The following statement is attributed to Evan Engstrom, Executive Director of Engine, regarding House passage yesterday of the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act:
The House’s vote in favor of the CASE Act is disappointing, particularly because there were no hearings or debates in the lower chamber to discuss the many flaws in this legislation. The bill is purportedly designed to protect small copyright holders by establishing an extra-judicial Copyright Claims Board within the U.S. Copyright Office to adjudicate infringement claims outside of a federal court setting. However, without the traditional safeguards of the federal courts, this newly established tribunal would have the authority to grant substantial financial damage awards — up to $30,000 per proceeding — to potentially abusive parties looking to strong-arm settlements from unsuspecting companies and online users.
The CASE Act creates dangerous traps for startups and users alike, and paves the way for bad actors to move forward with questionable copyright infringement claims. It creates even more uncertainty in copyright law, particularly when it comes to the fair use of content. And any startup, entrepreneur, or casual Internet user that ends up before the Board would not be able to appeal unfair outcomes. This is not a serious solution to critical copyright concerns that need to be addressed by lawmakers.
Engine supports Congress’ efforts to protect copyright owners’ rights, but this bill would only create further uncertainty in copyright law. As it’s currently written, the CASE Act is not the right answer for copyright owners, startups, or Internet users. The Senate now has the opportunity to examine and rectify the many flaws in this bill, so that the resulting law enables small copyright holders to pursue relief from true infringement without opening up startups and their users to a complex quasi-judicial system without any traditional legal safeguards.
