![]() • Royalty Finance Analyst, The MLC (NA)
• Royalties Manager (NY)
• VP Latin, BMI (LA)
• Executive Assistant, BMI (LA)
• Research Assistant, BMI (NY)
View All Jobs ![]() US Copyright Office U.S. Copyright Office, Subscriber Notice Digital Music News Latest Music Industry Gigs: Asylum Records, Warner Chappell, Sony/ATV, More BMI Events: BMI Presents…How Did I Break – A Clubhouse Chat More News ![]() • First Stream Latin: New Music From Manuel Turizo & Wisin Y Yandel, Maria Becerra & More
• Jose Feliciano Delivers 50th Anniversary Performance of ‘Feliz Navidad’ on ‘Fallon’
• American Music Awards Adds Three Latin Categories, Matching It With Soul/R&B and Rap/Hip-Hop
• In Celebration Of Hispanic Heritage Month, Billboard's Latin Editors Share Their HHM Playlists
• Bad Bunny, Ozuna and all the Finalists For 2020 Billboard Latin Music Awards
View All Entries ![]() • CASE Act Signed Into Law: What This Means
• Senator Thom Tillis Seeks Suggestions for Reform of Digital Millenium Copyright Act
• Is It Considered Fair Use For A Political Campaign To Use Music Or Other Copyrighted Works?
• Shira Perlmutter Appointed U.S. Register Of Copyrights
• Can My Co-Writer Copy from Our Joint Work?
View All Entries |
![]() |
![]() View All Copyright Corner Entries ![]()
by Terrica Carrington and Keith Kupferschmid
On December 27, creators across the country collectively celebrated as the CASE Act was signed into law. Naturally, many of you have questions about the how the new small claims process will work. Below, we answer some of the questions we’ve heard so far, and provide some need-to-know details. What is the CASE Act? Why is the small claims process important? When will the CCB begin operating? How are the CCB Officers selected? What types of copyright claims can be brought before the CCB? – Creators can bring infringement claims against those who are infringing their works; – Users can request that the CCB issue a declaration of non-infringement stating that their activity does not infringe the copyright owner’s exclusive rights; and – Users who received a DMCA takedown notice can challenge that notice if they believe it contains some form of misrepresentation relating to the alleged infringing activity. Creators who sent a DMCA takedown notice and then received a counternotice may also challenge that counternotice if they believe the counternotice contains some form of misrepresentation relating to material that was removed. You’ll notice that the types of claims that can be brought are mix of those brought by copyright owners and users, so this new tribunal isn’t just being created to help copyright owners. It will also benefit users with fair use and other claims. How much will it cost to file a claim with the CCB? Does the CASE Act require creators who are infringed to bring their small infringement cases before the CCB instead of federal court? Does the CASE Act require those who are accused of infringement to defend themselves in a CCB proceeding? If it is so easy to opt out, won’t everyone opt out? How do the CCB Officers make their decisions? How is a CASE Act proceeding different than a proceeding in federal court? How will the CASE Act prevent trolling and other abuses?The CASE Act discourages bad faith claims, counterclaims and defenses, and other abuses by granting the CCB the authority to not only dismiss frivolous claims, but also to: – award attorneys’ fees of up to $5,000, or more in extraordinary circumstances; – prohibit the bad faith actor from filing a case for one year; and – dismiss all pending cases filed by the bad faith actor. In addition, the CASE Act allows the Copyright Office to issue regulations preventing any one person or entity from bringing a certain number of cases in a year. There is no such restriction on the number of cases that can be filed in federal court. Also, keep in mind that the small claims process is optional, and each time a respondent opts out, the claimant loses the non-refundable filing fee. This gives the respondent leverage, not the claimant, because if the claimant is a troll they stand to lose money every time a respondent opts out. The small claims process is also unfriendly to copyright trolls because the CASE Act caps damages for infringement at a maximum of $15,000 in statutory damages per claim. This figure pales in comparison to the $150,000 in statutory damages per claim available in federal court for copyright infringement. The CASE Act also caps total damages per case at $30,000. In contrast, there is NO cap under existing federal law. The CASE Act damage caps would prevent trolls from making threats of massive, unpredictable copyright damages in an effort to extort cash settlements. What sort of process did the CASE Act go through before being passed? Despite a few misleading headlines, the CASE Act is not a controversial piece of legislation. From public comments, to roundtables, to Congressional hearings, to negotiations, interested stakeholders were given years and ample opportunity to voice their thoughts and concerns. The result of that process was resounding support for the bill, with a few outliers who, despite a stated desire to address the issue, had no real desire for any process that would help creators. Is the CASE Act constitutional? How is the version of the CASE Act that passed different than previous versions? – The CASE Act now gives respondents 60 days to opt out before the proceeding becomes active, which is double the response period provided in prior versions of the bill. This change provides respondents with more time to make an informed decision about whether to opt-out or proceed. (The CCB may also extend the opt-out period beyond 60 days “in the interests of justice.”) – In addition to the respondent being notified by the claimant, the current version of the CASE Act provides that they will also receive a notice from the CCB. The purpose of the CCB notice is to reinforce the seriousness of the proceeding and potential consequences, and the importance of the respondent reading and understanding the notice and the nature of the claims against them. Since this notice will be sent from an office of the U.S. Government, it is unlikely to be ignored. – To prevent notices from being misdirected, the CASE Act now allows organizations to designate an agent to receive service, which will be made publicly available so that the notices go to the correct person at an organization. – The bill allows the CCB to penalize those found to be filing frivolous claims (i.e., trolling), counterclaims and defenses, or otherwise abusing the system by awarding attorneys’ fees in excess of $5,000 in extraordinary circumstances; prohibiting the abuser from filing a case for one year; and dismissing all pending cases filed by the abuser. – The CASE Act authorizes the Copyright Office to issue regulations limiting the number of cases a person or entity can bring in a year. – The CASE Act allows libraries and archives to preemptively opt out of the small claims process. There were also concerns raised about a provision allowing the CCB to issue third-party subpoenas, so that was removed from the bill. What’s next? For more information on the CASE Act visit our compilation page. |
![]() |
![]()
CSUSA LA presents: Copyright & The California Coast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() More Events ![]()
Significant 2018 Tax Changes For Music Publishers
View More
Music Royalties 101 (by Todd & Jeff Brabec) View More See all Articles ![]()
MUSIC METADATA A CHAIN REACTION
by P. Gills View Full Post MUSIC DATA, THE MYTHS AND THE REALITIES by P. Gills View Full Post See all Posts ![]()
AIMP Supports The MMA's MLC
In a recently issued joint statement, the Association of Independent Music Publishers officials --National Chair and Los Angeles C …
View More The Music Modernization Act H.R. 1551 (formerly S. 2823), the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act: The bill was signed into law on October 11 … View More |