Another argument against a presidential “democracy”; another argument for multi-party parliamentary government instead. I suspect we will get there…after another civil war and several breakaway republics later.
Of course he can. He may not successfully pull it off, and he may be vilified for delaying important time-critical legislation, but he can certainly try. In this case, the main intent of the bill really is time-critical, and the whole issue is compounded by the fact that Trump doesn’t give a shit about any of it.
Now this I agree with. The catastrophe of the Trump presidency may yet spawn a movement to further limit the president’s power, or at least to more formally define its limits, so that the next loose cannon dictator wannabe in that office will be more firmly constrained.
The “small claims” tribunal has been under consideration for several years now. The only reason it had not already passed is because of another controversial Senate tactic—the “hold”—a single Senator blocked the bill, which would have already have otherwise passed.
It’s also arguable that the small claims tribunal will also reduce copyright trolling. The most important thing is that it is a voluntary trubunal. Unlike in a lawsuit, no one can be forced to fight a case before the tribunal. You can refuse jurisdiction and then the claimant would have to sue you in federal court, which E could have done anyway.
The “small claims” tribunal has been under consideration for several years now. The only reason it had not already passed is because of another controversial Senate tactic—the “hold”—a single Senator blocked the bill, which would have already have otherwise passed.
It’s also arguable that the small claims tribunal will also reduce copyright trolling. The most important thing is that it is a voluntary trubunal. Unlike in a lawsuit, no one can be forced to fight a case before the tribunal. You can refuse jurisdiction and then the claimant would have to sue you in federal court, which E could have done anyway.
I’ll also note that the $30,000 is a cap on liability. In court, there’s no such cap, and if you were facing a federal case for copyright infringement, you could be facing statutory damages of $150,000, which require no establishment of actual damages.
I’ve wondered: Is there some legal provision that a mere tucked-away rider in a 2,000-page long bill can’t actually pass into law if it’s not conspicuous enough?
i.e., on page 736: “The federal government shall make a payment of $500 billion to Wyoming and build a Disney World sized theme park there no later than December 31, 2024.”
Kind of like those “terms and agreements” things that you click that you have read and acknowledge, what if a tiny part of it says, “You must amputate your left foot within seven weeks?”
Almost every time the Republicans and Democrats both agree on something, I strongly oppose it. This has been lobbied for over a long time by strong copyright interests. If somebody thinks that Hollywood is made up of liberal elites, then they’ve missed the part where these are massive corporations that give loads of money to both sides.
Pretty bizarre to many of us here, too .
Anybody remember Rep. John Conyers in Fahrenheit 911? Relevant short clip:
Would it be unprecedented for the leader of either the House or the Senate to say, “We are going to deal with this one very important issue in this bill and nothing else.”? It would certainly put pressure on the other party. If everyone agreed to that, how much faster could this bell have passed?
You’re kind of missing the point here; adding this stuff is how they cut deals and horse trade. Very much like earmarks, but without the spending aspects. In other words without that stuff, it probably wouldn’t have passed, as someone (or multiple someones) were probably digging their heels in and wouldn’t have voted for it had they not gotten a bone thrown to them.
There is no liberal or conservative position in these copyright bills.
Exactly. That was my point earlier. This is what compromise looks like.
Most of the more liberal organizations are against this change to copyright, saying it will have deleterious effects. The idea that this is necessarily a good thing seems to be a conservative, pro-business one.
Problem is, our “liberals” in congress are neoliberal, and thus pro-business. It’s part of why they’re centrists–they are right wing when it comes to such things.
That said, the bill doesn’t seem too bad, mostly just furthering the already illiberal copyright system that is about helping people make money and not the constitution’s stated reason for copyright: to encourage the creation of more works and (eventually) enrich the public domain.
No, the anti-copyright, pro-IT industry organizations are against it.
The copyright owners organizations are for it. The copyright owners are not conservative as a group. They are not non-liberal. Indeed, the biggest group of people who are for the Case Act are freelance artists, particularly photographers. The vast majority of them are liberal, but they desperately need a “small claims” system to protect their works. Calling their position anti-liberal is the equivalent of throwing them under the bus.
The liberal-conservative model is just completely inapplicable here.
That’s also why people kept getting confused by Justice Ginsburg’s rulings on copyright cases. They kept thinking there was a “liberal” position and it surprised them that she never was on that side. That’s because there was no "liberal’ postion.
ISTR Congress passed a line-item veto bill in advance of the 1996 election, being of the opinion that the Pubbies would defeat Bill Clinton, then successfully argued that it was unconstitutional the first time he tried to use it.
Something like that.
What Congress needs is a few elected Straight Dope moderators! That will keep bills from going off-topic!
Yeah, you misunderstood me. I meant the president would veto the whole package, while making it clear it was the unrelated provisions he objected to. In this bill, my understanding was that both parties agreed the stimulus needed to happen, so they both packed it with all their pet provisions so nobody would talk about those things.
I agree. I did not intend to suggest a line-item veto, which would be bad. But if this bill is truly as bipartisan as it’s supposed to be those extra provisions should not be necessary, and the president (meaning a generic president, not any particular president) could leverage his veto power to keep them out.
Ah. okay.
Just for the O.P., I’d look further into the details of this legislation to decide whether you really believe it to be “draconian.”
I’m not the OP. I’m a keen amateur photographer who follows photography copyright issues keenly. I’m an avid reader on issues of intellectual property. I’m also someone who takes an inordinate interest (for someone who’s not a lawyer) in the workings of the justice system, and especially the federal courts.
I don’t have too much of a problem with the felony criminalization of large-scale streaming. I also agree that smaller intellectual property producers, like freelance photographers, artists, etc., need a better system for enforcing their rights. I think a small-claims type of procedure for these people, avoiding the massive costs of federal litigation, is probably a good move.
I’m still not sure that the way they’ve done it is a good idea. They’ve basically created a new set of administrative law judges, outside of the federal court system, to adjudicate these cases. In too many cases, admin law judges are too closely integrated with administration, and too deferential towards the government and its priorities. Also, the system they have put in place is still much easier to navigate for larger entities that can afford to hire people to stay on top of things, and harder to navigate for individuals and smaller entities who are not used to dealing with byzantine systems of deadlines and opt-ins and opt-outs. I also worry that, as some of the critics have suggested, this new system will create another ripe target for copyright trolls and other bad actors.