DOCSLIB.ORG

The PRO-IP Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The PRO-IP Act (' ál '" g¡ The PRO-IP Act '" :: '" D'" .c"" o'" ~ 1; l\~ ~ "J ~ ~ ~~ ji'" . !I (I(Ç III .11 Another Weapon Against a Failing Economy By Stephen J. Zralek and Dylan Ruga We are a nation in the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis. It is not just our financial enterprises that are shaken but our confidence in our own economic strength. The members of this Congress and the people of this nation are being asked to take extraordinary steps to contain the explosions on Wall Street. We must not, as we try to repair the structure of our financial institutions, neglect the very sources of our economic pow- er. Intellectual property-copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets-is an ever-growing sector of our economy. We are the envy of the world for the quality and the quantity of our innovative and creative goods and services. Ifwe want to continue to lead the world in producing intellectual property, we need to protect Americans' rights in that property. ~Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT) i Among other things, the PRO-IP Act the biggest bailout in U.S. history, the Emergen- . increases criminal penalties and available civil remedies On Octobercy Economic3, 2008, Stabilizationthe president Act signed of 2008. into Ten law days for counterfeiting and infringement; later, on October 13, 2008, against the backdrop of the worst · relaxes the registration requirements needed in civil financial crisis since the Great Depression, President Bush cases to establish jurisdiction and recover statutory signed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intel- damages and attorneys' fees; lectual Property Act of 2008, better known as the PRO-IP Act.2 · elevates the federal coordinator of IP protection efforts 34 LANDSLIDE. JanuarylFebruary 2009 r to a position reporting directly to the president; seizure and forfeiture provisions of the Act, in general, but · explicitly allows for the seizure of related records and amendments to the bil at least added missing protections for equipment used to carry out infringement or counterfeit- privacy and confidential materiaL.) The bill passed the House ing efforts; and by a vote of 410 to 11, and it passed the Senate unanimously. · provides significant amounts of funding for enforcement When originally proposed, the bil had many opponents, measures at the federal, state, and local levels. not the least of which were the Bush Administration and the Department of Justice. The House version of the bill and the Impetus for the Act version that initially made it out of the Judiciary Commit- In touting the merits of the bil on the floor of the Sen- tee authorized the attorney general to not only pursue civil ate, Senator Leahy, one of the Senate cosponsors, described remedies for copyright infringement, but also to secure civil American intellectual property as the "lifeblood of our econ- damages in the form of restitution to be awarded to the copy- omy."3 Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) warned about "ilegal right owners. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, importation of counterfeit goods, such as pharmaceuticals, the Departments of Justice and Commerce warned that the (threatening) the health and safety of U.S. citizens."4 Other bil could result in prosecutors "serving as pro bono lawyers senators cited the need to protect Americans from faulty elec- for private copyright holders regardless of their resources. In trical products and fake auto parts. effect, taxpayer-supported Department lawyers would pursue Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) called those who vio- lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going late American intellectual property the "pirates of the twenty- to industry."9 In the Act's final form, however, this contro- first century."5 As he explained, IP theft has expanded beyond versial provision was stricken, and copyright owners alone merely knocking off purses and ilegally downloading digi- have standing to pursue civil infringement actions. tal music. "Today," he stated, "almost every product being As for the provision creating the new IPEC, senators them- made is subject to being counterfeited." He gave an example selves expressed concern that the person in this position would of counterfeit air brakes in tractor-trailers that look so authen- have unchecked powers. 10 The new IPEC wil be appointed by tic that some counterfeit products are returned to the legitimate the president and be on a par with the U.S. Trade Represen- manufacturer seeking a replacement or refund under the war- tative and the director of the federal Offce of National Drug ranty program. "(G)iven the proliferation of counterfeit goods Control Policy (i.e., the U.S. "drug czar") as a member of the into areas such as pharaceuticals and auto pars, it is only a Executive Office of the President. As originally drafted, the matter of time before our nation sees the dire health and safety bil contained no language preventing the IPEC from exer- consequences arising from this problem."6 cising control over criminal investigations and prosecutions. In reviewing the goals of the bil, the Senate connected its The Act signed into law, however, states that the IPEC "may desire to strengthen protection of American intellectual prop- not control or direct any law enforcement agency, including erty with its efforts to repair the economy. Senators discussed the Deparment of Justice, in the exercise of its investigative the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's study showing that IP theft or prosecutorial authority."