Celebrate World Intellectual Property Day with the Copyright Alliance — April 26th is World IP Day, and this year’s theme is “Powering Change: Women in Innovation and Creativity.” All next week, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts across the U.S. will be holding educational events to mark the country. Check out the full schedule at the link to see if there is one near you or to catch an event online.

Google attempted end run around Canadian courts fails, rules BC Judge in Equustek case — From Barry Sookman: “Yesterday, a judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed Google’s motion to vary or set aside the global injunction against it that had been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The injunction required Google delist websites that were being used to market a product that Equustek claimed was developed through theft of its trade secrets. Justice Smith held that Google was not able to show that the global delisting order made [] against it violated its First Amendment rights in the U.S. or the core values of the U.S.”

The Legal Process Sea-Change — Third in a series of posts (Part one and part two) from Bruce Boyden that ostensibly began with the 9th Circuit’s Blurred Lines decision but has now taken us to judicial schools of thought in the 1950s.

Association of American Publishers’ Allan Adler Testifies on the Hill About the Marrakesh Treaty — This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considered the Marrakesh VIP Treaty, which would require member parties to provide exceptions to copyright law for reproducing and distributing works in formats accessible to persons with visual impairments or print disabilities, as well as allowing the cross-border exchange of such works. The Committee also considered legislation that would implement the Treaty in U.S. law.

Copyright’s Substantial Confusion — Marquette University Law School professor Bruce Boyden begins a long journey examining the test for determining copyright infringement. The question (particularly when courts are confronted with nonverbatim copying of a work) has proven notoriously challenging, which is one reason why you can never get a straight answer from a copyright lawyer.

FairPlay copyright blocking proposal: my presentation at the Fordham IP conference — Anyone interested in getting up to speed on the current state of site blocking as a remedy for copyright infringement across the globe should check out Barry Sookman’s presentation from last week’s Fordham IP conference. It provides an overview of what countries have adopted site blocking, the different mechanisms used, and relevant court decisions and scholarly research on blocking. The presentation is a summary of a more comprehensive article by Sookman.

WHOIS Limits Under GDPR Will Make Pirates Harder to Catch, Groups Fear — “’We strongly assert that this model does not properly account for the critical public and legitimate interests served by maintaining a sufficient amount of data publicly available while respecting privacy interests of registrants by instituting a tiered or layered access system for the vast majority of personal data as defined by the GDPR,’” the groups write.”

Is an economy based on free incompatible with freedom? — Neil Turkewitz writes, “The potential of the Internet and other communications technologies to drive economic growth, prosperity and cultural production has been greatly undermined by distortions in the marketplace caused by the lack of adequate governance that allows companies to illegally traffic in what are essentially stolen goods. Many of those who profit from the status quo like to disguise their self-interest in rhetoric about free expression. It is long past time to end this dangerous charade. We are not serving free speech by making it harder for creators to earn a living from their original expression. Free societies can no longer tolerate the continued indifference to the rights of creators.”

How A Quiet Place Sound Designers Made Audiences Afraid of Their Own Noise — It’s easy to forget how important the craft of sound designers is to filmmaking, but their work is front and center in the recently released film A Quiet Place, a story built around the idea of making as little sound as possible.

Illuminating the Profession: Women in Copyright — As part of Women’s History Month, former US Register of Copyrights Ralph Oman interviews a number of illustrious copyright lawyers, including June Besek, Dale Cendali, Mary Rasenberger, Kate Spelman, Francine Ward, and Nancy Wolff.

Fact checking Michael Geist’s criticisms of the FairPlay site blocking proposal — Canadian copyright attorney Barry Sookman has written a tour de force response to Geist, showing that site blocking is effective, consistent with human rights, and employed by many other countries.

Taking a Look Under the Red Carpet — “Hollywood is synonymous with the red carpet, but the public perception of Hollywood being only the red carpet could not be further from the truth. Behind all the glitz and glamour, filmmaking is difficult, hands-on, down and dirty labor.”

DOJ Antitrust Chief: We Are Reviewing ASCAP, BMI Consent Decrees — At a recent appearance at Vanderbilt Law School, the DOJ’s Delrahim spoke about taking a closer look at the 1,300 consent decrees currently on the books. In particular, he signaled that the decrees governing the two largest PROs would come under scrutiny, saying, “The way music is licensed has been governed by these consent decrees since 1941… So, 77 years of a consent decree, rates being set by a judge in rate court as opposed to free market competition [which he favors] and we are taking a look at that.”

