Tag: Thom Tillis

Categories
Copyright Legislation

Senate IP Subcommittee Considers the Role of Private Agreements and Existing Technology in Curbing Online Piracy

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

U.S. Capitol buildingBy Liz Velander

In mid-December, the Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee, led by its Chairman, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), held a hearing entitled “The Role of Private Agreements and Existing Technology in Curbing Online Piracy.” The hearing came ahead of Sen. Tillis’s release of his first discussion draft of legislation to reform the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In his opening remarks, Sen. Tillis stated that reforming the DMCA is one of his top priorities in the 117th Congress, but it may take his entire second term to get a DMCA reform bill across the finish line. The purpose of the hearing was to identify voluntary steps that copyright owners and tech companies can take now to curb online infringement.

The hearing consisted of two panels. Panel I included: Ruth Vitale, CEO, CreativeFuture; Probir Mehta, Head of Global Intellectual Property and Trade Policy, Facebook, Inc.; Mitch Glazier, Chairman and CEO, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA); and Joshua Lamel, Executive Director, Re:Create. Panel II included: Katherine Oyama, Global Director of Business Public Policy, YouTube; Keith Kupferschmid, CEO, Copyright Alliance; Noah Becker, President and Co-Founder, AdRev; and Dean Marks, Executive Director and Legal Counsel, Coalition for Online Accountability.

Sen. Tillis began the hearing by voicing his opinion on the matter, informed by a year-long series of hearings and months of feedback from creators, user groups, and technology companies. “There is absolutely more big tech can and should do to stop online piracy,” Sen. Tillis said. “Unfortunately, it seems that some in big tech aren’t serious about stopping online piracy, and I don’t know why that is. Maybe it isn’t a priority—or maybe some companies are actually profiting off the piracy on their site. It is clear as day to me that many multi-national, multi-billion-dollar companies simply aren’t using all the tools they have to stop theft from small creators. And that’s wrong.”

Mitch Glazier, Chairman and CEO of RIAA, stated that the problem is that big tech companies aren’t properly incentivized to take steps in combatting online piracy. Keith Kupferschmid, CEO of the Copyright Alliance, explained that Section 512 of the DMCA has been so misinterpreted by the courts that most service providers know that they have little risk of liability and need only do the absolute minimum required under the DMCA to avoid liability.

Mr. Glazier said that one of the most important things Congress can do is to provide the right incentives to encourage voluntary private agreements. He explained that there are two types of private agreements. First, there are individual agreements entered into by copyright owners and technology providers. These can be nimble and evolve with technology. Second, there are standards developed in the marketplace that eventually achieve broad enough consensus and use that they become required. In Mr. Glazier’s view, that is what the DMCA contemplated—a multi-stakeholder standard technical measure (STM) process where there was enough consensus and use that it would be unfair for outliers to compete without using them. Mr. Glazier said that a voluntary system only works if there exist the right incentives, which the DMCA does not currently provide.

The panelists disagreed as to whether Congress needs to reform the DMCA in order to incentivize voluntary agreements. The panelists representing big tech companies asserted that the process is working as the DMCA intended, pointing to the policies and procedures of their platforms and existing content protection technology. Probir Mehta, Head of Global IP and Trade Policy at Facebook, touted Facebook’s content management tool, Rights Manager. Katherine Oyama, Global Director of Business Public Policy at YouTube, pointed to Youtube’s Copyright Management Tools, which include a webform, Content ID, and Copyright Match. These panelists emphasized the significant amount of work their companies undertook to create these technologies, which they view as going above and beyond the requirements of the DMCA.

Members of the IP Subcommittee were very interested to hear how these tools work in practice. Ruth Vitale, CEO of CreativeFuture, testified that most individual creators are not given access to YouTube’s Content ID, nor are they given an explanation for why they are denied. Ms. Oyama stated that while Content ID has eligibility requirements, YouTube built an entirely new tool for smaller creators, Copyright Match, which runs on Content ID itself. She claimed that Content ID is such a powerful tool that, if used improperly, will erroneously take down content that is noninfringing.

Ranking Member Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) wanted to know what the panelists viewed as the path forward. Mr. Kupferschmid said that while voluntary agreements have a role, they cannot address everything. He emphasized that legislative action is appropriate in this circumstance because service providers are not being cooperative. Noah Becker, President and Co-Founder of AdRev, a digital rights management and media technology company, agreed with Mr. Kupferschmid. He explained his business’ revenue-sharing proposition is a better fit for copyright owners that do not want to use YouTube’s monetization tools. In addition to legislation, he explained that there should be some sort of support for the concept of a list of approved vendors, like AdRev, to be able to access copyright APIs on massive platforms. He urged that this would reduce the large cost and technology burden of accessing APIs, making takedowns more affordable for creators.