!! To the extent the "IP Czar" label costs American businesses an estimated $250 bilion each sticks, the IPEC fits the lesser-known definition of "czar": "an year, as well as an estimated 750,000 jobs. They also noted appointed offcial having special powers to regulate or super- that "we are a nation in the midst of an unprecedented finan- vise an activity,"!2 rather than the more common meaning: "a cial crisis."7 "Our bil," Senator Leahy remarked, "is going to person having great power; an autocrat."!3 improve the enforcement of our nation's intellectual proper- ty laws, . bolster our intellectual-property-based economy, Civil Trademark Damages and. protect American jobs."8 The Act contains two significant amendments to civil penal- ty provisions in the Lanham Act; one affects direct infring- Controversial Provisions of the Bil ers, the other affects contributory infringers. With respect to Eventually Amended direct infringers, section 1 04 of the Act doubles the amount The most controversial provisions of the bil in its early form of statutory damages available in counterfeiting cases. Prior included measures that would: (1) authorize prosecutors to to the Act, a court had discretion to award statutory damages pursue civil infringement actions; (2) authorize the seizure ,. in amounts between $500 and $100,000 or up to $1,000,000 of devices used to carr out infringement or counterfeiting if the counterfeiting was wilfuL. Under section 1 04, how- activities without any safeguards to protect privacy and sen- ever, the range now is from $1,000 to $200,000 or up to ! sitive or proprietary information; (3) alter the "one-work" $2,000,000 in cases of wilful counterfeiting. approach to statutory damages for copyright infringement of works in a compilation so that each work in a compilation would have been entitled to separate remedies; and (4) cre- Stephen j. Zralek is a member of Bone McAllester Norton, ate an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), LPPC, in Nashvile, Tennessee. His IP practice focuses on litigation, or what some commentators have called the "IP czar," who copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition, and could operate without any restrictions that would prohibit his theft of trade secrets. He can be reached at szralek(gbonelaw.com. or her interference in enforcement or prosecution efforts. By Dylan Ruga is an attorney at the Century City, Los Angeles, offce the time the Act was signed into law, each of these issues had of Steptoe & Johnson, LLP. He also specializes in IP litigation. He can been resolved. (Some opponents continue to fight against the be reached at druga(gsteptoe.com. JanuarylFebruary 2009 . LANDSLIDE 35 The apparent goal of section 104 is to deter counterfeit- appropriate protective order to maintain the confidentiality ing by increasing the risks to those who are caught. Generally of any information in the documents, this amendment is a speaking, people who engage in counterfeiting activity (like significant advantage for copyright plaintiffs. those who engage in other crimes) are aware that their con- Documents related to the manufacture, sale, or receipt of ,I , duct is wrongfuL. If we assume that these individuals engage infringing goods are valuable for several reasons. First, they I: in rational decision making, then they wil engage in the allow a copyright plaintiff to determine how many infring- wrongful activity if the potential risk is outweighed by the ing products were made and sold. This information is often anticipated reward. By increasing the risk involved, the Act used to calculate a reasonable settlement. Second, they allow seeks to tip the scale and prevent future counterfeiting activ- a copyright plaintiff to determine from where the defendant ity before it starts. obtained the infringing goods. Copyright plaintiffs generally It is doubtful, however, that section 104 wil have much use this information to pursue the source of the goods as well effect on the counterfeiting industry because counterfeiters, as the distributor. Finally, the category of documents subject in general, are diffcult to catch and rarely are capable of sat- to civil forfeiture arguably is broad enough to include bank isfying a judgment. Indeed, most counterfeiters operate out of account records and other financial information. The ability back alleys or anonymous storefronts on the Internet; they are to determine how much money an infringer has and where it transient and disappear easily when caught.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statement of Terrica Carrington Vice President
