DOCSLIB.ORG

Would the Strategies Used Against Patent Trolls Be Suitable Against Copyright Trolls in the Context of Copyright Protection in Open Source Software?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Would the Strategies Used Against Patent Trolls Be Suitable Against Copyright Trolls in the Context of Copyright Protection in Open Source Software? Would the strategies used against patent trolls be suitable against copyright trolls in the context of copyright protection in Open Source software? Master Thesis LL.M Law & Technology Tilburg Law School Tilburg University 2019 Student: Supervisor: Yanitsa Stoyanova Mara Paun Arn. 420366 Second Reader: Srn. 2019164 Martin Husovec List of Acronyms and Abbreviations FOSS Free and Open Source Software IP Intellectual Property IPR Intellectual Property Right ISP Internet Service Provider NPE Non Practicing Entity OIN Open Invention Network PAE Patent Assertion Entity PE Practicing Entity R&D Research and Development SEP Standard Essential Patent 2 Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5 1. Background ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Patent trolls ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.2. Copyright trolls in Open Source Software ...................................................................... 6 1.3. For whom is Open Source copyright trolling problematic? ............................................ 8 1.3.1. The Telecommunications Industry .............................................................................. 8 1.3.2. The Open Source Community ..................................................................................... 9 2. State of the Art in the Literature ....................................................................................... 11 3. Research question, methodology and outline ................................................................... 12 II. Chapter 1: How different to each other are patent trolls and Open Source copyright trolls? ………………………………………………………………………………………………...14 1. Patents vs. Copyrights ....................................................................................................... 14 2. Strategies for enforcement used by patent trolls and copyright trolls............................... 17 2.1. Stay hidden and get infringed ........................................................................................ 17 2.2. Be opportunistic ............................................................................................................ 18 2.3. Use litigation as a threat but don’t litigate .................................................................... 19 2.4. Obtain Injunctions ......................................................................................................... 20 2.5. Go Forum Shopping ...................................................................................................... 21 3. Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 21 III. Chapter 2: Which Ex-Ante Strategies used against patent trolls may be suitable against Open Source copyright trolls? .................................................................................................. 23 1. License compliance ........................................................................................................... 24 1.1. Patent compliance ......................................................................................................... 25 1.2. Open Source Copyright Compliance ............................................................................. 26 2. Insurance ........................................................................................................................... 29 2.1. Patent Insurance ............................................................................................................ 30 2.2. Open Source Copyright Insurance ................................................................................ 32 3. Defense Networks ............................................................................................................. 32 3.1. Patent Defense Networks .............................................................................................. 32 3.2. Open Source Copyright Defense Networks .................................................................. 34 4. Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 34 IV. Chapter 3: Which Ex Post Strategies used against Patent Trolls might be suitable against Open Source Copyright Trolls? ................................................................................... 36 3 | P a g e 1. Disregard the danger of litigation ..................................................................................... 36 2. Negotiate and settle ........................................................................................................... 37 3. Stop using the infringing technology ................................................................................ 38 4. Litigate .............................................................................................................................. 39 4.1. Forum Shopping ............................................................................................................ 39 4.2. Narrow the scope of the IPR ......................................................................................... 39 4.3. Obtain information ........................................................................................................ 40 4.4. Prove non-infringement ................................................................................................. 40 5. Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 41 V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 42 VI. Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 44 4 I. Introduction 1. Background Trolls are known from the legends and fairytales as greedy creatures who hide under bridges, built by someone else, and demand the travelers to pay a fee against the permission to cross on the other side of the river. Usually, they approach their targets unexpectedly when they are least prepared to defend themselves from a troll attack, but at the same time they desperately need to cross the river. If one wants to continue their journey they have to dearly pay to the bloodcurdling bridge guardian. Should the traveler refuse to pay, the troll becomes aggressive and not only precludes the passing of the bridge but also threatens the victim’s well-being or life. Sneaky, dishonest, violent and assertive, relying on threats, taking advantage of people’s weakness and fears, trolls have become a synonym for someone who is fishing for an easy and non-deserved prize by hiding in the dark and attacking its victims by surprise. Trolls also have their habitat in the world of intellectual property [“IP”]. Here trolls find their “bridges” in IP rights [“IPRs”] enforcement and litigation. Trolling has a long history in patent law and for long time it has been more common in patent law than in copyright law. Studies show that the first explosion of patent litigation and respectively patent trolling in the United States dates back to 1850 with an impressive number of patent litigation cases that even override the number of cases filed in recent years.1 Therefore, as patent trolling exists for longer than copyright trolling, it is more researched and there is more clarity around the concept of patent trolls and the associated complications that they bring to technology companies. On the other side, relatively younger concepts and trends in technology development bring new opportunities for the trolls. With the growing popularity of free and open source software [“FOSS”]2 trolls recently found new ways to copyrights too. Thus the nature of the specific licensing terms of FOSS and the specifics of the FOSS enforcement in particular, introduce new challenges for the companies who have to deal with IP trolls. 1.1. Patent trolls Patent trolls are “known as willing, if not eager, litigants, having built a business around patent enforcement”3 and mainly focus their attacks against manufacturing or practicing entities [“PEs”]. However, not all types of patent assertion is trolling. The term “patent troll” is often replaced with “patent assertion entity” [“PAE”] or “non-practicing entity” [“NPE’]. Even though these terms are repeatedly used as synonyms, their meaning is not identical and the difference between PAEs and NPEs is outlined by some scholars whereas there is no alignment what exactly these terms cover.4 “NPE” literary refers to an 1 Christopher Beauchamp and others, ‘The First Patent Litigation Explosion’ [2015] 125 Yale Law Journal 848, 2016; Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 428 848 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2699964>. 2 For the difference between Free and Open Source Software see here: https://opensource.com/article/17/11/open-source-or-free-software; As the difference is more ideological than practical, I will use the term FOSS to cover both Free Software and Open Source Software and may refer to both types of software as to synonyms (although they are not). 3 Colleen V Chien, ‘Of Trolls , Davids , Goliaths , and Kings : Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Open Source Is Changing IP Risk in the Soft Ware Supply Chain
    A New Wave of IP Risks: How Open Source is Changing IP Risk in the Software Supply Chain Table of Contents Introduction . 3 Brief Overview of Open Source and Where It Stands Today . 3 The Interplay Between Open Source and IP Risk: . 5 Understanding the Challenges Specific IP Risks in the Open Source Software Supply Chain . 7 Copyright Infringement . 7 Reputation . 9 Exposing IP Secrets . 10 Impacts on the Partner/Customer Relationship . 11 Patent Infringement . 12 Looking Ahead: The Future of Open Source Litigation . 13 Conclusion . 14 I. Introduction Open source software has been integrated into nearly is a testament to the success of open source, it also gives every industry and sector today . According to a 2016 rise to unique challenges for businesses, particularly in survey, approximately 90% of today’s organizations report the area of intellectual property . If a company cannot using open source software .1 That percentage has almost even find all of its open source code or identify its open certainly grown since . One likely reason for open source’s source dependencies, they are also likely unable to boom in popularity is the distinct cost savings it gives ensure that they are remaining compliant with open companies who use it .2 The use of open source software is source licenses and protecting themselves from business now so widespread that many companies are unaware of or reputational risk . how and where it is used, and would be unable to identify all their open source code if asked to do so . In this paper, we will examine the most common IP risks that arise from the use of open source software today, As Mark Radcliffe, a partner in the Silicon Valley office of including copyright infringement, patent infringement, DLA Piper specializing in IP and open source, explains, reputational risk, exposure of IP secrets, and the impact on “virtually all software now has a large number of open the partner/customer relationship .
