congratulate and welcome Dr. Hina Mehta, Director of Mason’s Office of Technology Transfer, as an Affiliate Scholar with CPIP. Dr. Mehta has taught during the WIPO-CPIP Summer School these past two years, and we’re happy to have her join us and work with us on a more official basis.

I also want to thank those IP scholars who signed our May response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s call for comments on the possible effects of free, public access to scholarly research.

On a personal note, I have become a regular contributor to The Hill with a mix of IP and other opinion topics based on my broader historical research. Articles to date include: Avoiding Another Great Depression Through a Developmentally Layered Reopening of the Economy, Cancel Culture, Copyright, and the Harper’s Letter, and How We Finally Tip Into “Bread and Circuses’ Authoritarianism.

In May, I participated as a panelist for the COVID-19 CHHS Webinar Series with Mason’s College of Health and Human Services in the episode Weighing the Decision to Safely ‘Reopen’ Northern Virginia; the episode was also noted by DCist and Fairfax County Economic Development Authority. COVID-19 has not completely taken over all events and conversations, though. I spoke in April at a virtual session on copyright and social justice hosted by the University of Akron School of Law’s Intellectual Property & Technology Law Association, and in June at the NVTC Impact AI Conference on the panel Protecting AI Inventions: Current Issues and Best Practices.

I’d like to thank Akron’s Professor Camilla Hrdy for providing her comments on my paper Distinguishing Different Kinds of Property in Patents and Copyright, which was also shared on the Private Law Theory blog.

In conclusion, the past few months have been full and productive, and I look forward to seeing CPIP and our friends and supporters successfully navigate the remainder of 2020. I wish you the best over the coming months as we hope and cooperate to put COVID-19 behind us. Until then, we continue to be in this together.

Online Music Law Conference with Rosanne Cash on September 9-11

Rosanne Cash

We are excited to announce that the music law conference, The Evolving Music Ecosystem, which will be held online from Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia, has now been extended to a three-day event on September 9-11, 2020. The keynote address will be given by Rosanne Cash, and it features panel presentations from leading experts.

This unique conference continues a dialogue on the music ecosystem begun by CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor while at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle. In its inaugural year in the D.C. area, the conference aims to bring together musicians, music fans, lawyers, artist advocates, business leaders, government policymakers, and anyone interested in supporting thriving music ecosystems in the U.S. and beyond.

For more information, and to register, please click here.

“Patents on Life” Panel Discussion Video Now Available

the U.S. Capitol

On June 17, 2020, CPIP and the Smithsonian Institution’s Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation co-hosted a virtual panel discussion entitled Patents on Life: Diamond v. Chakrabarty at 40. CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor delivered closing remarks after a panel presentation that included the late inventor and distinguished professor of microbiology and immunology Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty.

The panelists discussed the 1980 Supreme Court ruling in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that authorized the first patent on an intentionally genetically modified organism and that contributed to the rise of the modern biotechnology industry and reshaped the agriculture industry. Video from the panel discussion is available here, and our blog post summarizing it is available here.

Spotlight on Scholarship

a pair of glasses, an apple, and a stack of books

Christopher M. Holman, Congress Should Decline Ill-Advised Legislative Proposals Aimed at Evergreening of Pharmaceutical Patent Protection, 51 U. Pac. L. Rev. 493 (2020)

Many believe that drug prices in the U.S. are unnecessarily high because the pharmaceutical industry is exploiting legal loopholes and acquiring dubious patents to extend protection and delay generics from entering the market (so-called “evergreening” behavior by drug innovators). However, CPIP Senior Scholar Chris Holman of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law has published a new paper arguing that these recent concerns regarding patents and drug prices are unfounded. The paper, entitled Congress Should Decline Ill-Advised Legislative Proposals Aimed at Evergreening of Pharmaceutical Patent Protection and published in the University of the Pacific Law Review, further challenges recent legislative proposals aimed at pharmaceutical evergreening, finding that they “are largely misguided, and, if enacted, would be likely to cause more harm than good by discouraging innovation in pharmaceuticals without effectively addressing the core concern.” Our blog post summarizing the paper is available here.

Michael S. Greve, Exceptional, After All and After Oil States: Judicial Review and the Patent System, 26 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 1 (2020)

What if there is a way for a patent applicant to obtain a “gold-plated patent” that is immune to administrative cancellation before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)? This intriguing notion is the subject of a recent paper by Professor Mike Greve of Scalia Law, titled Exceptional, After All and After Oil States: Judicial Review and the Patent System and published in the Winter 2020 edition of the Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law. Prof. Greve presented an early draft of this paper at the “Perspectives on the PTAB: The New Role of the Administrative State in the Innovation Economy” conference that was co-hosted by CPIP and the Gray Center at Scalia Law. Our blog post summarizing the paper is available here.