Sen. Tillis closed the hearing by stating that the parties need to engage with one another in order to avoid a potential legislative overreach. He said that the hearing showed that tech companies must do more to combat online piracy. Sen. Tillis stressed that they have the tools and resources but must find ways to get greater engagement and create voluntary paths to prevent Congress from paving less voluntary ones.

Categories
Copyright

Senate IP Subcommittee Hearing Addresses Section 1201 Reform

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

U.S. Capitol buildingBy Liz Velander

Last week, the Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee, led by its Chairman, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), held a hearing entitled “Are Reforms to Section 1201 Needed and Warranted?” The hearing explored Section 1201’s operation, as well as potential reforms to improve the effectiveness of Section 1201 in the administration of the triennial rulemaking proceeding that establishes temporary exemptions. Chairman Tillis was particularly interested in hearing proposals to further streamline the rulemaking process and to amend the statute so that exemptions permit third-party assistance.

The hearing consisted of two panels. First, the U.S. Copyright Office, who administers Section 1201 rulemaking. Second, industry and academic experts who shed light on how Section 1201 has been working for copyright owners and users, and the practical implications of potential reforms. Regan Smith, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office, was the sole panelist on Panel I. Panel II included: Vanessa Bailey, Global Director, Intellectual Property Policy, Intel Corporation; Professor Blake Reid, Director, Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law & Policy Clinic, University of Colorado Law School; Matthew Williams, Partner, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP; Seth Greenstein, Partner, Constantine Cannon LLP; Morgan Reed, President, ACT | The App Association; and Aaron Lowe, Senior Vice President, Regulatory and Government Affairs, Auto Care Association.

Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protects “technological measures,” also known as “technological protection measures” (TPMs), employed by copyright owners to protect their works from unauthorized access or use. Section 1201 gives copyright owners a cause of action when someone circumvents TPMs that have been employed to prevent unauthorized access or use of their copyrighted works. Common examples of TPMs include password systems that prevent nonsubscribers from accessing streaming services, code that prevents DVDs from playing on unauthorized devices, and code that prevents a purchaser from copying the text of an e-book or sending the file to others.

Congress enacted Section 1201 to foster a lawful online market for copyrighted works while providing several statutory exemptions to avoid impeding lawful uses. For additional flexibility, the law authorizes the Librarian of Congress to adopt temporary exemptions following a rulemaking proceeding administered by the Copyright Office every three years. During the triennial rulemaking, the Copyright Office solicits exemption petitions from the public and develops a comprehensive administrative record using information submitted by interested parties. Based on the evidence submitted, the Register of Copyrights provides a written recommendation to the Librarian of Congress as to which exemptions are warranted, along with proposed regulatory text. Upon the Librarian’s approval, the exemptions are published in the Federal Register and remain in effect for three years.

In the seventh triennial rulemaking (2017-2018), the Copyright Office instituted a new “streamlined” process for renewing existing exemptions. In this streamlined process, proponents of an existing exemption can petition to have the exemption renewed by certifying that they are not aware of material changes in fact, law, or other circumstances that would justify reevaluating the basis for the exemption. If the Copyright Office does not receive an objection outlining relevant new circumstances, the exemption will be renewed without going through the traditional three-step commenting process. These changes have greatly improved the efficiency of the rulemaking process.

On the first panel, Ms. Smith, representing the U.S. Copyright Office, explained the crux of the dispute about Section 1201 reform. On the one hand, “some Section 1201 stakeholders credit the subsequent explosion of legitimate digital dissemination models to the protection established by section 1201 in 1998.” On the other hand, “stakeholders express that the growing ubiquity of software-enabled products in American life—automobiles, refrigerators, medical devices, and so on—raises concerns that Section 1201 may be operating with an unintended reach that the permanent exemptions and the triennial rulemaking only partially address.” In 2017, the Copyright Office “completed a comprehensive study in the operation of the law, taking into account stakeholder perspectives throughout the copyright ecosystem.” It concluded that “while the overall framework of Section 1201 appears to be functioning as intended, the system would benefit from certain updates to the rulemaking procedures, as well as targeted legislative reforms.”

