Category Archives: IP Czar

Daily Copyright Roundup

1
Filed under Daily Copyright Roundup, Fair Use, IP Czar, Pro-IP Act, Settlement

I haven’t written a daily roundup in a while. There are a number of recent stories, besides the ACTA leak, that deserve a mention.

The Tennessean is reporting that a suit brought by a music publishing company against A&E over its use of twelve seconds of the song “Rocky Top” has settled. We discussed this case in mid-November when the Middle District of Tennessee found that the use by the network was not fair use, at least without further development of the factual record. No details of the settlement were released.

Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator or I.P. Czar, announced on the White House blog that she formally requested written submissions from the public on the Joint Strategic Plan for intellectual property enforcement:

To further these goals, we are working to find ways of measuring these threats and their impact on us.  How many jobs depend on the existence of intellectual property?  What are the greatest risks to health and safety?  We need better data on these questions and it is part of my job to figure out what the answers are.  We cannot do that without your help.  So, my office is asking the public to give us information about the costs and the risks – and then give us suggestions for what we could be doing better as a government.   As a first step, we are issuing a notice to the public asking for your input.  Here’s a link to this request (pdf).  You can send your comments to intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov.  We look forward to hearing from you.

The formal request for written submissions is published in the Federal Register. (H/t Ben Sheffner.)

Eleanor M. Lackman, a Senior Associate in the IP, Media & Technology group at Lovells NY, wrote an article in the New York State Bar Association publication Bright Ideas on the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction in copyright cases. The article, titled “Factoring in the Public Interest: The Impact of eBay on Injunctive Relief in Copyright Cases,” discusses Salinger v. Colting and Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, and contains Ms. Lackman’s predictions about the future of the preliminary injunction standard:

Even in advance of that ruling, however, the debate in Salinger and other cases has awakened courts to the fact that injunctive relief in copyright cases may no longer be so easy to obtain—at least not without an evidentiary proffer on each of the four eBay factors, which were rarely addressed in copyright cases prior to eBay. eBay also may have an impact on the negotiation of licensing fees and money-based settlements.

In light of all the ways eBay might affect copyright law, this article addresses the following four questions: (1) Does the four-factor test enunciated in eBay apply to copyright cases? (2) Does the four-factor test apply to both preliminary and permanent injunctions? (3) How will the four factors be addressed by the courts? and (4) What can a potential copyright licensor, licensee, plaintiff, or defendant expect in the post-eBay world?

Transcript and video of the confirmation hearing for IP-Czar nominee Espinel

0
Filed under IP Czar, News

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today on the nomination of Victoria Espinel for the position of Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. I have included video and a transcript of the hearing below.


[Hearing to consider pending nomination Part II begins, after introductions, at around 94:00]

Leahy (D-VT) [100:30:] If you were confirmed as the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, or IPEC, would you be willing to appear before the Committee and testify?

Espinel: Yes I would. As you know so well, this role was created and defined by legislation and this position is fully accountable to Congress. Among the duties that I would have if I were confirmed would be to submit an annual report to Congress that would report on the activities of the interagency committees that I would chair. If I am confirmed I look forward to working closely with this Committee, and ensuring that you receive information that is both timely and useful.

Leahy (D-VT) [102:30]: Is there anything that you would like to add to [the record]?

Espinel: I would say that I would like to thank the President. I would very much like to thank you Mr. Chairman Leahy and the members of the Committee. I am greatly humbled to be here and I would like to thank you for your leadership in creating this position and supporting the intellectual property that supports our country.

Feingold (D-WI) [121:10] Ms. Espinel, your prepared testimony is certainly a strong statement about the importance of enforcing intellectual property rights, and no one could really argue with that. You speak convincingly about the coordination among the various agencies that is needed to ensure the enforcement and protection are done efficiently. Can you give me an idea of what steps you will take to make sure that these enforcement activities do not undermine public
access to information that is so crucial for innovation and other priorities of the United States; and specifically, do you see it as part of your portfolio to coordinate with science and information library agencies on this issue?

Espinel: Thank you Senator. I think it’s part of this position to coordinate and find a consensus among all the different agencies and offices of the U.S. Government that are charged with protecting and enforcing intellectual property, and place importance on intellectual property.

I think intellectual property is a long-term strategy in many ways so that there will always be issues, as with all policy areas, where there will have to be balances found. One of the things that I think this position is poised to do is try to work with in a very open and transparent way all of the agencies and all of the stakeholders and the general public of the United States to try to develop a strategy that will protect intellectual property efficiently and effectively, but will do that taking into account the variety of views and opinions that exist.

Feingold (D-WI) [123:30]: So do you agree that overzealous enforcement of intellectual property rights could reduce our citizens’ legitimate access to information? And will you ensure transparency in policy development so that all of the ramifications of these enforcement activities can be accessed with the maximum public involvement?