Activities, News, & Events

a lit lightbulb hanging next to unlit bulbs

CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor continues to lead the law school’s new Innovation Law Clinic. The Clinic teams law students (IP, corporate, tax) to analyze and counsel entrepreneurs, creators, and inventors from the University’s internal and external communities. The course teaches students about entrepreneurship and commercializing innovation and creativity, as well as how to craft an overall legal strategy in the context of a client’s business, technology, and/or artistic vision. A core deliverable is the Innovator’s Roadmap, which provides a comprehensive, client eyes-only analysis of the venture and legal issues it needs to address in the near and mid-term. Anticipated projects include hydrogen fuel cell refilling technology venture; edutainment and fundraising franchise system for community building; emerging fashion designer; online platform for fictional world-building authors; and an innovative medical device venture spinning out of the University. Specific legal services to be delivered can include entity formation; securing or licensing IP; drafting employment agreements; and advice on tax filings.

CPIP Director of Copyright Research & Policy Sandra Aistars will lead the law school’s Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic again this fall. The Clinic teaches students the legal and policy skills required for engaging with Congress, agencies, and courts on behalf of copyright owners. Students will develop substantive legal knowledge in copyright and related areas of law as well as practical skills in research, writing, and advocacy by counseling clients and preparing legal and policy documents. Anticipated projects this fall include identifying ownership and clearing rights for illustration created in the 1960s, conducting an online legal clinic for members of Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts (WALA), contract drafting and strategic planning for a musician-owned music licensing service, and continued collaboration and special projects for the U.S. Copyright Office.

CPIP has published a new policy brief by CPIP Senior Fellow for Innovation Policy Jonathan Barnett entitled The Long Shadow of the Blackberry Shutdown That Wasn’t. The policy brief looks at how the Blackberry litigation and the “patent troll” narrative ultimately contributed to the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange that limited the availability of injunctive relief for successful patentees. Prof. Barnett then examines the problematic legacy of the post-eBay case law, which significantly shifted the legal infrastructure supporting the U.S. innovation markets. In particular, he explains how this shift has led to opportunistic infringement that favors downstream incumbents with the resources to fund extensive litigation at the expense of upstream innovators—a dynamic that is exemplified in the recent litigation between Sonos and Google.

Categories
Copyright

Scalia Law Students and CPIP Scholars Make an Impact in Copyright Office Section 512 Study

the word "copyright" written on a typewriterThe U.S. Copyright Office released its long-awaited report on Section 512 of Title 17 late last week. The Report is the culmination of more than four years of study by the Office of the safe harbor provisions for online service provider (OSP) liability in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). Fortuitously, the study period coincided with the launch of Scalia Law’s Arts and Entertainment Advocacy Clinic. Clinic students were able to participate in all phases of the study, including filing comments on behalf of artists and CPIP scholars, testifying at roundtable proceedings on both coasts, and conducting a study of how OSPs respond to takedown notices filed on behalf of different types of artists. The Office cites the filings and comments of Scalia Law students numerous times and ultimately adopts the legal interpretation of the law advocated by the CPIP scholars.

The Office began the study in December 2015 by publishing a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register seeking public input on the impact and effectiveness of the safe harbor provisions in Section 512. Citing testimony by CPIP’s Sean O’Connor to the House Judiciary Committee that the notice-and-takedown system is unsustainable given the millions of takedown notices sent each month, the Office launched a multi-pronged inquiry to determine whether Section 512 was operating as intended by Congress.

Scalia Law’s Arts and Entertainment Advocacy Clinic drafted two sets of comments in response to this initial inquiry. Terrica Carrington and Rebecca Cusey submitted comments to the Office on behalf of middle class artists and advocates, including Blake Morgan, Yunghi Kim, Ellen Seidler, David Newhoff, and William Buckley, arguing that the notice-and-takedown regime under Section 512 is “ineffective, inefficient, and unfairly burdensome on artists.” The students pointed out that middle class artists encounter intimidation and personal danger when reporting infringements to OSPs. Artists filing takedown notices must include personal information, such as their name, address, and telephone number, which is provided to the alleged infringer or otherwise made public. Artists often experience harassment and retaliation for sending notices. The artists, by contrast, obtain no information about the identity of the alleged infringer from the OSP. The Office’s Report cited these problems as a detriment for middle class artists and “a major motivator” of its study.