Google Could Owe Oracle $8.8 Billion in Android Fight — Susan Decker of Bloomberg Technology reports on this week’s Federal Circuit decision, “Oracle said its APIs are freely available to those who want to build applications for computers and mobile devices, but draws the line at anyone who wants to use them for a competing platform or to embed them in an electronic device…’There is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform,’ the appeals court ruled.”

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Fights for Creators Rights, Brooklyn Hip-Hop and Recognition for Female Rappers — A great profile from Rob Levine. Among other things, the New York Representative introduced the CASE Act, which create a streamlined “small claims” process for copyright owners to pursue infringement claims.

Online Piracy Is More Popular Than Ever, Research Suggests — “According to MUSO co-founder and CEO Andy Chatterley, these data show that piracy remains a sizable threat, something we also hinted at in the recent past. ‘There is a belief that the rise in popularity of on-demand services – such as Netflix and Spotify – have solved piracy, but that theory simply doesn’t stack up. Our data suggest that piracy is more popular than ever,’ Chatterley says.”

Blurred Lines Verdict Affirmed – How Bad is It? — This week, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, finding they infringed Marvin Gaye’s classic “Got to Give it Up” when they created their 2013 hit “Blurred Lines.” Law professor Michael Risch takes a look at the decision.

French Cour de cassation Confirms Broad Interpretation of Making Available/Communicating to the Public as applied to P2P Software — “While peer-to-peer cases of copyright infringement tend to focus on the infringement of the protected works and the rights that are implicated therein (reproduction, making available) as well as assigning legal liability for such acts, there is, at times, another aspect of such cases, namely that which relates to the software that is used for such purposes. French law provides for a distinct offense in this regard under Section L.335-2-1 of the Intellectual Property Code.”

Can One Company Catalog Every Record Ever Made? — “Launched in 2000 by Portland, Oregon-based programmer and DJ Kevin Lewandowski, the site’s original intent was to help folks track and share information about their record collections. But as word spread among music lovers and the site’s user base grew, Discogs evolved into a crowd-sourced hub to find information about the discographies of artists from around the world. It may not get deep into the historical details of the recording sessions, but there’s no better place to track, for example, the 674 different versions of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, or the 280 pressings of the first Velvet Underground album that are known to exist.”

Sara Hickman — “There were many reasons why I retired from music last year. I’ve never explained them or felt the need to, so I’m not going to start today.”

AAP Pleased with Bipartisan Support of Marrakesh Treaty — Yesterday, a bill to implement the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled was introduced in the U.S. Senate. The treaty requires parties to adopt appropriate exceptions to copyright allowing authorized entities to reproduce and distribute literary works in accessible formats. The Treaty was adopted in 2013 and transmitted to the U.S. Senate in 2016.

U.S. Border Seizures of DMCA Circumvention Devices SurgesTorrentfreak reports, “New data released by Homeland Security shows that U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized significantly more DMCA circumvention devices in 2017. The seizures, which includes mod chips for gaming consoles, increased 324% compared to the year before, although the actual number remains fairly low.”

Fair Is Fair But Politics Is Complicated: Why Congress Must Pass the CLASSICS Act (Column) — Rob Levine pens an op-ed in favor of legislation that would update transitional rules to enable the owners of sound recordings made before 1972 to be paid for digital streaming under statutory licenses. The bill makes sense if you think artists should get paid for their work.

Piracy and Malware: There’s No Free Lunch — Researchers Michael Smith and Ruth Telang conducted a study to see if piracy harms consumers by exposing them to malware and other malicious code. “The results were clear. The more our users visited piracy sites, we found, the more often their machines got infected with malware. Specifically, whenever they doubled the time they spent on piracy sites, they increased the number of malware processes running on their machines by 20 percent.”

The Pirate Bay witnesses 40 percent drop in traffic in the Netherlands — Kavita Iyer of Techworm reports, “According to Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, The Pirate Bay’s main domain has suffered a 40 percent drop in Dutch traffic due to local ISPs (Internet Service Providers), such as Ziggo and XS4ALL were forced to block the torrent site. This decrease of 40% was reported based on numbers from research company ComScore.”