Ms. Smith listed the recommended legislative reforms in order of priority. First, for Congress to provide discretion in the rulemaking to adopt exemptions that permit third-party assistance at the direction of the intended user. Second, for reconsideration of several changes to the permanent exemptions for security testing and encryption research, “including expanding the types of permitted activities, easing the requirements to seek authorization from the owner of the relevant system or technology, and eliminating or clarifying the multifactor eligibility tests for certain statutory exemptions.” Third, for Congress to adopt new permanent exemptions, such as: “an exemption to enable blind, visually impaired, or print disabled person to utilize assistive technologies; an exemption for unlocking used mobile devices; and an exemption to allow diagnosis, repair, or maintenance of a computer program, including to circumvent obsolete access controls.” Finally, Ms. Smith recommended legislation to provide for presumptive renewal of exemptions adopted in the previous rulemaking cycle.

On the second panel, stakeholders argued for and against legislative reform. Ms. Bailey, representing Intel Corporation, testified that “the Librarian of Congress has struck the right balance between ease of use and content protection under the existing regulatory framework.” She described Section 1201 as “the bedrock on which the digital content ecosystem is built.” She urged against legislative revision, arguing that “the reliable protection provided by Section 1201 is essential to the maintenance of industry-standard TPMs and the digital content ecosystem.”

The next panelist, Prof. Reid, strongly disagreed with Ms. Bailey. He represented “people who are blind, visually impaired, or print disabled, educational disability services professionals, and security researchers.” Prof. Reid argued for expansive changes to the triennial rulemaking process, asserting that “the triennial review regularly imposes an unnecessary and unfair burden on decent, hard-working people who play by the rules and who merely seek to go about their livelihoods and serve their communities without fear of breaking a law that could subject them to ruinous liability in federal court litigation or even criminal charges.” Mr. Greenstein echoed many of Prof. Reid’s concerns about Section 1201’s overreach. He proposed a number of legislative reforms to the Subcommittee, such as allowing third parties to obtain the means to circumvent access in order to repair consumer products at the direction of the intended user. “Congress intended Section 1201 is protect copyrights, not business models,” stated Mr. Greenstein.

Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) sought feedback from other panelists about the suggestion that Congress provide the Librarian flexibility to allow consumers to seek third-party help. Mr. Reed, representing the App Association, asserted that we already have a “robust ability” to conduct authorized repair. Ms. Bailey agreed, stating “the Copyright Office has already taken steps to make the exemptions more usable.” She pointed out that “unlike anti-circumvention exemptions, which can be modified or abandoned if they prove less useful than expected, should an anti-trafficking exemption be improvidently granted, the effects on the marketplace would be permanent because the tools can’t distinguish between permissible and impermissible use.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) was specifically concerned about voting machine integrity, asking the panel whether they would support a permanent cybersecurity and voting machine exemption. Prof. Reid stated that such an exemption is “critical to the cybersecurity of this country and the future of our democracy.” Mr. Reed and Ms. Bailey both reiterated their position that a legislative change was unnecessary because the Copyright Office already had the flexibility to address the issue.

The hearing was cut short by a live vote, and Chairman Tillis concluded the hearing by thanking each panelist and stating that they may submit further comments to the record.

Categories
Copyright

Senate IP Subcommittee Hearing Addresses Intersection of DMCA and Fair Use

The following post comes from Yumi Oda, an LLM Candidate at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

U.S. Capitol buildingBy Yumi Oda

As part of its year-long review of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property tackled yet another contentious issue in our copyright system—fair use. A virtual online hearing, held on July 28 and entitled How Does the DMCA Contemplate Limitations and Exceptions Like Fair Use?, focused on the role of fair use for digital platforms. Calling fair use “a bit of a touchy subject,” Chairman Thom Tillis (R-NC) specifically requested the witnesses’ input on how the original DMCA envisioned fair use and how the reform bill should address it. Ranking Member Chris Coons (D-DE) likewise emphasized the importance of striking a balance to “safeguard free speech and fair use, while also combating digital piracy and ensuring creators are fairly compensated.”

The panelists included: Sherwin Siy, Lead Public Policy Manager of Wikimedia Foundation; Mickey H. Osterreicher, General Counsel of National Press Photographers Association; Jane C. Ginsburg, Morton L. Janklow Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law at Columbia University School of Law; Christopher Mohr, Vice President for Intellectual Property and General Counsel of Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA); Rick Beato, Songwriter, Producer, Engineer, and Educator; Yolanda Adams, GRAMMY Award-winning artist and Recording Academy Trustee; Joseph C. Gratz, Partner of Durie Tangri LLP; Matthew Sanderson, Co-lead, Political Law Group of Caplin & Drysdale; and Jacqueline Charlesworth, Partner of Alter, Kendrick & Baron LLP. These panelists represented industry and scholarly experts, as well as creators, users, and intermediaries of copyrighted works.