A second response to the notice of inquiry was filed by a group of CPIP scholars, including Sandra Aistars, Matthew Barblan, Devlin Hartline, Kevin Madigan, Adam Mossoff, Sean O’Connor, Eric Priest, and Mark Schultz. These comments focused solely on the issue of how judicial interpretations of the “actual” and “red flag” knowledge standards affect Section 512. The scholars urged that the courts have interpreted the red flag knowledge standard incorrectly, thus disrupting the incentives that Congress intended for copyright owners and OSPs to detect and deal with online infringement. Several courts have interpreted red flag knowledge to require specific knowledge of particular infringing activity; however, the scholars argued that Congress intended for obvious indicia of general infringing activity to suffice.

The Office closely analyzed and ultimately adopted the scholars’ red flag knowledge argument in the Report:

Public comments submitted by a group of copyright law scholars in the Study make a point closely related to the rightsholders’ argument above, focusing on the different language Congress chose for actual and red flag knowledge. They note that the statute’s standard for actual knowledge is met when the OSP has “knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing” or “knowledge that the material or activity is infringing,” while the red flag knowledge standard is met when the OSP is “aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.” This difference, the copyright law scholars argue, is crucial to understanding the two standards: while the statute uses a definite article—“the”—to refer to material or activity that would provide actual knowledge, it drops “the” to speak more generally about facts or circumstances that would create red flag knowledge. “In Congress’s view,” the comment concludes, “the critical distinction between the two knowledge standards was this: Actual knowledge turns on specifics, while red flag knowledge turns on generalities.”

 

The Office went on to state that “a standard that requires an OSP to have knowledge of a specific infringement in order to be charged with red flag knowledge has created outcomes that Congress likely did not anticipate.” And since “courts have set too high a bar for red flag knowledge,” the Office concluded, Congress’ intent for OSPs to act upon information of infringement has been subverted. This echoed the scholars’ conclusion that the courts have disrupted the balance of responsibilities that Congress sought to create with Section 512 by narrowly interpreting the red flag knowledge standard.

Scalia Law students and CPIP scholars likewise participated in roundtable hearings on each coast to provide further input for the Copyright Office’s study of Section 512. The first roundtable was held on May 2-3, 2016, in New York, New York, at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, where the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York hear cases. The roundtable was attended by CPIP’s Sandra Aistars and Matthew Barblan. They discussed the notice-and-takedown process, the scope and impact of the safe harbors, and the future of Section 512. The second roundtable was held in San Francisco, California, at the James R. Browning Courthouse, where the Ninth Circuit hears cases. Scalia Law student Rebecca Cusey joined CPIP’s Sean O’Connor and Devlin Hartline to discuss the notice-and-takedown process, applicable legal standards, the scope and impact of the safe harbors, voluntary measures and industry agreements, and the future of Section 512. Several of the comments made by the CPIP scholars at the roundtables ended up in the Office’s Report.

In November 2016, the Office published another notice of inquiry in the Federal Register seeking additional comments on the impact and effectiveness of Section 512. The notice itself included citations to the comments submitted by Scalia Law students and the comments of the CPIP scholars. Under the guidance of Prof. Aistars, the students from Scalia Law’s Arts and Entertainment Advocacy Clinic again filed comments with the Office. Clinic students Rebecca Cusey, Stephanie Semler, Patricia Udhnani, Rebecca Eubank, Tyler Del Rosario, Mandi Hart, and Alexander Summerton all contributed to the comments, which discussed their work in helping individuals and small businesses enforce their copyright claims by submitting takedown notices pursuant to Section 512. The students reported on the practical barriers to the effective use of the notice-and-takedown process at particular OSPs. Two problems identified by the students were cited by the Copyright Office as examples of how OSPs make it unnecessarily difficult to submit a takedown notice. Accordingly, the Office called on Congress to update the relevant provisions of Section 512.

Two years after the additional written comments were submitted, the Office announced a third and final roundtable to be held on April 8, 2019, at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss any relevant domestic or international developments that had occurred during the two prior years. CPIP’s Devlin Hartline attended this third roundtable to discuss recent case law related to Section 512, thus ensuring that CPIP scholars were represented at all three of the Office’s roundtables.

CPIP congratulates and thanks the students of Scalia Law’s Arts and Entertainment Advocacy Clinic for their skillful advocacy on behalf of artists who otherwise would not be heard in these debates.