    Statement of Terrica Carrington Vice President, Legal Policy & Copyright Counsel Copyright Alliance before the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY September 30, 2020 Good afternoon, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan and members of the House Judiciary Committee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing titled, “Copyright and the Internet in 2020: Reactions to the Copyright Office’s Report on the Efficacy of 17 U.S.C. § 512 After Two Decades.” My name is Terrica Carrington and I am VP, Legal Policy & Copyright Counsel at the Copyright Alliance, a non-profit, non-partisan public interest and educational organization dedicated to advocating policies that promote and preserve the value of copyright, and to protecting the rights of creators and innovators. The Copyright Alliance represents the copyright interests of over 13,000 organizations in the United States, across the spectrum of copyright disciplines, and over 1.8 million individual creators, including photographers, authors, songwriters, coders, bloggers, artists and many more individual creators and small businesses that rely on copyright law to protect their creativity, efforts, and investments in the creation and distribution of new copyrighted works for the public to enjoy. One of the greatest threats to the welfare of the creative community is piracy. Piracy is a persistent and evolving problem for virtually all types of copyrighted works and copyright owners and undermines the rights of creators and the value of copyright. It is essential that the copyright industries, including the millions of individual creators and small businesses across the country that rely on copyright law, be able to recoup their investments in order to fund the next wave of investment, create and distribute quality content for the public to enjoy, and ensure job stability for the nearly 5.7 million men and women these industries employ in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Content & Technology Policy Report May
    1800 M Street NW | 5th Floor | Washington D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 327-8100 | Fax: (202) 327-8101 CONTENT & TECHNOLOGY POLICY REPORT MAY 6, 2016 I. Congressional Updates: The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law has scheduled a hearing on May 11 at 2:30PM on Headlines and Highlights: “Examining the Proposed FCC Privacy Rules.” The hearing will feature witness testimony from Federal Communications The Supreme Court agrees Commission (FCC) Chairman Thomas Wheeler, FCC to hear case with Commissioner Ajit Pai, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) implications for copyright- Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, and FTC Commissioner Maureen eligibility Ohlhausen. The Copyright Office holds The House Ways and Means Tax Policy Subcommittee has public roundtables on its scheduled a hearing on Member proposals for improvements section 512 study to the U.S. tax system. The hearing will take place on May 12 at 10:00AM. Oral testimony will be limited to Members of TTIP leak reveals EU Congress who have either introduced or cosponsored tax concerns over protracted legislation. Notably, Subcommittee Chairman Charles U.S. copyright review Boustany (R-LA) and his colleague Richard Neal (D-MA) released a bipartisan discussion draft in 2015 for an Chinese Sci-Hub domain is “innovation box”; the draft legislation would create a shut down preferential tax rate for income derived from certain IP. In the Blogs: The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled an oversight hearing of the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) Copyright Q&A on May 11 at 10:00AM. CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske Copyright Alliance is scheduled to testify as the sole witness at the hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Precedential United States Court Of
    PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 10-2163 _____________ PETER MURPHY, Appellant, v. MILLENNIUM RADIO GROUP LLC; CRAIG CARTON; RAY ROSSI _____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (No. 08-cv-1743) District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano ___________ Argued January 25, 2011 1 Before: FUENTES and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges; POLLAK, District Judge* (Opinion Filed: June 14, 2011) Maurice Harmon (argued) Harmon & Seidman, LLC The Pennsville School 533 Walnut Drive Northampton, PA 18067 Attorney for Appellant David S. Korzenik (argued) Miller Korzenik Sommers LLP 488 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 Thomas J. Cafferty (argued) Gibbons P.C. One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102-5310 Attorneys for Appellee * The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 2 OPINION OF THE COURT Fuentes, Circuit Judge: Peter Murphy (“Murphy”) has filed an appeal from the decision of the District Court granting summary judgment to Millennium Radio Group, Craig Carton, and Ray Rossi (the “Station Defendants”) on Murphy‟s claims for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), copyright infringement, and defamation under state law. For the reasons given below, we reverse on all counts. I. Background In 2006, Murphy was hired by the magazine New Jersey Monthly (“NJM”) to take a photo of Craig Carton and Ray Rossi, who at the time were the hosts of a show on the New Jersey radio station WKXW, which is owned by Millennium Radio Group.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Statement of Keith Kupferschmid Chief Executive Officer Copyright Alliance Before the SENATE COMMITTEE on the JUDICIARY