As a limitation to the exclusive rights in creative works, fair use is intended to simultaneously promote free speech and foster authorship and creativity. Taking a hint from case law, Congress codified Section 107 of the Copyright Act, enumerating four factors to be considered in a fair use analysis, namely: (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.

On the first panel, Mr. Siy, representing the host of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, testified that his Foundation heavily relies on fair use and the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions. Mr. Siy asserted that his Foundation receives approximately 30 DMCA takedown notices annually as risk-averse volunteers remove seemingly infringing content according to its volunteer-created standards, which are stricter than what the law requires. Of those notices, Mr. Siy explained, two-thirds are usually found to be noninfringing uses, such as fair use, thus demonstrating the ease of attacking harmless fair uses under the DMCA.

On the other hand, Mr. Osterreicher, representing visual journalists, pleaded with the Subcommittee to change the current lop-sided, whack-a-mole situation, which places an “insurmountable” burden on photographers, but “little to no responsibility” on online service providers (OSPs) for online infringement. As he pointed out, “the more amorphous the fair use interpretation the better” for OSPs to draw more visitors and advertisers. He argued that copyright infringement, sometimes disguised as fair use, reduces economic incentives, discourages participation in visual journalism, and “devalues photography as both a news medium and art form.”

Next, Prof. Ginsburg explained how Sections 512 and 1201 accommodate copyright limitations and exceptions. She noted that Section 512 has not worked as intended, largely due to the vastly higher number of postings than Congress originally anticipated. Conversely, the seemingly low number of counternotices, she continued, could suggest that “many fair uses are being suppressed,” “the vast majority of postings are in fact infringing,” or “fear or ignorance [are causing] some fair users to decline to send a counternotification.” As a potential solution to the timely counternotification procedure, Prof. Ginsburg proposed an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism. Moreover, she explained that “by design, [Section] 1201 does not provide a general fair use defense,” and that the triennial rulemakings to identify exempted classes of works have been largely effective.

Mr. Mohr, representing the software industry, provided the last testimony on this panel. He stated that Sections 512 and 1201 have been successful mainly because Congress left fair use out of both. Rather, he considered fair use as “a built-in safety valve” to preclude overly broad assertions of rights.

Senators Tillis and Coons then raised a series of specific questions. In response to a question regarding the extent to which OSPs should consider fair use, Prof. Ginsburg testified that OSPs have no duty to consider fair use and that they can remain mere conduits as long as they comply with the DMCA safe harbor provisions. Moreover, in response to a question regarding the misunderstanding surrounding fair use and newsworthiness, Mr. Osterreicher answered that there is a common misconception that newsworthy materials can be used more freely, which in turn deprives visual journalists of licensing opportunities due to the time-sensitive nature of such materials. Furthermore, in response to a question regarding the recent evolution of fair use, Prof. Ginsburg testified that broader fair use claims wrongly recognized in lower courts have been corrected by the higher courts, thereby demonstrating that courts are better equipped to analyze the inherently malleable fair use doctrine.

Lastly, each panelist was asked to specify which area of the DMCA Congress should look at in drafting a reform bill. Mr. Siy simply called for a holistic review. Mr. Osterreicher recommended clarifying the red flag knowledge standard for OSPs, and he pledged to continue advocating for the ADR system and the currently blocked Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act. Neither Prof. Ginsburg nor Mr. Mohr advocated for a legislative change, but Prof. Ginsburg did recommend that Congress closely monitor the development of the European Union’s approach to see if requiring OSPs to filter and block infringing content could reach a better balance.

On the second panel, witnesses testified how fair use has been applied in practice in their specific areas, many touching on the hot subject of political misappropriation. First to testify was Mr. Beato, a musician and popular YouTube music instructor who uses excerpts from famous songs in his videos. He explained that he never sought fair use claims in response to DMCA notices because it would be a waste of time and money, although he believed a good case could be made considering the new educational role YouTube has been playing. Although he himself successfully stood up against DMCA notices by a major label thanks to his large viewership, he warned that “frivolous” DMCA notices can be used to harass small content creators. Ultimately, he proposed a “Fair Use Registry,” similar to Twitter’s blue check mark, to certify and notate a good actor and to whitelist his or her use.

Another musician’s input came from Ms. Adams, a renowned gospel singer and songwriter who is also known as the “First Lady of Modern Gospel.” She maintained that “if someone’s claim of fair use reduces the artists’ ability to earn a living, it should be treated as infringement, plain and simple.” In addition to this monetization aspect of fair use, Ms. Adams also focused on its moral aspect, stating that “fair use can be very unfair to the artist if it takes our control away.” Reiterating the importance of the long-standing radio performance right issue, Ms. Adams concluded that seeking “permission” is the key when it comes to working with musicians, including use in political campaigns.