Categories
CPIP Roundup

CPIP Roundup – April 30, 2020

Greetings from CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor

Sean O'Connor

As we move into another month of stay-at-home here in the DMV—and perhaps some re-openings—we here at CPIP hope that you and yours are staying safe and healthy while we weather this crisis.

We continue to move forward, however. Our biggest news this month is the addition of Joshua Kresh as our new Deputy Director. Most recently an IP attorney at DLA Piper, he has worked at other major firms and is active in policy and new lawyer training with AIPLA and the Giles Rich Inn of Court. Joshua brings with him a patent-rich legal background, and he’ll be a valuable asset to the CPIP team and mission. We look forward to working with him and hope you wish him the best as he takes up this new role.

Like many other schools and organizations, Scalia Law School and CPIP have moved online for the time being—but that doesn’t mean we’ve stopped forging ahead and navigating new challenges. Because all George Mason University onsite events have been cancelled through August 8, we’ve moved our much-anticipated Music Law Conference back to September 10-11, 2020. We greatly appreciate the flexibility and understanding of every single person involved, not least our special guest and keynote speaker, Rosanne Cash. We hope you can still join us for the event in the fall—and, if you were unable to make the April dates, we hope this postponement works to your benefit!

CPIP’s main event this summer, the WIPO-CPIP Summer School on Intellectual Property for this coming June 8-19, 2020, has moved online as a virtual program via WebEx. CPIP primarily will serve participants in the Americas, although we’ll also be welcoming a number of attendees from other parts of the world who have opted to stay with the U.S.A. program.

As of March, I joined the Board of Directors for The Circle Foundation, an organization in the Republic of Korea that supports innovation and entrepreneurship to strengthen the start-up ecosystem. This new role brings CPIP and Scalia Law School into another level of connection with Mason Korea’s excellent in-country campus and activities.

In April, I was a virtual guest speaker for CPIP Co-Founder—and now University of Akron Goodyear Tire & Rubber Chair of Intellectual Property—Mark Schultz’s WebEx event, Copyright and Social Justice: How the “Blurred Lines” Case Brought Overdue Recognition for African American Artist. The talk was co-sponsored by the Black Law Students Association and the Intellectual Property and Technology Law Association. Also in April, I gave a virtual presentation to admitted Scalia Law prospective students on Cannabis: Creating a New Regulated Economy.

CPIP and our colleagues have remained productive over these past weeks, from rescheduling events to publishing timely pieces. My article Distinguishing Different Kinds of Property in Patents and Copyrights—based on an early presentation at CPIP’s Annual Fall Conference—was published in the George Mason Law Review, and my recent op-ed, Avoiding Another Great Depression Through a Developmentally Layered Reopening of the Economy, appeared in The Hill. I was interviewed on WBAL for this piece as well. Finally, CPIP along with many other organizations from around the world signed onto an open letter to WIPO’s Director-General for World IP Day.

This past month and a half have undoubtedly been difficult. At CPIP, our thoughts go out especially to all creators and innovators who are facing new challenges as they strive to protect their livelihoods and intellectual property in this difficult time. We truly hope this May brings improvements, both locally and globally. Stay well, safe, and sane.

CPIP Welcomes Joshua Kresh as Deputy Director

Joshua Kresh

CPIP is proud to welcome Joshua Kresh to our leadership team! As Deputy Director, Joshua will report to CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor while managing and participating in CPIP’s day-to-day operations. Joshua will oversee CPIP’s academic research, policy, and fundraising efforts, working as well on planning and executing CPIP events such as conferences, meetings, fellowships, and roundtables. Joshua will also consult with Professor O’Connor and the other faculty directors to develop CPIP’s long-term academic and policy plans.

Before joining CPIP as Deputy Director, Joshua was an Associate with DLA Piper in Washington, D.C., where he practiced patent litigation. He received his law degree with honors from The George Washington University Law School, and he holds master’s and bachelor’s degrees in computer science from Brandeis University. Joshua is the Chair of AIPLA’s New Lawyers Committee and Co-Mentoring Chair of the Giles Rich American Inn of Court, and he is a registered patent attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

To read the rest of our announcement, please click here.

Music Law Conference with Rosanne Cash Moved to September 10-11, 2020

Rosanne Cash

We are excited to announce that the music law conference, The Evolving Music Ecosystem, which will be held at Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia, has now been moved to September 10-11, 2020. The keynote address will be given by Rosanne Cash, and it features two days of panel presentations from leading experts.