    Statement of Keith Kupferschmid Chief Executive Officer Copyright Alliance before the SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY December 15, 2020 Good afternoon, Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Coons, and members of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing titled “The Role of Private Agreements and Existing Technology in Curbing Online Piracy” As this is the last in a year-long series of hearings on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), I would also like to take this opportunity to extend a special thank you to the Subcommittee for holding these very important hearings and for listening to the many members of the copyright community and others who testified on their struggles with online infringement and their concerns with the ineffectiveness of section 512 of the DMCA. My name is Keith Kupferschmid and I am the CEO of the Copyright Alliance, a non-profit, non- partisan public interest and educational organization dedicated to advocating policies that promote and preserve the value of copyright, and to protecting the rights of creators and innovators. The Copyright Alliance represents the copyright interests of over 13,000 organizations in the United States, across the spectrum of copyright disciplines, and over 1.8 million individual creators, including photographers, authors, songwriters, coders, bloggers, artists, and many more individual creators and small businesses that rely on copyright law to protect their creativity, efforts, and investments in the creation and distribution of new copyrighted works for the public to enjoy. 1 I very much appreciate being asked to testify here today about how voluntary agreements and technological solutions, like Standard Technical Measures (STMs), can help combat the problem of online copyright infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office
    united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publication of this Report is the final output of several years of effort by the Copyright Office to assist Congress with evaluating ways to update the Copyright Act for the 21st century. The genesis of this Report occurred in the midst of the two years of copyright review hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee that spanned the 113th and 114th Congresses. At the twentieth and final hearing in April 2015, the Copyright Office proposed several policy studies to aid Congress in its further review of the Copyright Act. Two studies already underway at the time were completed after the hearings: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (2015), which the Office later supplemented with a letter to Congress on the “Mass Digitization Pilot Program” (2017), and The Making Available Right in the United States (2016). Additional studies proposed during the final hearing that were subsequently issued by the Office included: the discussion document Section 108 of Title 17 (2017), Section 1201 of Title 17 (2017), and Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States (2019). The Office also evaluated how the current copyright system works for visual artists, which resulted in the letter to Congress titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges” (2019). Shortly after the hearings ended, two Senators requested a review of the role of copyright law in everyday consumer products and the Office subsequently published a report, Software-Enabled Computer Products (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • (B): Motion Pictures and Literary Works – Text and Data Mining
    Submission on behalf of Joint Creators and Copyright Owners Class 7(a) & (b): Motion Pictures and Literary Works – Text and Data Mining [ ] Check here if multimedia evidence is being provided in connection with this comment ITEM A. COMMENTER INFORMATION The Motion Picture Association, Inc. (“MPA”) is a trade association representing some of the world’s largest producers and distributors of motion pictures and other audiovisual entertainment for viewing in theaters, on prerecorded media, over broadcast TV, cable and satellite services, and on the internet. The MPA’s members are: Netflix Studios, LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Universal City Studios LLC, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Alliance for Recorded Music (“ARM”) is a nonprofit coalition comprising the many artists and record labels who together perform, create, and/or distribute nearly all of the sound recordings commercially released in the United States. Members include the American Association of Independent Music (“A2IM”), the Music Artists Coalition (“MAC”), the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (“RIAA”), hundreds of recording artists, the major record companies, and more than 600 independently owned U.S. music labels. The Entertainment Software Association (“ESA”) is the United States trade association serving companies that publish computer and video games for video game consoles, handheld video game devices, personal computers, and the internet. It represents nearly all of the major video game publishers and major video game platform providers in the United States. Represented By: J. Matthew Williams ([email protected]) Sofia Castillo ([email protected]) MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 1818 N Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 19-1124 in the UNITED STATES COURT OF