In contrast, Mr. Gratz, representing internet intermediaries, defended free speech and fair use, stating “nobody likes to be criticized or have their music used in ways they can’t control, but . . . even more so where the copyright holder does not like the use, fair use is needed to make sure that free expression can thrive even in the presence of copyrighted material.” Additionally, he made the following three points: (1) Section 512 has provided no practical remedy to the serious DMCA abuse; (2) automated filtering including any “staydown” systems should not be mandated; and (3) the current “reasonableness” standard for terminating repeat infringers is the right standard.

Similarly, Mr. Sanderson, who consults election and advocacy organizations, explained that political campaigns receive increasingly more takedown notices from artists who do not wish to be associated with the campaigns’ messages, even when the uses are permitted under performance rights organizations’ blanket licenses.

Finally, Ms. Charlesworth, an attorney representing songwriters and artists, reminded the Subcommittee that “creators, too, [as well as politicians,] are intended beneficiaries of the First Amendment.” She noted that creators’ messages can be appropriated and altered in political campaigns in ways that alienate fans and cause economic damages. Particularly, she argued that a fair use claim in a political campaign should also be analyzed under the regular four-factor test, with the emphasis on the first factor’s focus on whether the use is “transformative.” On this point, she explained that simply attaching a song to a political campaign video would not amount to a “transformative” use. Citing her clients’ experience, Ms. Charlesworth argued that “the current system imposes unjust burdens on creators and small copyright owners . . . without adequate tools or resources at hand when a political ad containing their song suddenly appears” online.

The second panel did not receive as many questions as the first one because the hearing was cut short by a live vote, but Senator Tillis concluded the hearing by thanking each panelist and acknowledging that some issues probably can be addressed without any legislative fix, while others may require congressional action.

Categories
Legislation Patent Law

New Paper Looks at “Ill-Advised Legislative Proposals” to Address Pharmaceutical “Evergreening”

The following post comes from Yumi Oda, an LLM Candidate at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"By Yumi Oda

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.”

Concepts and Doctrines in the Evergreening Debate

Prof. Holman starts by reviewing the academic literature and other commentaries relevant to the current evergreening debate. He divides his discussion into five concepts and doctrines that have come under scrutiny as purportedly facilitating evergreening: product hopping, product thicketing, secondary patents (or follow-on patents), double patenting, and continuation practice.

1. Product Hopping. Prof. Holman explains that the pejorative term “product hopping” is aimed at “pharmaceutical companies’ efforts to develop follow-on products and to switch patients to these products from an earlier version of the drug.” Critics, who now acknowledge “the fact that literal evergreening generally does not occur,” have shifted the argument to blame product hopping for forcing a market shift by making only a small change to an existing patented drug, such as with a new form, formulation, or dosage, and convincing doctors to prescribe it. Of course, while no patent directed to an earlier composition or biologic is permissible, a new patent on a new formulation, manufacturing process, or use of a previous drug is allowed in our patent system. While some may attack these new patents as a type of evergreening, Prof. Holman points out that these are the very types of innovations the patent system is meant to encourage.

2. Patent Thicketing. Prof. Holman describes another pejorative term, “patent thickets,” which refers to pharmaceutical “companies obtaining multiple patents covering a single pharmaceutical product.” Popularized in the early 2000s and dating back to the term “patent anticommons” that was coined in the late 1990s, patent thickets originally raised concerns that when “too many patents” around the same product are held by different owners, transactional licensing costs could increase substantially. Prof. Holman points to a recent review of patent thicket literature demonstrating that the term is not used coherently. In fact, patent thickets today are sometimes claimed to exist even when the patents are held by the same owner, where potential transaction cost issues would not apply.

3. Secondary or Follow-On Patents. So-called “secondary patents” are those that claim something other than the active ingredients in drugs, such as new formulations or dosages. Prof. Holman dislikes the term “secondary patents” since it suggests they are somehow less meritorious and less worthy of patent protection, and he instead chooses to call them “follow-on patents” since they generally follow the invention of the active ingredient. Critics often target follow-on patents based on the belief that “a drug is a single product and thus should only be subject to the protection of a single patent.” However, Prof. Holman explains that this view oversimplifies how pharmaceutical inventions come about and underappreciates their true value for patients. For example, his earlier article illustrates how Burroughs-Wellcome obtained a follow-on patent for AZT, a failed cancer drug that was ultimately used to treat AIDS.