This unique conference continues a dialogue on the music ecosystem begun by CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor while at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle. In its inaugural year in the D.C. area, the conference aims to bring together musicians, music fans, lawyers, artist advocates, business leaders, government policymakers, and anyone interested in supporting thriving music ecosystems in the U.S. and beyond.

For more information, and to register, please click here.

Registration Open for WIPO-CPIP Summer School on IP on June 8-19, 2020

WIPO Summer School flyer

CPIP has again partnered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to host the third iteration of the WIPO-CPIP Summer School on Intellectual Property from Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia, on June 8-19, 2020. Registration is now open, and we recommend that participants apply early, as we expect the program to be full. In order to accommodate the global response to COVID-19, we have moved the course online this year.

The course provides a unique opportunity for students, professionals, and government officials to work with leading experts to gain a deeper knowledge of IP to advance their careers. The course consists of lectures, case studies, simulation exercises, group discussions, and panel discussions on selected IP topics, with an orientation towards the interface between IP and other disciplines. U.S. law students can receive 3 hours of academic credit from Scalia Law!

For more information, and to register, please click here.

Spotlight on Scholarship

a pair of glasses, an apple, and a stack of books

Sean M. O’Connor, Distinguishing Different Kinds of Property in Patents and Copyrights, 27 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 205 (2019)

In this paper from our Annual Fall Conference, CPIP Executive Director Sean O’Connor explores the different meanings of “property” with respect to patents and copyrights. Prof. O’Connor explains that, contrary to the current conventional wisdom, the purpose of protection in early modern Europe was to incentivize public disclosure and commercialization, not private creation. To demonstrate this, he traverses the evolution of different kinds of property, including private knowledge, ad hoc grants of rights, rights in goods that embody intellectual property, and contractual assignments or licenses. Prof. O’Connor then describes how confusion over these different kinds of property has lead people to talk past each other in intellectual property debates, and he argues that a more nuanced understanding of the various property interests at stake might enable more constructive engagements going forward.

Charles Delmotte, The Case Against Tax Subsidies in Innovation Policy, 48 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming)

In this paper from our Thomas Edison Innovation Fellowship, Charles Delmotte of NYU Law assesses the proposal for replacing intellectual property rights with tax subsidies for research and development (R&D) firms. Dr. Delmotte explains that innovation scholarship neglects economic insights on efficiencies, such as how information problems prevent the efficient operationalization of tax subsidies since innovation outcomes turn on unpredictable market processes that cannot be steered in advance. Turning to public choice theory, Dr. Delmotte points out that tax subsidies are particularly susceptible to diversion by the rent-seeking behavior of the politically affluent, and relying on economic realism, he argues that the best way to promote innovation is by securing stable intellectual property rights that undergird the background institutions that facilitate competition and entrepreneurship.

Activities, News, & Events

a lit lightbulb hanging next to unlit bulbs

In a new CPIP policy brief entitled The End of Patent Groupthink, CPIP Senior Fellow for Innovation Policy Jonathan Barnett highlights some cracks that have emerged in the recent policy consensus that the U.S. patent system is “broken” and it is necessary to “fix” it. Policymakers have long operated on the basis of mostly unquestioned assumptions about the supposed explosion of low quality patents and the concomitant patent litigation that purportedly threaten the foundation of the innovation ecosystem. These assumptions have led to real-world policy actions that have weakened patent rights. But as Prof. Barnett discusses in the policy brief, that “groupthink” is now eroding as empirical evidence shows that the rhetoric doesn’t quite match up to the reality. This has translated into incremental but significant movements away from the patent-skeptical trajectory that has prevailed at the Supreme Court, the USPTO, and the federal antitrust agencies.

We have several new posts on the CPIP blog, including the first installment of our new series on recent copyright law developments. In a post entitled Copyright Notebook: Observations on Copyright in the Time of COVID-19, CPIP Director of Copyright Research and Policy Sandra Aistars discusses several current copyright cases and issues, including how artists, authors, and copyright industries have taken unprecedented steps to bring enjoyment to our circumscribed lives. We published a similarly hopeful piece entitled IP Industries Step Up in This Time of Crisis on how bio-pharma industries and scientific publishers have made crucial information and materials available when they are needed the most. CPIP Director of Communications Devlin Hartline published a piece entitled Supreme Court Paves Way for Revoking State Sovereign Immunity for Copyright Infringement that looks at the Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v. Cooper. And CPIP Senior Fellow for Life Sciences Erika Lietzan published a piece entitled The Tradeoffs Involved in New Drug Approval, Expanded Access, and Right to Try on the various issues with approving new medicines.