    USCA4 Appeal: 19-1124 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/19/2019 Pg: 1 of 38 No. 19-1124 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UMG RECORDINGS, INC., CAPITAL RECORDS, LLC, WARNER BROS RECORDS INC., ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., FUELED BY RAMEN LLC, NONESUCH RECORDS INC., SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT US LATIN LLC, ARISTA RECORDS LLC, LAFACE RECORDS LLC, ZOMBA RECORDING LLC Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOFIG KURBANOV, Defendant-Appellee ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, 1:18-cv-00957-CMH-TCB AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS David E. Weslow Megan L. Brown Ari S. Meltzer WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 719-7000 [email protected] Counsel for Association of American Publishers March 19, 2019 USCA4 Appeal: 19-1124 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/19/2019 Pg: 2 of 38 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Association of American Publishers (“AAP”) is a non-profit association of book, journal, and education publishers. AAP has no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or more of its stock. i USCA4 Appeal: 19-1124 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/19/2019 Pg: 3 of 38 STATEMENT REGARDING CONSENT TO FILE All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4), amicus curiae states that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL 07 24 2014 Statement for the Record On
    Statement For The Record of Sandra Aistars, Chief Executive Officer, Copyright Alliance Before The House Judiciary Committee SuBcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property And The Internet Copyright Remedies July 24, 2014 The Copyright Alliance is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting the ability of creative professionals to earn a living from their creativity. We represent the interests of creators and copyright owners across the spectrum of creative disciplines. Copyright is the foundation for a market of cultural, educational, and scientific works, one that in 2012 contributed over one trillion dollars to the U.S. economy and directly employed 5.4 million workers.1 It is an economic asset, sometimes the only asset a creator has in negotiating with a distributor of their works – whether that distributor is an internet company or a traditional media company. If copyright is weakened or if it becomes harder for the creator to obtain or maintain its protections, both the creator’s negotiating position and the value proposition for the distributor are diminished. Copyright protection promotes freedom of expression and individual autonomy. The Supreme Court has said, “[T]he Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one’s expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.”2 Internationally, the right 1 STEPHEN SIWEK, COPYRIGHT INDUSTRIES IN THE U.S. ECONOMY: THE 2013 REPORT 5, 10-11 (IIPA 2013). 2 Harper & Row, Inc. v. Nation Enter., 471 U.S. 539, 558 (1985). 1 of creators “to benefit from the protection of the material and moral interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production” is recognized as a human right.3 Copyright empowers creators to choose how and when to release their work to the public, according respect for individual voices while also allowing flexibility to construct a range of business models that meet consumer interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Lenz V. Universal Music
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHANIE LENZ, Nos. 13-16106 Plaintiff-Appellee/ 13-16107 Cross-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 5:07-cv-03783- JF UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP.; UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING INC.; UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING ORDER AND GROUP INC., AMENDED Defendants-Appellants/ OPINION Cross-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 7, 2015—San Francisco, California Filed September 14, 2015 Amended March 17, 2016 Before: Richard C. Tallman, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges. Order; Opinion by Judge Tallman; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. 2 LENZ V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC SUMMARY* Digital Millennium Copyright Act The panel filed (1) an order amending its prior opinion and dissent and denying appellants’ petition for panel rehearing and cross-appellant’s petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc; and (2) an amended opinion and dissent in an action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on a claim that the defendants violated 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) by misrepresenting in a takedown notification that the plaintiff’s home video constituted an infringing use of a portion of a Prince composition. The panel held that the DCMA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that there was a triable issue as to whether the defendant copyright holders formed a subjective good faith belief that plaintiff’s use was not authorized by law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Protectip A