4. Double Patenting. Some critics complain that pharmaceutical companies are engaged in “double patenting,” where they obtain multiple patents on the same invention or obvious variations of a patented invention. Prof. Holman explains that double patenting rejections—especially nonstatutory, “obviousness-type” rejections—prevent a patent applicant from extending the patent term by filing a second patent “on a non-identical but still merely obvious variant of a patented invention.” Nevertheless, some critics argue that companies are avoiding such rejections by “dressing up part” of their original invention “as a new one,” and they claim that prohibitions on double patenting should be strengthened. Prof. Holman notes that these arguments typically focus particularly on pharmaceutical products, and they fail to consider the effect such changes would have on inventions more generally.

5. Continuation Practice. Prof. Holman explains that some commentators argue that pharmaceutical companies are using continuation practice to engage in evergreening. Continuations entitle patent applications to benefit from the filing date of an earlier-filed patent application, and the patent applicant can amend claims or even add new ones so long as they are supported by the parent application. Some critics claim that this practice allows pharmaceutical companies to “obtain multiple patents covering obvious variants of the same drug” and to extend effective patent terms. However, Prof. Holman notes that these concerns have already been successfully addressed by Congress in statutory amendments.

Proposed Legislation Aimed at the Pharmaceutical Industry

Having identified and summarized the concepts and doctrines that arise in the evergreening debate, Prof. Holman then analyzes three proposed bills from 2019 that are specifically designed to rein in evergreening in the pharmaceutical industry: the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act of 2019, the No Combination Drug Patents Act, and the Terminating the Extension of Rights Misappropriated Act of 2019.

1. Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act of 2019. The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act of 2019 attempts to tackle product hopping and patent thicketing. To combat product hopping, the bill would make it a prima facie antitrust violation for a drug manufacturer to (1) discontinue or withdraw the “reference drug’s” application (or announce discontinuance of or withdrawal of the application) once it receives notice of an application to market a generic version or (2) market or sell a follow-on product during a period of time referred to as the “competition window.” A drug manufacturer can rebut the presumption by showing that the drug was discontinued or withdrawn from the market for “significant and documented safety reasons.”

The bill would also make pharmaceutical patent thicketing a prima facie antitrust violation. The bill broadly defines “patent thicketing” as covering any action by a patentee to limit competition for an approved drug when certain conditions are met. A drug manufacturer can rebut the presumption by establishing that the pro-competitive effects of the action are not outweighed by its anti-competitive effects, which in turn can be rebutted by the FTC demonstrating that the harm to consumers outweighs the benefit from the action.

Prof. Holman warns that the effect of this bill “would be to discourage pharmaceutical innovators from improving existing products,” instead of encouraging further innovation and research to improve the first version of a drug. Prof. Holman cites testimony by Prof. David Olson before the Senate Judiciary Committee stating that, despite the common misconception that a large number of patents delays innovation, “there is no conclusive evidence that smartphone or other high-tech innovation is being retarded by the large numbers of patents that may cover these devices.” Prof. Olson explains that this is also true for pharmaceutical patents, where the number of patents covering one specific drug is relatively low—not enough “to constitute a substantial thicket that will deter innovation.”

2. No Combination Drug Patents Act. The No Combination Drug Patents Act would change the nonobviousness standard under Section 103 for follow-on pharmaceutical innovations. If enacted, it would create a presumption that any “covered claimed invention” is obvious if it “contains or uses a drug or biological product that is prior art” and differs from the prior art under one or more of four enumerated criteria. An applicant may rebut this presumption by showing that the invention is either a new treatment for a new indication or that it leads to a statistically significant increase in the drug’s efficacy.

Prof. Holman points out that the proposed “rule of construction” exempting certain claimed inventions “could largely eviscerate the bill’s effect,” depending on how it is interpreted. He presents three possible interpretations, two of which could be easily overcome by filing a divisional application. Under the third possible interpretation, which seems like the one the bill’s drafters intended, Prof. Holman predicts that pharmaceutical companies would be forced to significantly change their current patent filing strategy, which affords some time to figure out and secure claims directed to inventions that were unknown when the parent application was filed, by starting to file many patent applications at the outset.

Stepping back for a moment, Prof. Holman explains that the proposal to raise the nonobviousness bar especially for follow-on pharmaceutical patents is not new. However, he questions such a proposition because the “assumption that many types of pharmaceutical inventions are inherently obvious and undeserving of patent protection” does not withstand scrutiny. Prof. Holman notes that numerous follow-on inventions have been upheld by the courts and recognized for the positive impact they have on people’s lives. (For a CPIP policy brief by Prof. Holman responding to such a proposal by the United Nations, please see here.)