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 30 Spring 2014
    SYRACUSE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW VOLUME 30 SPRING 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Mass Copyright Infringement Litigation: Of Trolls, Pornography, Settlement and Joinder Christopher Civil………………………………………………………………………………...2 Notice and Manifestation of Assent to Browse-Wrap Agreements in the Age of Evolving Crawlers, Bots, Spiders and Scrapers: How Courts Are Tethered to Their Application of Register and Cairo and Why Congress Should Mandate Use of the Robots Exclusion Standard to Prevent Circumvention of Responsibility Michael Laven…………………………………………………………………………………..56 Seeing Red: Christian Louboutin’s Protection of His Trademark Through His Battle with Yves St. Laurent Sachpreet Bains…………………………………………………………………………………73 I Need a Lawyer: Establishing Statewide New York Communication Access Fund to Secure Legal Accessibility to Deaf and Hard of Hearing Clients Through Video Remote Interpreting Services in Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act YooNa Lim………………………………………………………………………………………99 Can You Hear Me Now? Spectrum is Shaping the Telecommunication Industry in an Increasingly Connected America James Zino……………………………………………………………………………………..131 Review of “I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy” Edited by: Sarah Richmond, Geraint Rees, and Sarah J.L. Edwards Jenna Furman…………………………………………………………………………………160 SYRACUSE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW VOLUME 30 SPRING 2014 2013-2014 EDITORIAL STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Brittany Jones MANAGING EDITOR Tanjeev Thandi LEAD ARTICLE EDITORS FORM & ACCURACY EDITORS Alessandra
    [Show full text]
  • Monetizing Infringement
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2020 Monetizing Infringement Kristelia García University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Citation Information Kristelia García, Monetizing Infringement, 54 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 265 (2020), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1308. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Monetizing Infringement Kristelia García* The deterrence of copyright infringement and the evils of piracy have long been an axiomatic focus of both legislators and scholars. The conventional view is that infringement must be curbed and/or punished in order for copyright to fulfill its purported goals of incentivizing creation and ensuring access to works. This Essay proves this view false by demonstrating that some rightsholders don’t merely tolerate, but actually encourage infringement, both explicitly and implicitly, in a variety of different situations and for one common reason: they benefit from it.
    [Show full text]
  • The (Unfinished) Ballad of Gunslinger/ ©Troll Richard Liebowitz by Steven D
    For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © 2019 Media Law Resource Center, Inc. Page 8 August 2019 MLRC MediaLawLetter The (Unfinished) Ballad of Gunslinger/ ©Troll Richard Liebowitz By Steven D. Zansberg You are probably already far more familiar than you wish you were with Richard Liebowitz, the notorious copyright plaintiff’s attorney based in Valley Stream, New York. Mr. Liebowitz has gained notoriety (some might say ignominy) for having filed over 1,500 copyright infringement actions across the nation (some 1,100 in S.D.N.Y.), and having been featured in Slate, The Hollywood Reporter, and even has his own Wikipedia page (do you?). For those fortunate few unfamiliar with Mr. Liebowitz, his entrepreneurial spirit follows a well-developed business model: (1) represent photographers who have registered (or soon will register) their original works (now a requirement for instituting copyright infringement actions, and for recovery of statutory damages of up to $150K/violation plus attorneys’ fees); (2) find infringing (non-licensed) uses of those photos online by using a reverse-image search engine like Google Images, Tin Eye, Pixsy, or Berify; (3) demand an exorbitant amount to settle such cases (typically $25K per photo, most of which would command license fees of, at best, in the tens or hundreds of dollars) and then agree to a settlement figure that is a fraction (often less than half) of the initial extortionate demand. You are probably already far more Because it inevitably would cost more than the insurance familiar than you wish you were deductible to defend such a case, the defendants – many of with Richard Liebowitz, the whom are large media companies – make the rational business notorious copyright plaintiff’s attorney.
    [Show full text]
  • Inhibiting Patent Trolling: a New Approach for Applying Rule 11 Eric Rogers Molecular Templates, Inc
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 12 | Issue 4 Article 2 2014 Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11 Eric Rogers Molecular Templates, Inc. Young Jeon e-Litecom Co., Ltd. Recommended Citation Eric Rogers and Young Jeon, Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11, 12 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 291 (2014). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol12/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11 Eric Rogers & Young Jeon November 2014 VOL. 12, NO. 4 © 2014 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2014 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 12, Number 4 (November 2014) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11 By Eric Rogers & Young Jeon* There has been an alarming rise in the number of litigious entities—commonly referred to as patent trolls or non-practicing entities—that make no products but file dubious patent infringement lawsuits merely to extract money from commercially productive companies. High litigation costs provide a fertile environment for an exploitive business model that uses shotgun tactics to threaten patent infringement claims against numerous companies, many of which will make a purely financial decision to pay patent trolls rather than expend even more money in litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew As G
    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2018 Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew aS g Jake Haskell Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew Sag &Jake Haskell * ABSTRACT: In this Article, we offer both a legal and a pragmaticframework for defending against copyright trolls. Lawsuits alleging online copyright infringement by John Doe defendants have accounted for roughly half of all copyright casesfiled in the United States over the past threeyears. In the typical case, the plaintiffs claims of infringement rely on a poorly substantiatedform pleading and are targeted indiscriminately at noninfringers as well as infringers. This practice is a subset of the broaderproblem of opportunistic litigation, but it persists due to certain unique features of copyright law and the technical complexity of Internet technology. The plaintiffs bringing these cases target hundreds or thousands of defendants nationwide and seek quick settlements pricedjust low enough that it is less expensive for the defendant to pay rather than to defend the claim, regardless of the claim's merits. We report new empirical data on the continued growth of this form of copyright trolling in the United States. We also undertake a detailed analysis of the legal andfactual underpinnings of these cases. Despite theirunderlying weakness, plaintiffs have exploited information asymmetries, the high cost of federal court litigation, and the extravagant threat of statutory damages for copyright infringement to leverage settlementsfrom the guilty and the innocent alike.
