Law Professors Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Reject or Amend CLASSICS Act; Public Knowledge, May 15, 2018

Press Release, Public Knowledge; Law Professors Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Reject or Amend CLASSICS Act

"Yesterday, more than 40 intellectual property law professors sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and all members of the committee, urging them to reject or, at a minimum, amend the CLASSICS Act to ensure that its provisions are in line with existing federal copyright law.

The Senate recently combined the Classics Act, a flawed bill that hurts consumers, with the Music Modernization Act, a bill that creates a database of songwriters and performers to ensure that creators receive fair compensation for their work. Public Knowledge supports the Music Modernization Act, but agrees with these law professors that the CLASSICS Act harms the public interest. Public Knowledge contends that the CLASSICS Act fails to provide full federal protection for pre-1972 sound recordings, making it out of sync with the rest of copyright law. 

The following can be attributed to Meredith Rose, Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge:

 “The expert consensus is clear: The CLASSICS Act is a problematic attempt to shortcut full federalization of pre-1972 copyrights. At best a half-measure, at worst a ploy to avoid difficult but necessary conversations about artist and consumer rights, CLASSICS complicates the status of legacy recordings without any countervailing benefit to protect nonprofit users and archivists. We welcome the insight of the more than 40 professors on this letter and look forward to working to bring true reform and harmonization to these works.”  

You may view the letter here. You may also view Meredith Rose’s testimony from today’s hearing on “Protecting and Promoting Music Creation for the 21st Century” for more information on the CLASSICS Act and why it should be amended or rejected from the Music Modernization Act."

Protecting the Privacy of Internet Users; New York Times, 3/11/16

Editorial Board, New York Times; Protecting the Privacy of Internet Users:

"The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission proposed common-sense privacy rules this week that would limit what broadband companies are allowed to do with the Internet browsing history and other personal information of consumers...

Under the proposal by the chairman, Tom Wheeler, cable and phone companies would be allowed to use personal data for things like billing and pitching more expensive versions of services that customers are already using. Customers could opt out of marketing for other services provided by their broadband companies. And the companies would have to get permission from their customers before they could do more with the data, like selling it to advertisers. Another rule would require companies to protect the data and notify customers, the commission and law enforcement agencies if the information was stolen."

Consumers’ Rights Still Not On Equal Footing With Copyright Owners’, Study Finds; Intellectual Property Watch, 5/3/11

Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch; Consumers’ Rights Still Not On Equal Footing With Copyright Owners’, Study Finds:

"The best-rated countries are Moldova, the United States, India, Lebanon and New Zealand, while the worst-rated countries are Thailand, Chile, the United Kingdom, Brazil and Belarus.

The watchlist aims to “provide a snapshot of how a number of the world’s major IP regimes support, or fail to support, consumers’ access to educational, cultural and scientific knowledge,” but also to advertise good practices and encourage countries to review their IP laws to serve the public interest."

Canadian Heritage Minister Says That Those In Favor Of Balanced Copyright Are 'Radical Extremists'; TechDirt.com, 6/23/10

Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Canadian Heritage Minister Says That Those In Favor Of Balanced Copyright Are 'Radical Extremists':

"Anshar alerts us to the news that the driving force behind Canada's new copyright bill, Heritage Minister James Moore, at a Chamber of Commerce event, apparently claimed that those who are opposed to Canada's attempt to put in place a version of the DMCA are just a group of "radical extremists." Really? So, people who just want to make sure that copyright law doesn't lock up culture and harm creativity are "radical extremists"? How does he figure that? Meanwhile, in response to this, Michael Geist has started putting together a list of these "radical extremists" who appear to be just about everywhere, including littered throughout all of the major political parties, and appears to include such "radicals" as the Canadian Library Association and the Canadian Bookseller Association (radicals! all of them!). I guess since Moore doesn't appear to want to have to actually defend the more worrisome parts of the legislation (mainly the "digital locks" anti-circumvention provisions) he figures the next best thing is to demonize people who actually care about consumer rights."

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100622/1658319925.shtml

EU agrees on Internet, telecoms user rights; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/6/09

Sydney Morning Herald; EU agrees on Internet, telecoms user rights:

"The European parliament and EU nations have agreed new rules to improve the rights to European mobile phone and Internet users, and offer more protection against illegal Internet porn and copyright abuse.

EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding announced the compromise deal, reached late Thursday, after European governments agreed to EU parliament demands to balance a crackdown on illegal downloaders with broader rights for Internet users.

Following a "strong request" from the parliament, and after lengthy negotiations, the future rules state that any national measures regarding restrictions to access to Internet services and applications must be "appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society."
Reding welcomed the deal as "good news for Europe's citizens."...

Under the draft bill, authorities would no longer be able to cut off Internet services to users without providing evidence of illegal downloading or other activity.

The draft law will also boost privacy and consumer rights, make it easier for customers to switch telecoms providers and increase competition for Internet and phone services.

An earlier bill had been rejected by the parliament amid uproar over a draft French anti-piracy law which had suggested that Internet connections of users of peer-to-peer services could be cut without the prior intervention of judicial authorities.

The revised deal stresses that "citizens in the EU are entitled to a prior fair and impartial procedure, including the right to be heard, and they have a right to an effective and timely judicial review.""

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/eu-agrees-on-internet-telecoms-user-rights-20091106-i0pp.html

Net pirates face three-strikes rule; Sydney Morning Herald, 7/16/09

Ashe Moses via Sydney Morning Herald; Net pirates face three-strikes rule:

"People who are caught repeatedly downloading movies, music and TV shows illegally would have their internet disconnected under legislative changes being considered by the [Australian]Federal Government.

The movie and music industries have been pushing ISPs to implement this "three-strikes" scheme voluntarily for years but talks have stalled...

The three-strikes scheme has been proposed in both France and New Zealand, but both countries dropped the proposal after a public backlash.

This week both France and New Zealand reintroduced new, modified three-strikes proposals with enhanced judicial oversight.

Britain is also reportedly considering three-strikes legislation, and the British Government outlined a goal of reducing unlawful file sharing by 70-80 per cent by 2011 in its Digital Britain report, released last month."

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/net-pirates-face-threestrikes-rule-20090716-dm9s.html?page=1