Why almost no one is making a living on YouTube — “What’s happening on YouTube is occurring across the internet, where creators are finding that long odds of success in the online world are not so different from IRL (internet-speak for ‘in real life’). In fact, they might be worse. In music, song streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music have mostly benefited superstar acts. No one needs to fight a music label to get their song distributed, but getting listeners is a different problem. Less than one per cent of songs represented 86 per cent of the music streamed last year, according to the market research firm Nielsen. And since no one buys music these days, making even a little money from streaming requires songs to be played millions of times. That’s hurt the music industry’s middle-of-the-road acts the most, the kind of musician who once could eke out a decent living selling several thousand albums a year and touring without ever breaking into the mainstream. Increasingly, such acts face the pressure of going viral or going home.”

New study explores impact of user-centric music-streaming payouts — “‘User-centric’ streaming payouts refers to a proposed system where the royalties generated by someone’s subscription would be divided only between the artists that they listen to, rather than going into a central pool divided by market-share on the platform as a whole.”

For Two Months, I Got My News From Print Newspapers. Here’s What I Learned. — “We have spent much of the past few years discovering that the digitization of news is ruining how we collectively process information. Technology allows us to burrow into echo chambers, exacerbating misinformation and polarization and softening up society for propaganda. With artificial intelligence making audio and video as easy to fake as text, we’re entering a hall-of-mirrors dystopia, what some are calling an ‘information apocalypse.’ And we’re all looking to the government and to Facebook for a fix.”

Two photographers, unbeknownst to one another, shoot the same picture at the same moment — Finally, for copyright fans, a case study in the doctrine of “independent creation,” a tenet of copyright based on the rule that infringement is premised on factual copying, not identity alone.

Ensuring Only Good Claims Come in Small Packages: A Response to Scholarly Concerns About a Proposed Small Copyright Claims Tribunal — Sandra Aistars provides the definitive response to criticisms lodged against a proposed small copyright claims process. A bill to implement such a tribunal was introduced last October and would provide copyright owners who can’t afford federal litigation the ability to pursue remedies for their rights.

Fox News Wins Appellate Showdown Against Service That Facilitates Sharing of TV Clips — The Second Circuit issued its long awaited opinion in Fox News v TVEyes this week, and it is a solid win for balanced, common sense fair use. Eriq Gardner for the Hollywood Reporter has more on the decision.

Judge Saris Opines on Copyright Infringement in 3-D Greeting Card Case — Just for fun, a recent decision looking at alleged infringement of 3-d popup greeting cards. The opinion provides an excellent step-by-step analysis of substantial similarity, as the court distinguishes between uncopyrightable ideas and elements and protected expression. The opinion also relies frequently on puns.

Law of Copyright Reinterpretation Project Steers ALI Further Off Course — “ALI has built its reputation in the judicial and legal communities by releasing treatises that add value to an area of law. Re-wording a federal statute and offering commentary on which among many judicial interpretations of that statute’s provisions is ‘right’ doesn’t add such value. A Restatement that introduces greater confusion into its area of focus will not only be ignored by judges and lawyers, it will undermine the credibility of current and future ALI work. The organization should take the advice given to it and either suspend the Restatement project or recast as a Principles project.”

Text & Data Mining Exception For the EU Digital Single Market Proposal — “Text and data mining might well lead to important ativities and research results—and for this reason most STM journal publishers are on record and are strongly supporting academic research projects (some go further, as Dr. Rosati mentions). In fact by working with organizations such as CCC and CrosRef, they are actively enabling the normalization activities that Rosati mentions as still being critical to the technical processes (see also the STM Declaration covering twenty-one leading publishing houses. Other copyright sectors would be rightfully concerned about their works being caught up in an exception intended for scholarly research. Commercial beneficiaries are currently obtaining licenses and permissions, and doing so on a commercial and pragmatic basis, as demonstrated by Dr. Rosati’s own list of IBM Watson projects. It is not at all clear to me why an exception should be applied to an active and growing copyright market for the benefit of large technology companies.”

If there has been one constant with fair use throughout the history of the doctrine, it’s that no one can explain how to apply it in a consistent manner. That’s not to say most don’t have a rough sense of the purpose of fair use—to permit the reasonable use of copyrighted material when doing so is consistent with the goals of copyright law itself. And it’s also not to say merely that fair use is a challenging doctrine—the law is filled with challenging doctrines. What it does mean is that the doctrine lacks a sufficiently concrete standard that would aid judges to reach determinations in a roughly consistent and predictable manner.