3. Terminating the Extension of Rights Misappropriated Act of 2019. Finally, Prof. Holman discusses the Terminating the Extension of Rights Misappropriated Act of 2019, which is designed to prevent double patenting in drug patents by presuming that the patentee has “disclaimed the patent term for each of the listed patents after the date on which the term the first patent expires.” Prof. Holman explains that the bill neither alters the standard for determining obviousness-type double patenting, nor the remedy, but it does shift the burden of proof from the PTO to the patent applicant to prove that the listed patents are patently distinct from one another. The bill would also require the PTO to conduct a comprehensive review of its examination procedures.

Conclusion

Prof. Holman echoes Senator Thom Tillis’ concern that “by just focusing on patent protections, and the number of patent protections available to a single product, [Congress] may be doing more harm than good to our nation’s innovation economy.” And he notes that it “is important to bear in mind that the reason there has been such an uproar over the price of drugs is that these drugs provide huge benefits for society, far exceeding most other patentable innovation.” Prof. Holman mentions that these drugs would probably not have been available in the first place without proper incentives, and he worries that the legislation aimed at preventing the perceived problems with evergreening “could discourage the investment necessary to bring the next generation of pharmaceutical innovation to patients.”

Further, Prof. Holman criticizes the current evergreening debate for failing to target the supposed misuse of patents by going after the patents and not that misuse. For example, if the claim of product hopping were true and patients were being prescribed much more expensive drugs with no additional benefit, that would be an issue with the market, not with the patent system. Similarly, if drug companies were using anti-competitive means in the same scenario, that would be an antitrust violation, not a patent issue. As such, instead of the current legislative proposals targeting the patents themselves, Prof. Holman concludes that any legislation should focus on the alleged bad actions of pharmaceutical companies, not on changing the patent incentives for pharmaceuticals inventions overall.

Categories
Copyright

The AM-FM Bill and the Status of Terrestrial Music Broadcast Performance Rights

The following post comes from David Ward, a rising 2L at Scalia Law who is working as a Research Assistant this summer at CPIP.

U.S. Capitol buildingBy David Ward

This past Wednesday, the Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee, led by its Chairman, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), held a virtual online briefing on the current state of music rights. Specifically, members of the music and broadcast industry debated a bill called the Ask Musicians for Music Act (AM-FM Act), which would create new terrestrial broadcast performance royalties for sound recordings. Some of the biggest names in the music and broadcast industry were invited to testify, including: Harvey Mason Jr., CEO of the Recording Academy; Curtis LeGeyt, COO of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB); Dr. Richard Burgess, CEO of the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM); Scott Hunter, Executive Director of the National Religious Broadcasters Music License Committee (NRBMLC); and Colin Rushing, Chief Legal Officer of SoundExchange. These panelists represented both musicians and broadcasters, big and small, who have been engaged in a sometimes-tense dialogue about the future of terrestrial broadcasting rights.

For a bit of background, all music we hear on the radio has two copyrights: a copyright for the musical work (lyrics, notes, melodies, chords that an artist writes), and a copyright for the sound recording itself (that a producer or sound engineer usually helps create). The scope of the discussion here is about performance royalties for the sound recording, not the musical work. It should be noted, however, that radio stations still need licenses to play musical works over the air. These are usually obtained in the form of blanket licenses from performance rights organizations (PROs) such as ASCAP or BMI. Blanket licenses allow radio stations to broadcast musical works from the PRO’s repertoire, within the scope of their agreement.

Under the current system, though, radio stations are not required to pay a per-performance royalty when they broadcast a sound recording over a terrestrial broadcast, such as AM or FM radio. However, stations that broadcast over the internet, or any other entity that broadcasts performances digitally (such as a webcast), are required to pay digital performance royalties for the sound recordings they play. This being the 100th anniversary of broadcast radio, the AM-FM Act currently being debated aims to end this exemption that radio broadcasters have enjoyed for exactly 100 years.

Curtis LeGeyt from the NAB and Scott Hunter from the NRBMLC represented the interests of broadcasters who have long opposed the introduction of such a royalty on their expense reports. Mr. Hunter testified that a terrestrial sound recording performance royalty is “unwarranted” and “unnecessary,” and that Congress has repeatedly declined to create such a right even as recently as 2018. In 2018, Congress passed the Music Modernization Act, which made major reforms to music copyrights, including extensive reforms of how royalties are set and split for both musical work and sound recording copyrights. Mr. LeGeyt argued that Congress could have created a terrestrial performance royalty for recordings then, but did not. He further argued that copyrights are statutory devices intended to promote the creation and distribution of works, and that allowing radio to freely broadcast sound recordings best serves the purposes of copyright law.