    [Show full text]
  • Predictably Expensive:Ac Ritical Look at Patent
    PREDICTABLY EXPENSIVE: A CRITICAL LOOK AT PATENT LITIGATION IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Brian J. Love* James Yoon† CITE AS 20 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 1 (2017) ABSTRACT In this Article, we compare U.S. patent litigation across districts and consider possible explanations for the Eastern District of Texas’ popularity with patent plaintiffs. Rather than any one explanation, we conclude that what makes the Eastern District so attractive to patent plaintiffs is the accumulated effect of several marginal advantages—particularly with respect to the relative timing of discovery deadlines, transfer decisions, and claim construction—that make it predictably expensive for accused infringers to defend patent suits filed in East Texas. These findings tend to support ongoing efforts to pass patent reform legislation that would presumptively stay discovery in patent suits pending claim construction and motions to transfer or dismiss. However, we also observe that courts in the Eastern District of Texas have exercised their discretion in ways that dampen the effect of prior legislative and judicial reforms that were aimed (at least in part) at deterring abusive patent suits. Given courts’ broad discretion to control how cases proceed, this additional finding suggests that restricting venue in patent cases may well be the single most effective reform available to Congress or the courts to limit patentees’ ability to impose unnecessary and unwarranted costs on companies accused of patent infringement. * Assistant Professor and Co-Director of the High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of Law. My work on this Article was supported in part by the INPRECOMP Project of the Center for Law, Science & Innovation (LSI) at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Artikelen PRIVATEERS and TROLLS JOIN the GLOBAL PATENT WARS; CAN COMPETITION AUTHORITIES DISARM THEM?
    Mr. M. Dolmans1 Artikelen Privateers and trolls join the global patent wars; can competition authorities disarm them? Computerrecht 2014/37 a component that is subject to network effects, and you can threaten producers with catastrophic loss. On Halloween of 2013, patent assertion company – Patents proliferate in the ICT sector. This is partially Rockstar, owner of one of the largest patent portfo- due to patent mining and strategic patenting – firms lios in the world, 2 filed patent law suits against seven creating dense thickets of overlapping patent claims mobile phone makers and Google in the Texas ‘rocket covering and surrounding a product to block rivals. As docket’. 3 This heralded an escalation in the mobile patent offices are overwhelmed by applications in new, patent world war raging since 2010. fast-moving and complex technology areas, some think they grant patents without adequate review, leading to This ‘Halloween Attack’ is symptomatic of an in- lower patent quality. 4 Yet, in a portfolio, volume makes creasing problem: opportunistic exploitation of up for weakness. Patents are presumed valid, and chal- patents by Patent Assertion Entities (‘PAEs’, or less lenging patents is costly and time-consuming. More politely, ‘trolls’), and the strategic use of such PAEs important, if one patent is annulled or found not in- by firms to hamper their rivals. The war stories from fringed, patentees will have others. Litigation becomes the mobile phone sector are interesting as examples like a fight against the Hydra: chop off one head and of a competitive game, but even more as a harbin- two more grow.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Observations on the Patent Troll Litigation Problem
    Intellectual Property& Technology Law Journal Edited by the Technology and Proprietary Rights Group of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP VOLUME 26 • NUMBER 8 • AUGUST 2014 Some Observations on the Patent Troll Litigation Problem By Christopher Hu atent infringement cases brought by so-called problem can be addressed. In brief, the problems P patent trolls have received considerable atten- stem from the way nonpracticing entities (NPEs) tion in recent years, enough so that both Congress use or misuse the judicial system, not the US Patent and the White House have chimed in on the sub- Office. Accordingly, the solution primarily involves ject.1 The number of cases filed by patent trolls, the applying existing judicial procedures more vigorously cost of defending or settling these cases, the