CPIP Senior Scholar Kristen Osenga joined Professors Greg Dolin and Irina Manta in filing an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in Celgene v. Peter. The issue on appeal is one that was left unresolved in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy, namely, whether retrospective applications of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings under the 2011 American Invents Act are unconstitutional takings. The brief argues that, for several reasons, the Federal Circuit below reached the wrong conclusion in holding that they are not unconstitutional. First, IPRs are significantly different than ex parte and inter partes reexaminations, since patentees are not free to amend claims in order to resolve claim scope ambiguities. Second, empirical research shows that the economic impact of such IPRs is to devalue patents and chill investment. Finally, the cases relied on by the Federal Circuit to support its conclusion are inapposite or outdated. The amicus brief was featured in a recent article at IPWatchdog entitled Amici Urge Supreme Court to Grant Celgene’s Petition on Constitutionality of Retroactive IPRs.

Categories
Copyright

Copyright Notebook: Observations on Copyright in the Time of COVID-19

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriterThe Indomitable Spirit of Artists

Heroes are everywhere. We all give thanks for the selfless efforts of medical professionals, first responders, delivery drivers, gig economy workers, grocery and pharmacy staff, and the many other individuals who daily place themselves at the center of the coronavirus pandemic in order to make our quarantined lives safe and manageable. Now with working-from-home days blurring into nights and weeks rolling by in an undifferentiated haze, artists, scholars, and the industries that work with them are taking unprecedented steps to bring color, life, and knowledge to our circumscribed lives. Theatrical release movies are streaming to homes, operas and Broadway productions are available on the websites of shuttered arts venues to enjoy for free, bands are playing online gigs, authors have devised ways to make their works available for online enjoyment and distance learning in a myriad of settings, and scholarly publishers and newspapers are making relevant news reporting and research about the coronavirus free to users.

This should not be terribly surprising. Authors and artists of all varieties have always nurtured deep community roots. They are the very types of entrepreneurs and independent businesses who–alongside shop owners and local services–undergird our towns and cities and contribute to our well-being not only through their creativity, but also through their generosity when neighbors seek support. Writing in the New York Times, author David Sax said about the importance of small local businesses:

These are the entrepreneurs who matter now, more than ever. Not the ones on the covers of magazines, not the billionaires and recipients of venture capital checks, whose products we may use, but whose lives are distant and entirely removed from the day-to-day of our communities. If Casper, WeWork or some celebrity’s makeup company doesn’t survive this crisis, the impact on our lives will be negligible. Elon Musk will be fine. But if we lose our barber, the fruit store on the corner or the plumber who saved us in a flood, we will have lost a piece of ourselves.

 

This is the mindset with which I am approaching copyright in the time of COVID-19.

The National Emergency Library

Sadly, unprecedented moves by artists to share their work with the world on lockdown have not dissuaded opportunistic behavior online. Capitalizing on the shutdown, multi-millionaire Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive, who has long argued for expanding rights to copy and make copyrighted works digitally available without the permission of authors, announced an “emergency” free library of copyrighted works, available to readers without a waiting list. While Kahle’s Internet Archive has been controversial since its inception, this new iteration apparently removes all limits on the number of users who can check out a work simultaneously – essentially turning it into an all-you-can-read free e-book service. This goes beyond even the limitations applicable to brick-and-mortar libraries that offer electronic lending.

Kahle’s opportunistic move did not pass unnoticed, however. Senator Thom Tillis, who as head of the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property is deeply engaged in reviewing and updating U.S. intellectual property policy, promptly penned a letter to Kahle noting:

I am not aware of any measure under copyright law that permits a user of copyrighted works to unilaterally create an emergency copyright act.

 

Tillis is right – making the 1.4 million books Kahle has scanned into his database freely available to an unlimited number of users is inconsistent with current copyright law. Moreover, it is a step towards “losing a part of ourselves,” as Sax so aptly puts it. According to the Authors Guild, the mean income for a professional author is $20,300 annually. Authors are the epitome of the types of breadwinners various government programs should currently be trying to prop up, rather than barons of industry who should be taxed for the welfare of others.

While the Internet Archive has reportedly reached an agreement with the University of North Carolina Press and Duke University Press in the past weeks, this agreement is too little, too late, and it represents a pernicious trend among internet industry advocates to infringe first, seek agreement later. Terms like “efficient infringement” have emerged to describe such behavior.