Both Mr. LeGeyt and Mr. Hunter characterized the exemption as a mutually beneficial promotional tool for performers and broadcasters. They warned of a decline in local radio programming and further financial instability of the industry if new royalties were mandated. Noting the financial instability caused by the coronavirus pandemic, they argued this could be fatal to many local radio stations in the short term as well as disrupt radio business models in the long term.

On the other side of the issue were Harvey Mason Jr. from the Recording Academy, Dr. Richard Burgess from A2IM, and Colin Rushing from SoundExchange. Mr. Mason began his testimony by contrasting our current system with the rest of the world’s; namely, most other major countries have sound recording performance royalties for terrestrial broadcasters. Musicians are some of the hardest hit in the economy during the pandemic, and despite this, Mr. Mason testified, they are still playing free online shows for the benefit of others. This situation underscored the need to do away with the outdated exemption from paying sound recording performance royalties enjoyed by terrestrial broadcasters. Mr. Mason suggested that the AM-FM bill could be included in a new coronavirus relief package, so musicians can recoup some of the losses they have recently experienced.

Dr. Burgess of A2IM echoed these sentiments, adding that musicians are the only copyright owners that are not allowed to profit from the performance of their works over terrestrial broadcasts. In Dr. Burgess’ view, musicians are being forced to subsidize the radio industry even though their own revenues have been decimated.

Colin Rushing of SoundExchange, the company that collects digital performance royalties for sound recordings suggested there are few, if any, major differences between digital and terrestrial broadcasts in the modern age. Most broadcasters are simulcasting online, which already requires them to pay digital (but not terrestrial) performance fees. Many apps and devices also seamlessly transition between digital and terrestrial broadcasts. He testified that the lack of terrestrial performance rights creates a loophole that distorts the market and creates an incentive to invest in old technologies, making it harder for new platforms to compete. Echoing many of his colleagues’ sentiments, he also reiterated that the U.S. is an outlier on this issue and that this harms music creators who are generating value for broadcasters, now more than ever.

Questioning by Senate offices drew out the sharpest differences in positions. Mr. LeGeyt of the NAB and Dr. Burgess of A2IM engaged in a (sometimes terse) dialogue. Mr. LeGeyt painted a picture of mom and pop broadcasters forced to consolidate operations and lay off workers, even before the pandemic, while Dr. Burgess was not persuaded that struggling musicians should therefore be forced to take promotion and exposure as the only consideration for radio plays.

Senator Coons’ office (D-DE) began the staff questioning with something that was likely on everyone’s mind: what level of royalties are at issue. Being the expert in performance royalties, Mr. Rushing from SoundExchange chimed in with a short “we’re not sure” answer. In his mind, and even in the minds of the broadcasters, it would be impossible to speculate. Either the free market would dictate the rates, or some other rate-setting entity would set the rate based on the current market rates. Since the current market rate is zero in the U.S., defining any number would be speculation. However, Mr. LeGeyt was quick to draw a comparison to the royalties they already pay for digital performances, and that they already inhibit the growth of mid- and small-sized broadcasters.

The costs incurred by mid- and small-sized broadcasters was another topic that came up frequently in responses. Mr. Mason of the Recording Academy made a point to share that the proposal would put a cap of $1.50 per day on terrestrial performance royalties for true small and local radio stations. Mr. Rushing of SoundExchange added to this, stating that even most larger radio stations would likely be paying less than $500 per year. The broadcasting representatives again pointed out the already constrained budgets of many stations and that any increase in costs would hurt the industry.

Perhaps the most contentious issue was the purpose of terrestrial radio in the music ecosystem, and the role of “promotion” in that ecosystem. Broadcasters argued that terrestrial radio is and always has been a public service. It provides weather, news, and other important public service announcements for free while also promoting musicians’ work. Therefore, broadcasters should not have to pay performance royalties, as they have not for a century. Music industry representatives, however, argued that providing a public service does not warrant profiting off others’ work for free.

Senator Tillis’ office asked the question that got to the heart of the “promotion” issue: whether radio mainly plays music that is already popular and does not need promotion, or whether sound recordings become popular because they are promoted on the radio. Mr. Rushing of SoundExchange offered his view that it is a bit of both. He and his colleagues did not contest that many artists benefit from the promotion and exposure of broadcast radio plays, but not all of them do. In their opinions, the free market should decide what the rates should be for sound recording performance royalties so that any artists who want to provide their product for free in exchange for promotion and exposure would be able to make that choice. The broadcasters argued that broadcast radio is different than other forms of media, and that the value of promotion has been time-tested.

Although all participants committed to continue good faith discussions on the matter, it does not bode well for a quick agreement that the radio sound recording royalty exemption has already reached its century mark.

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.”