size with minimal changes to existing substantive law. of some judgments, the perceived frivolousness of some cases, and the use or abuse of litigation as a The Patent Troll “Problem” tool to “extort” settlements have all drawn atten- tion to this issue. Adding to the controversy is the Some Statistics on Patent Troll Litigation sentiment among some that it is inherently unfair NPEs, also known as patent trolls or patent asser- or economically wrong for an entity that does not tion entities (PAEs), are a fact of business life in the practice a patent to profit by asserting it. United States. Definitions of a patent troll vary but Although there is some statistical data concerning the common element of every definition is that a the assertion of patents by trolls, and a considerable patent troll is an entity that does not itself practice a amount of anecdotal evidence, there appear to be patent but instead asserts the patent against entities no rigorous studies on the economic effect of trolls.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Trolls' Hefty Tolls
    0125.012456.84151 3PAT0125.PAT-012456.8 28 | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent18254520.321.654921 Trolls’ Hefty Tolls Lawmakers target shell companies that threaten small businesses with bogus25167282012456012456 claims of patent violations. BY012456012456012456 JONATHAN GRIFFIN ampires, zombies, werewolves (especially the teen variety) and aliens have captured people’s inter- est once again. On TV, at the movies and in books, these fantastical beasts entertain and thrill those brave enough to watch or read about them. But there is one creature that entertains no one and Vevokes only groans3PAT0125.012456.86465 and sighs when its name is uttered, and that’s the “patent troll.” These real-life ogres are largely to blame for more than doubling the number of patent lawsuits in the last 10 years, and in 2011 alone cost U.S. businesses $29 billion in legal fees. Beyond the Tolkien-inspired name, what is a patent troll? And more important, what, if anything, should state lawmakers do to curb the harm many claim they do to small businesses? Patent trolls,67641353PAT0125.012456.8 formally known as patent assertion entities (PAEs), generally are holding or “shell” companies that don’t manufacture anything but hold a number of patents, typically purchased legally from bankrupt firms. They make their money by sending threatening letters to companies claiming they have been violating one or more of their (often vaguely defined) pat- ents. The letters say that if the companies pay the license fees to use their patents,0125.012456.84151 they won’t be sued. PAEs usually request unreasonable fees in light of the alleged infractions and often fail to give companies any details about under fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Assertion Entity Activity: an Ftc Study
    Patent Assertion Entity Activity AN FTC STUDY Federal Trade Commission October 2016 PATENT ASSERTION ENTITY ACTIVITY: AN FTC STUDY A REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION EDITH RAMIREZ Chairwoman MAUREEN K. OHLHAUSEN Commissioner TERRELL MCSWEENY Commissioner Heather Hippsley Chief of Staff David B. Robbins Executive Director Deborah L. Feinstein Director, Bureau of Competition Jessica L. Rich Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection Ginger Zhe Jin Director, Bureau of Economics David Shonka Acting General Counsel Randolph W. Tritell Director, Office of International Affairs Jeanne Bumpus Director, Office of Congressional Relations Tara Isa Koslov Acting Director, Office of Policy Planning Justin Cole Director, Office of Public Affairs Donald S. Clark Secretary of the Commission Andrew I. Gavil Former Director, Office of Policy Planning* Martin S. Gaynor Former Director, Bureau of Economics Francine Lafontaine Former Director, Bureau of Economics Marina Lao Former Director, Office of Policy Planning Report Drafters and Contributors Suzanne Munck, Deputy Director, Office of Policy Planning & Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property Daniel S. Hosken, Deputy Assistant Director, Bureau of Economics John E. Dubiansky, Office of Policy Planning J. Elizabeth Callison, Bureau of Economics Julie A. Carlson, Bureau of Economics Jason O’Connor, Bureau of Economics Elizabeth A. Gillen, Office of Policy Planning Benjamin Chartock, Bureau of Economics Christopher Bryan, Office of Policy Planning Henry C. Su, Office of Chairwoman Edith Ramirez Inquiries
    [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]