Internet Archive’s behavior threatens to upend the promise of copyright protection as an invitation to a business negotiation between authors and larger, better resourced associates who wish to acquire rights in their works. Practitioners of so-called “efficient infringement” or “permissionless innovation” blatantly challenge individual authors to sue infringers if they dare, or otherwise to take whatever the infringer is willing to offer. The music industry has called this negotiating-with-a-gun-to-one’s-head approach the reason for the “value gap,” which is seen when comparing license terms among internet services that rely on protections like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbors to avoid liability for infringement and those services that negotiate for rights in the free marketplace. It is not surprising that lopsided business terms result in cases where infringers are empowered by circumstances or the law to adopt a “sue me” approach instead of negotiating in good faith.

Google v. Oracle

Another example of the “efficient infringement” approach to acquiring intellectual property is seen in Google v. Oracle. This long-litigated case will bring a Supreme Court holding on whether companies can slavishly copy the software code of others in order to save R&D and marketing costs. While this is a battle between industry behemoths, the outcome is important to anyone who relies on copyright protection because Google adopted the “sue me if you dare” approach and is effectively arguing that the bounds of fair use should incorporate instances of intellectual property appropriation to avoid business inconvenience.

This case has cost countless millions of dollars to litigate through two jury trials and two federal appeals and is now before the Supreme Court. If this is the path to enforcing one’s rights, it is clear that individuals and small businesses effectively own rights with no remedies should an infringer with deeper pockets emerge. The case likewise demonstrates how litigation can be inefficient and ill-suited to establishing business norms.

Despite the lengthy record, the case is quite straightforward. As Oracle so plainly put it in its brief:

Google has a problem. It committed an egregious act of plagiarism and now needs to rewrite copyright law to justify it. It cannot.

Java SE was one of the most creative and intricately designed works of software ever written. Its elegance attracted a wide audience of developers. Manufacturers of all sorts of devices and competing platform makers clamored to license the Java SE platform. Innovation flourished, just as the Framers imagined, and just as the rest of the American software industry thrived under those same constitutional incentives.

Google wanted its own platform. Given its vast resources, it could certainly have written one. But with a looming existential crisis, there was no time to innovate. Google could have taken any of the several Java SE licenses Oracle offered, but Google rejected Oracle’s compatibility imperative as inconsistent with its commercial objectives.

So Google opted to plagiarize and take the risk. Google copied 11,330 lines of computer code from Java SE, as well as the intricate organization and relationships among the lines of code. Google put the code in its competing product, Android, and successfully pitched it to Oracle’s customers, generating billions of dollars in revenue.

 

As I (together with other copyright scholars) argued in an amicus brief to the Court:

Congress has addressed the protection of computer software through the Copyright Act, including the code at issue in this appeal. In its 1980 amendments to the Copyright Act, Congress adopted the recommendations of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) and recognized computer programs as “literary works” enjoying the full extent of protection under the statute. Even at that relatively early stage in the development of the computer software industry, Congress considered versions of many of the arguments and issues present in this litigation, including whether computer code should be protected as a literary work, the degree to which computer programs can be considered “functional” or necessary “machine-controlled elements” (as opposed to expressive works protectable under the Copyright Act), and the interests of protecting and incentivizing innovation. After careful analysis and debate, CONTU recommended to Congress, and Congress legislated, that computer programs are protected under the Copyright Act with no qualifications that would differentiate software from any other type of literary work under the statute.

Since 1980, software development has grown exponentially, and its application continues to expand into new industries. Congress has amended the Copyright Act to address issues raised by technological advances in particular industries, by enacting, for example, the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act in 1990, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, and the Music Modernization Act in 2018. Congress has not, however, amended the Copyright Act to decrease the scope of protection for computer programs or altered the statutory standard for fair use. Because the statutory protections for computer software remain the same as for all other creative works, adopting Google’s position would amount to a judicially created, software-specific amendment. It would also result in singling-out the protections afforded to computer programs, which contradicts the plain text of the Copyright Act.

Google and its amici try to characterize this as “efficient infringement,” or “permission-less innovation.” Yet its conduct is entirely contrary to the goals of copyright law as expressed in the Copyright Act or the Constitution. As a result, there is no reason to incorporate these considerations into fair use. It is clear that purposeful copying to avoid business inconvenience is not fair use, either in the statute as enacted or as interpreted by courts. Although Google casts its theory as “software-specific,” there is no reason why infringing parties could not regularly use it to justify copying any kind of protectable expression. Thus, to expand the fair use doctrine in the way Google advocates would set a dangerous precedent not limited to the software industry.