Justice Story’s 1841 decision in Folsom v. Marsh serves as the spiritual forebear of the modern doctrine—the Copyright Act’s set of factors courts must consider when determining fair use is drawn almost directly from Story’s opinion. Yet Story states from the outset the absence of any sort of standard, writing,

This is one of those intricate and embarrassing questions, arising in the administration of civil justice, in which it is not, from the peculiar nature and character of the controversy, easy to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion, or to lay down any general principles applicable to all cases.1Folsom v. Marsh.

Nevertheless, courts in the decades that followed would take on the challenge of distinguishing between infringement and fair use.

Beginning in the mid 1950s, as part of its overall work on copyright law revision, the US Copyright Office considered recognizing the court-developed doctrine of fair use in statute. But that meant it had to figure out a way to state it in a manner that courts could apply. And as Alan Latman noted in his 1958 study on Fair Use of Copyrighted Works for the Copyright Office, “[F]air use is not a predictable area of copyright law.”

The drafters of the 1976 Copyright Act did eventually settle on a formulation of fair use—found in Section 107 of Title 17—but even then admitted the elusiveness of a clear standard. “Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged,” reads the House Report accompanying the 1976 Copyright Act.2H. Rep. 94-1476 (1976).

The next big shift in the fair use doctrine would come from the introduction of “transformativeness” by the Supreme Court in Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music.3510 US 569 (1994). There, the Court said that the central inquiry of the first fair use factor is to consider whether and to what extent the putative fair use “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.” The Supreme Court pulled this idea of transformativeness from a 1990 article by Judge Pierre Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard.4103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990). Leval was motivated to write the article after the Second Circuit reversed two of his fair use decisions. Like Justice Story one hundred and fifty years before, Leval began by noting the absence of guidance in the doctrine. He wrote, “[T]hroughout the development of the fair use doctrine, courts had failed to fashion a set of governing principles or values.” Leval intended transformativeness to play the role of fair use standard.

Following Campbell’s endorsement of transformativeness, lower courts began to place more of their emphasis on that concept. In his article Making Sense of Fair Use, law professor Neil Netanel observed that by 2005, transformativeness was “overwhelmingly” driving fair use analysis in courts, and the result he saw was that “in fundamental ways, fair use is a different doctrine today than it was ten or twenty years ago.” 5Neil Netanel, Making Sense of Fair Use, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 715 (2011).

But widespread adoption does not necessarily lead to progress, despite the best intentions of Judge Leval and the Supreme Court. Evidence that transformativeness may not provide the long-needed governing principle came from the Second Circuit’s 2013 Cariou v. Prince decision.6714 F.3d 694 (2013); see also Cariou v Prince: Transforming the Fair Use Inquiry. The court’s overly expansive conception of transformativeness drew sharp criticism from many observers. One wrote, “Cariou v. Prince confirms what academics have long noted and practitioners recognized: that the ascendancy of transformative use analysis has coincided with and become a justification for a judicial tilt toward fair use, but has failed to bring greater clarity and predictability to fair use decisions and has instead become an empty buzz-word.” 7Kim J. Landsman, Does Cariou v. Prince Represent the Apogee or Burn-Out of Transformativeness in Fair Use Jurisprudence? A Plea for a Neo-Traditional Approach, 24 Fordham IP, Media, and Entertainment LJ 320 (2014); see also Patricia Cohen, “Photographers Band Together to Protect Work in ‘Fair Use’ Cases“, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2014; Cindy Villanueva, “Cariou v. Prince: A Controversial Redefining of the Distinction between Parody and Satire“, National Law Review, March 2, 2015. Perhaps the most potent criticism came from a sister Circuit. In Kienitz v Sconnie Nation, Judge Easterbrook, writing for the Seventh Circuit, rejected efforts to consider whether the allegedly infringing work at issue was transformative, saying, “That’s not one of the statutory factors, though the Supreme Court mentioned it in Campbell.”8766 F. 3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014). Easterbrook went on to reference the Cariou decision, saying, “The Second Circuit has run with the suggestion and concluded that ‘transformative use’ is enough to bring a modified copy within the scope of §107,” but ultimately said, “We’re skeptical of Cariou’s approach.”