Espinel: This Administration is very committed to transparency. If I am confirmed by the Senate, I will uphold that policy of transparency and take it very seriously. And I will look for the appropriate forum to do so within the office that I will head.

Franken (D-MN) [1:23:10]: The FCC recently put out a proposal for a more free and open internet. Net neutrality rules. I think what they’re doing is critically important. When Justice Sotomayor was in her hearings I raised this issue as a Constitutional issue of making sure that information flows freely on the internet. Ms. Espinel, I also want to prevent piracy, and you’ve talked about balance. So speaking of balancing, how should regulations balance the need to stop piracy with the need to protect the free flow of information on the internet?

Espinel: Thank you Senator. I think that is an excellent and very important question these days. Clearly internet piracy is a very serious problem our country is facing, and has serious ramifications for our economy. At the same time, openness on the internet is one of the reasons that the internet has been so successful and helpful to so many over the past few decades.

Openness however doesn’t apply to unlawful content. I believe there is way to ensure that the internet is open and we’re not restricting access to legitimate information to people, while trying to contain the very serious problem of internet piracy that we face. As you mention, the FCC is looking at this at this moment. If I were confirmed I would certainly be working with the FCC as well as the other relevant agencies to try to develop a strategy that would efficiently protect and try to stop internet piracy. But one that is consistent with this Administration’s policy of transparency and trying to ensure that we promote the internet.

Franken (D-MN) [125:40]: What do you see as some of the main tensions there? I would just like to get your thoughts on that because there’re all kinds of issues of maintaining your network — people trying to download enormous files — versus the free flow and no restrictions . . . What do you see as the tensions? Net neutrality and this whole issue of intellectual property?

Espinel: I don’t know that there necessarily have to be those tensions. I know that exist, but it seems to me that there has to be a way that we can find to move forward where we can ensure that the internet is open, ensure that there is reasonable management of networks, and at the same time, try to ensure that the internet is not being used as a means of distribution for all types of illegal content, including pirated content.

If I was confirmed, one of the issues that I would be grappling with in coordination with the other agencies is how we go forward in devising a strategy that accomplishes both of those goals.

copyright attorneys

Sometimes daily copyright roundup

0
Filed under IP Czar, News
  • Mark A. Fischer writes a review of  Lawrence Lessig’s Remix.
  • Rebecca Tushnet liveblogs from a Catholic University IP Roundtable.
  • Lil Wayne and the Rolling Stones have settled a suit that alleged that Wayne’s “Playing With Fire” infringed the 1965 hit “Play With Fire,” so reports the other Rolling Stone.
  • A coalition of 14 news groups, including the Associated Press, Washington Post and The New York Times has filed an amicus brief asking that the First Circuit allow for the streaming of the proceedings in Sony BMG Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.
  • Chris Castle posts an interview with Rick Carnes, President of the Songwriters Guild of America.  (h/t Ben Sheffner.)

copyright attorneys

Odds and ends

1
Filed under Fair Use, Foreign, IP Czar, News

IP-Czar and President Obama’s Excecutive Order on transparency/lobbyist ties

The always insightful Ben Sheffner wrote a response to my post on the IP-Czar and President Obama’s Executive Order on lobbying.  If I were to reply to Mr. Sheffner, I’d make the exact same point Ben made when I first questioned whether President Obama’s campaign promises would affect his decision: On issues like these, we the voters are both judge and jury.

It’s pretty obvious that Obama’s Executive Order, as well as many of his and other candidates’ campaign promises are designed to be open-ended.   They’re meant to sound expansive but tie the candidate down to very little, lest they be unable to deliver.

I don’t disagree with Ben’s comments that the Order is drafted in such a fashion that you can poke holes in the text.  But to draw a line between a “general” issue and a “specific” issue would render the executive order just about completely meaningless.   And since we the public get to be both judge and jury on these types of issues, I hereby decree, with the power invested in me by neighbor’s cat, that if President Obama tries to pick apart minutia and make that argument, I’m going to disagree.  To state otherwise would be a little too reminiscent of  Bill Clinton and the definition of “is.”

Microsoft Corp. v. Big Boy Distribution LLC:

About a month ago, I wrote about a case in the S.D. Fla, Microsoft Corp. v. Big Boy Distribution LLC, et al.  Counsel for Big Boy had filed a motion to reconsider summary judgment on the grounds that the tribunal should have applied Jordanian law while evaluating the license at issue.   On January 13, the Court dismissed the motion to reconsider sans accompanying memorandum.

And finally from the 1981 time machine:

Imagine if you will, sitting down for your morning coffee, and turning on your home computer to read the day’s newspaper.  Well, it’s not as far fetched as it may seem.

copyright attorneys