    FOR BACKGROUND PURPOSES THE PROTECT IP ACT: COMBATING ONLINE INFRINGEMENT CREATING AMERICAN JOBS, PROMOTING AMERICA’S ECONOMY, PROTECTING AMERICAN CONSUMERS The bipartisan PROTECT IP Act was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a unanimous voice vote on May 26, 2011. The legislation will protect American businesses and American workers by making it more difficult for operators of rogue websites, often based overseas, to steal American intellectual property. More than 40 Senators are cosponsors of the legislation, which is supported by hundreds of businesses, consumer advocacy groups, labor organizations and intellectual property coalitions. SUPPORT FOR THE PROTECT IP ACT • Vermont Association of Broadcasters • Songwriters Guild of America • Darn Tough Vermont • Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. • Vermont Professional Photographers • Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation • United States Chamber of Commerce • Universal City Studios LLC • AFL-CIO • Viacom • National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) • Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures • International Brotherhood of Teamsters • Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. • National Cable and Telecommunications • ABC Association (NCTA) • ABRO Industries, Inc. • National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) • Acushnet Company • Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) • adidas America • National Retail Federation (NRF) • Advanced Medical Technology Association • Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (AdvaMed) • National Electrical Manufacturers Association • Allen Russell Photography
    [Show full text]
  • No. 16-1972 in the United States Court Of
    Appeal: 16-1972 Doc: 51-1 Filed: 01/06/2017 Pg: 1 of 41 NO. 16-1972 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT (US) LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, AND ROUND HILL MUSIC LP, Plaintiff, v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and COXCOM, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, AND COX ENTERPRISES, INC.; COXCOM, INC. AND JOHN DOE 2, Defendants AND RIGHTSCORP, INC., Party-in-Interest. Appeal From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 14-CV-01611 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC Linda M. Burrow Eric S. Pettit Albert Giang Alison Mackenzie 725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-5524 Telephone: (213) 629-9040 Facsimile: (213) 629-9022 Appeal: 16-1972 Doc: 51-1 Filed: 01/06/2017 Pg: 2 of 41 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Fourth Circuit Rule 26.1(b), the Copyright Alliance states that it has no parent corporation, no publicly held company holds more than 10% of its stock, and it does not have a direct financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. DATED: January 6, 2017 CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC By s/ Linda M. Burrow LINDA M. BURROW i Appeal: 16-1972 Doc: 51-1 Filed: 01/06/2017 Pg: 3 of 41 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..........................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................iv INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE .........................................................................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................3 ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................4 I. Protecting the Rights of Creators is Crucial to the Success of the Internet.............................................................................................................4 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Circumvention Law: Harm to Expression, Self-Determination, Competition, and Access to Knowledge
    Anti-Circumvention Law: Harm to Expression, Self-Determination, Competition, and Access to Knowledge Statement of Kit Walsh Senior Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation September 10, 2020 As a senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I am grateful for this opportunity to share EFF’s experience with the damaging effects of US anti-circumvention law. For 30 years, EFF has represented the public interest in ensuring that law and technology support human rights and innovation. We have been involved in key cases and regulatory proceedings interpreting the anti-circumvention law in the United States. In the US and abroad, we have worked to ensure that copyright policy, legislation, and technological measures appropriately balance the rights of artists, authors, and the general public. As a legal services organization, we also counsel users whose legitimate, noninfringing activities are threatened by US anti-circumvention law. I am not, of course, an expert on Mexican law. But I hope this information on the US experience will be helpful. Summary: Anti-Circumvention Law Harms An Astonishing Breadth of Legitimate and Essential Activities In the United States, we have seen decades of chilling effects on security research, with students discouraged from pursuing the field because of threats of litigation. Companies are rarely pleased to learn about defects in their products and frequently want to conceal them or control the message – to the detriment of the public. Anti-circumvention law gives them a legal tool to intimidate researchers. We have seen educators hamstrung in their ability to teach media literacy and other topics that engage with popular culture.
    [Show full text]