Within a few years, even the Second Circuit seemed to be shying away from its decision in Cariou. In TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum, it admitted that the Cariou decision “might be thought to represent the high-water mark of our court’s recognition of transformative works” and recognized that “it has drawn some criticism,” citing both Kienitz and Nimmer’s treatise, which was also critical of the decision. The panel went on to say, “We need not defend Cariou here, however, because…even scrupulous adherence to that decision does not permit defendants’ use…to be held transformative.” And just yesterday, in his concurrence in Fox News Network v TVEyes, Judge Kaplan observed,

It…is not at all surprising that attempts by alleged infringers to characterize their uses of copyrighted works as “transformative” have become a key battleground in copyright litigation, particularly as technological advances provide ever-new contexts in which the uncompensated use of copyrighted works is very attractive. And the law governing such controversies often is far from clear. As noted commentators have observed, courts “appear to label a use ‘not transformative’ as a shorthand for ‘not fair,’ and correlatively ‘transformative’ for ‘fair.’ Such a strategy empties the term of meaning.” Indeed…some of our own decisions on the issue are at least in tension with one another.

But until a new standard emerges, or “transformativeness” is given more structure, the buzzword-masquerading-as-a-standard continues to result in wildly divergent decisions. Just one recent example: at the beginning of this year, the Eastern District Court of Virginia held in one case that “defendant’s use of two of plaintiff’s photographs of famous musicians to accompany online articles about those musicians’ political views constitutes fair use of the photographs.”9Memorandum Opinion, Philpot v. Media Research Center Inc., 1:17-CV-822, Docket #36, Jan. 8, 2018. In that case, the defendant had not altered the actual photos in any way, and the photographs did not relate to defendant’s articles that they accompanied other than for the fact that the subjects in the photographs were the individuals (Kenny Chesney and Kid Rock) being discussed in the articles. Nevertheless, the court felt comfortable concluding that the use was transformative, saying that defendant’s purpose in using the photographs, “to identify the celebrities as pro-life advocates or conservative Senate candidates”, was different from plaintiff’s purpose in taking the photographs, “to depict the musicians in concert.” Even many ardent supporters of the broadest application of fair use would agree that the court got it wrong here, but when all you have to go on is an open-ended inquiry using the vague concept of transformativeness, it’s difficult to place the blame on the application of that concept.

Fair use is subjective, and it would not be served well by rigid, bright-line rules. But still, it would benefit from having some sort of standard to connect its overall principles to the statutory factors in a way that would ensure that Judge A and Judge B, both human individuals with their own sets of beliefs, idiosyncracies, foibles, and imperfect knowledge, reach roughly the same results given the same set of facts. Judge Leval—and the Supreme Court—had hoped that transformativeness would accomplish that goal, but after two decades, it’s difficult to make that case. At the very least, it doesn’t seem to be the silver bullet they had hoped for. At the very worst, it is a vague and ill-defined concept that courts have applied in an incommensurate fashion. Additionally, judges are told that the more transformative they can say a use is, the less weight they can accord the other statutory factors. This is bad for copyright owners, who may find their exclusive rights negated with little notice—but it’s also not great for critics, commentators, news reporters, teachers, scholars, or researchers, who may find the lack of clear boundaries between what is and is not permitted a disincentive to engage in what would otherwise be a fair use.

References   [ + ]

1. Folsom v. Marsh.
2. H. Rep. 94-1476 (1976).
3. 510 US 569 (1994).
4. 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990).
5. Neil Netanel, Making Sense of Fair Use, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 715 (2011).
6. 714 F.3d 694 (2013); see also Cariou v Prince: Transforming the Fair Use Inquiry.
7. Kim J. Landsman, Does Cariou v. Prince Represent the Apogee or Burn-Out of Transformativeness in Fair Use Jurisprudence? A Plea for a Neo-Traditional Approach, 24 Fordham IP, Media, and Entertainment LJ 320 (2014); see also Patricia Cohen, “Photographers Band Together to Protect Work in ‘Fair Use’ Cases“, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2014; Cindy Villanueva, “Cariou v. Prince: A Controversial Redefining of the Distinction between Parody and Satire“, National Law Review, March 2, 2015.
8. 766 F. 3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014).
9. Memorandum Opinion, Philpot v. Media Research Center Inc., 1:17-CV-822, Docket #36, Jan. 8, 2018.