 

The Court has announced that it will begin hearing certain oral arguments by phone during the pandemic shutdown, but Google v. Oracle is not (yet) among those cases. As of April 13, 2020, the case was postponed to the October term.

One final (but somewhat different because it involves a state) recent example of an entity acting on the principle of “efficient infringement” occurs in the case of Allen v. Cooper. This case raises state sovereign immunity as a defense, but the underlying fact pattern is hauntingly similar.

Allen v. Cooper

The Supreme Court ruled in Allen v. Cooper that it violates state sovereign immunity to expose state entities to liability for alleged copyright infringement, absent the state’s consent.

As covered by Devlin Hartline here on the CPIP blog, the case involved “both actual and metaphorical pirates.” The actual pirate was Blackbeard, whose ship went down near the North Carolina coast in the 1700s. The metaphorical pirates are the government of the state of North Carolina, which allegedly infringed, then settled, then allegedly infringed again, the copyrighted photos and videos of the wreck shot by underwater photographer Rick Allen. Not content to repeatedly infringe Allen’s work, the state Legislature additionally passed a law deeming all photographs and videos made of North Carolina shipwrecks to be a matter of public record, and thus free for public use. Although Allen claimed that the state had committed willful infringement, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with North Carolina in ruling the Copyright Remedies Clarification Act of 1990 unconstitutional and holding that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits private actions against the state without the state’s consent.

As it stands, this case bodes ill for anyone who makes their living in the knowledge economy. If you create, research, code, write, document, interpret, or otherwise create intellectual work product that a state or state employee deems of value, the state apparently can take your work without permission. Although this is a more definitive statement of the lay of the land than was previously clear (since earlier case law had considered patent infringement, which differs in some relevant ways from copyrights), it is not altogether unexpected. Nevertheless, state infringements of copyright have been a growing problem. In the twenty years since the Fifth Circuit opined in Chavez v Arte Publico Press that there was no significant problem of copyright infringement by the states enabled by the Eleventh Amendment, more than 150 copyright infringement cases have been filed against states.

Unfortunately, the Court ruled that the CRCA was unconstitutional in its abrogation of state sovereign immunity because it did not properly link the CRCA to the prevention of unconstitutional injuries like the deprivation of property under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Although Allen lost his appeal, the Supreme Court all but invited new legislation by Congress:

Congress likely did not appreciate the importance of linking the scope of its abrogation [of state sovereign immunity rights when it passed the CRCA] to the redress or prevention of unconstitutional injuries—and of creating a legislative record to back up that connection. But going forward, Congress will know those rules. And under them, if it detects violations of due process, then it may enact a proportionate response. That kind of tailored statute can effectively stop States from behaving as copyright pirates. Even while respecting constitutional limits, it can bring digital Blackbeards to justice.

 

Until Congress returns to normal business and can take this matter up, there are a few issues any potential drafters of new legislation should bear in mind.

First, as the Court explained, it will be important to link any new statute abrogating state sovereign immunity to the redress or prevention of unconstitutional deprivations under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means limiting any new legislation to violations of the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. Next, it will be important to create a legislative record noting the scope of the problem justifying the proposal, given the Fifth Circuit’s comments in Chavez, which failed to recognize the volume of lawsuits being filed against states for copyright infringement.

It is also wise to articulate some of the numerous reasons why state remedies are inadequate to deal with the infringements of copyright by states or their instrumentalities. Because federal copyright law preempts state law, and copyright matters are tried only in federal courts, there are no plausible avenues for states to create novel, recognizable causes of action for infringement under their own laws. Moreover, in addition to the federal doctrine of state sovereign immunity, states are typically also immune from suit in their own jurisdictions; thus, there are not likely to be any state common law-created remedies. Because states are in the best position to articulate and demonstrate the adequacy of state remedies, if any, the burden of doing so should rest with the state.

Finally, it is worth considering that only federal law can provide the uniform protection against state infringements that authors require in order to publish their works. Thus, Congress should not delay acting to take up the Court’s invitation to bring state digital Blackbeards to justice.

Reflecting on the above cases and controversies as I cozy up to my laptop or sign into a virtual meeting, I am at once thankful for the technology that allows me to connect to others and to keep working, and fearful for my friends and clinic clients who are facing existential challenges to their livelihoods. These cases, similar to many before them, illustrate how intertwined we all are as users and creators of works. It is my hope that we all will use this quieter time to contemplate how interconnected we truly are, and that we will emerge from quarantine to embrace the spirit of the oft-heard virus slogan “we are all in this together.”