House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte has announced that the Judiciary Committee will conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. copyright law over the coming months. The comprehensive review is not any particular legislative agenda, but it will serve as an open invitation to content industries, technology industries, and the public in a way that likely never occurred in any of the Copyright Act’s prior legislative reforms.
Chairman Goodlatte emphasized the evolution of technology and media in his remarks:
The discussions during the early 1900’s over the need to update American copyright laws to respond to new technology were not the first time such discussions occurred and they will certainly not be the last. Formats such as photographs, sound recordings, and software along with ways to access such formats including radio, television, and the Internet did not exist when the Constitution recognized intellectual property. My Committee has repeatedly held similar discussions about new forms of intellectual property as they arose and enacted laws as appropriate. Driven by new technologies and business models, a number of changes to copyright law went into effect in 1976.
No one should expect immediate legislation. As Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallante noted in her recent congressional testimony “a major portion of the current copyright statute was enacted in 1976. It took over two decades to negotiate, and was drafted to address analog issues and to bring the into better harmony with international standards, namely the Berne Convention.” Even there, the effective date for U.S. adherence to the Berne Convention took until March 1, 1989.
In the decades of negotiation over copyright reform in the past, the tension was primarily between commercial interests of the content industries – film, television, music, and publishing industries with the trade unions, authors, and creative interests. But that focus has shifted dramatically with the rise of the information age.
The defeat of SOPA highlighted the tension between the technology industries – led by the ISPs, Google, Apple, Microsoft, eBay, Facebook, and Wikipedia with the content industries. In this fight, the content industries continue to lose. They could not push ACTA and they have lost in the courts over first sale in Kirtsaeng v. , secondary liability in Viacom Int’l v. YouTube Inc. and Tiffany v. , and many others.
Even more importantly, the rise of social media and the role copyright now plays – or interferes – in the daily lives of ordinary citizens means that the public’s interest in this debate will be higher than ever. Organized by social media companies like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google and hundreds of others, the public will be exhorted to be heard every time they log on or check in. This is a great change for democracy. But we shouldn’t forget that those intermediaries are also the very technology companies that have their own stake in the outcomes.
Register Pallante has indicated some of the critical issues before the Judiciary Committee (though the explanation and approach is mine, not Register Pallente’s):
- First sale doctrine – which could include both (i) a review of Kirtsaeng (2013) which internationalized first sale, and (ii) technologies that allow for a digital forward-and-delete that mimics first sale in the online environment;
- Orphan works – questions about how to handle works for which the ownership information or the transfers of ownership have been lost;
- Library exceptions – addressing digital collections and the ability to gain far greater usage out of far fewer copies;
- Statutory licensing reform – on rate setting and rates;
- Federalization of pre-72 sound recordings – resolving the issues involving retroactive pseudo-copyright protection for these works and the implications on the public domain;
- Resale royalties for visual artists – addressing the conflict with those states which provide these rights and potentially creating national legislation;
- Copyright small claims procedure or courts – adding a mechanism for copyright to be enforceable for small scale claims; and
- Mass digitization of books – addressing the myriad of problems triggered by the intermediate copyright violations of works, the fair use of showing snippets, the procedural issues in the project, and many other concerns.
This list does not include many other potential areas for reform, including some of my preferred topics:
- Explicit free speech and human rights accommodations for the statute, since copyright and First Amendment issues increasingly intersect;
- Expanded fair use or copyright exemptions codified under Section 110 for digitization, reverse engineering, comparative advertising, and others;
- Anti-circumvention (DMCA) reform to prohibit its use for use in commercial products – such as cars, printers, garage doors, and other goods;
- Expanded registration requirements so that most of the economically insignificant works people create daily are outside of the copyright regime;
- Statutory Damage Reform to tie statutory damages more closely to actual damages and separate commercial infringers from consumers;
- Mandatory cease-and-desist system so that no one can be sued for copyright damages unless they have been notified directly the conduct is infringing and continue, after a reasonable opportunity to cure has been provided; and
- Broader non-commercial exceptions to copyright analogous to the public/private distinction of the 1909 Act.
Copyright needs to continue to adjust to address these issues. While the system is not broken, there are many strains. Again, from Chairman Goodlatte:
There is little doubt that our copyright system faces new challenges today. The Internet has enabled copyright owners to make available their works to consumers around the world, but has also enabled others to do so without any compensation for copyright owners. Efforts to digitize our history so that all have access to it face questions about copyright ownership by those who are hard, if not impossible, to locate. There are concerns about statutory license and damage mechanisms. Federal judges are forced to make decisions using laws that are difficult to apply today. Even the Copyright Office itself faces challenges in meeting the growing needs of its customers – the American public.
It will be important to be heard on these issues and to think carefully about a system that is good for today’s issues, tomorrow’s challenges and the decades of unanticipated changes the new law will cover.