Goodlatte to unveil sweeping music copyright reform package next month — Looking to cap off his term as House Judiciary Committee Chairman and his five year copyright review process, Rep. Goodlatte is expected to move a package of bills aimed at updating music licensing provisions and addressing inequities in the current law.

Fixing Our Broken Small Claims System with the CASE Act — There’s is also hope that we will see legislation creating a copyright small claims process move through Congress this year. At IPWatchdog, Isaac Rubin lays out the case for the CASE Act.

The Father Of The Internet Sees His Invention Reflected Back Through A ‘Black Mirror’ — NPR interviews Vint Cerf about how the internet has turned out. “There is a kind of optimism that it takes to be an inventor. But the father of the Internet thinks inventors need the artists. ‘It’s the mind-stretching practice of trying to think what the implications of technology will be that makes me enjoy science fiction,’ Cerf says. ‘It teaches me that when you’re inventing something you should try to think about what the consequences might be.'”

Money Laundering Via Author Impersonation on Amazon? — Large internet platforms have enabled a new era of creativity in scams, fraud, and other criminal activity. Here, Brian Krebs notes one particular scheme that appears to use Amazon’s self-publishing platform to launder money. Unfortunately, the scheme involves impersonating innocent third parties, who then have to deal with 1099 forms showing income they’ve never received.

Studios Must Face Trimmed Lawsuit Over CG Characters in Blockbuster Movies — This case has so far flown under the radar, somewhat surprisingly, given that the plaintiffs had alleged a novel claim of copyright infringement: that, as owners of the motion capture technology that allows filmmakers to translate a human actors body movements into fantastical computer-generated characters, they owned the copyright in the final output. This week, a federal judge in California rejected those copyright claims, though patent and trademark claims survived the motion to dismiss.

Judge Rules News Publishers Violated Copyright by Embedding Tweets of Tom Brady Photo — The second decision in three months from a court outside the Ninth Circuit that has expressly reject that Circuit’s 2007 decision in Perfect 10 v Amazon, which created the “server test” for the public display right. The court here said, “The plain language of the Copyright Act, the legislative history undergirding its enactment, and subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence provide no basis for a rule that allows the physical location or possession of an image to determine who may or may not have ‘displayed’ a work within the meaning of the Copyright Act.”

TickBox Injunction Targets Blatant Inducement of Infringement — “TickBox TV is a device sold by a Georgia-based company that, in many ways, is similar to the popular name-brand set-top devices such as the Roku, Amazon Fire Stick, or Apple TV. It’s an internet connected box that is easily hooked up to a television or computer monitor via USB cable, and, like other streaming devices, acts as a media platform that allows users to download software and apps which then deliver content to the device. But unlike its counterparts which support apps featuring licensed content, TickBox was sold with pre-loaded applications dedicated to delivering infringing content. Furthermore, in case there were any questions about the device’s capabilities, TickBox’s website and promotional materials encouraged piracy and offered step-by-step instructions on downloading the latest illicit ‘add-ons.'”

Pallante Stresses Copyright Protection at IPA — Association of American Publishers CEO Maria Pallante delivered the keynote address at the 32nd annual International Publishers Congress in New Dehli. According to Publishers Weekly, “She then went on to warn publishers to be skeptical of those who seek to weaken copyright law by claiming that doing so would be good for the public. ‘They frame the public interest as though it is separate from the rights of copyright owners or worse yet, that publishers and other copyright owners are an obstacle to progress… This is false.”

The Cloverfield Paradox — You may not know the name Bear McCreary, but chances are you’ve heard his work, as he is responsible for scoring numerous films and television series. He also writes a blog where he discusses some of that work. Here, McCreary delves into his work scoring the recent Netflix release The Cloverfield Paradox.

Historic Coalition of 213 Musical Artists Calls on Congress to Pass CLASSICS Act, Fix the Pre-1972 Loophole for Legacy Artists — “Digital radio makes billions of dollars a year from airplay of music made before Feb. 15, 1972. Yet, because of an ambiguity in state and federal copyright laws, artists and copyright owners who created that music receive nothing for the use of their work. The CLASSICS Act (H.R. 3301 / S. 2393) would correct this inequity and finally ensure that musicians and vocalists who made those timeless songs finally get their due. We urge Congress to pass the CLASSICS Act and other pro-artist reforms quickly.”