By , December 02, 2022.

Find Architecture in Copyright — The US Copyright Office is currently running an exhibit titled “Find Yourself in Copyright.” In this blog post, learn more about the types of architectural works copyright protects by taking a closer look at architect I. M. Pei and his sketch for the National Gallery of Art’s East Building.

Canada’s Federal Court Grants NHL Pirate Streaming Blockade for 22/23 Season — “Bell, Rogers, and other copyright holders have obtained a new piracy-blocking order at Canada’s Federal Court. The ‘dynamic’ injunction requires Internet providers to block access to unauthorized IPTV streams during the current NHL season. It’s the second order of its kind and, if effective, it won’t be the last either.”

Africa Is Waiting for What You Promised, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey — In this NYT Opinion piece, Dr. Ifeoma Ajunwa writes, “The Silicon Valley mantra of ‘move fast and break things’ forcefully asserts that technological innovation does not have to play by the rules. It is a rhetoric of regulatory dodge, aimed at excusing tech companies from following laws meant to protect consumers. The export of Silicon Valley disrupter ideas may bode ill for developing nations where the rule of law is not yet strong enough to provide consumer protections.”

Michael Bynum Names New Defendants in Proposed Amended Complaint to 12th Man Copyright Lawsuit — “Bynum first filed suit in 2017 against Texas A&M and school officials, including Brad Marquardt, currently the Associate Director of Media Relations for Texas A&M’s Athletics Department. In September 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Bynum’s claims under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Allen v. Cooper, which found that the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act was an unconstitutional abrogation of state sovereignty for the purposes of holding state entities liable for copyright infringement…”

By , November 30, 2022.

Below are brief remarks I gave at a panel during the Center for Intellectual Property x Innovation Policy at George Mason University’s 2022 Annual Fall Conference. The panel was titled, “Copyright Under Pressure – What Phase Are We In?” I’ve edited the remarks for style to improve readability and added references in footnotes where helpful.

I want to start with what I think is an unremarkable proposition, but which in some circles might sound a bit shocking. Simply put, the goal of business is to maximize profits.1In his 1838 work, Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth, Augustin Cournot invoked a single theorem for the foundations of economics: “that each one seeks to derive the greatest possible value from his goods or his labor.” This view has remained relatively stable through the development of modern economics.

As businesses, copyright industries are no different. In fact, their ability to do so is directly tied to the ultimate goal of “promot[ing] the progress of Science and the useful Arts.”2Accord Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 n.18 (2003). Toward that end, the ability to differentiate markets, products, and consumers is critical.

So it’s important for copyright owners to have the exclusive right to determine a number of things during the term of copyright: for example, the formats that they make works available in, whether to license or to sell their works, marketing and distribution strategies, pricing, and any other terms and conditions that they might place on access or copies of their works.

The good news is that, for the most part, the legal framework both in the United States and internationally recognizes these principles. Copyright owners have a suite of exclusive rights, every one of them is divisible, these rights apply to converting or making available works in different formats, and they apply just as much to digital works in the online environment.

Importantly, to that last point, the legal framework includes a properly calibrated exhaustion principle, or first sale doctrine. Since the rise of the digital economy, the U.S government—both Congress and the Copyright Office and other agencies—has repeatedly looked at the question of whether it should expand the first sale doctrine to cover digital transmissions, notwithstanding the fact that digital transmissions result in the creation of new copies. And each time they’ve looked at this question, they’ve concluded that expansion would not serve the goals of copyright.3In the mid-1990s, Congress rejected a bill that would create a “digital first sale” exception, H.R. 3048, 105th Cong. (1997), and in its more recent years-long, comprehensive review of the Copyright Act, declined to advance any similar proposals, see Copyright, House Judiciary Committee. In 2001, the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information of the Department of Commerce prepared a report in compliance with § 104 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which recommended against expanding the first sale doctrine to digital transmissions. In 2016, the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force prepared a “White Paper on Remixes, First Sale, and Statutory Damages,” which likewise recommended against expansion of the first sale doctrine to digital transmissions. Quite simply, digital commerce would not work with a digital first sale doctrine. Digital copies are completely indistinguishable from the originals and so would compete directly with the copyright owner’s primary markets. Add to that the fact that you have an ability to effortlessly and instantly make perfect copies from digital works that could be distributed immediately around the world, which exponentially amplifies these potential harms.

That’s the good news. The bad news is we’re seeing increasing threats to this framework. To be clear, threats to the ability of copyright owners to pursue rational choices about how they market and distribute their works can be just as harmful as straight up piracy. I’m going to talk today about two examples within the library ebook market that I think constitute these threats.

By way of background, for over a decade now, ebooks have been very popular. They’ve been widely available, and publishers typically work with third-party aggregators such as Overdrive to enable public libraries to digitally lend ebooks to their patrons. If you have a library card, chances are you’re able to go online, see your library’s ebook offerings, and check them out much like you would check out a physical book. You’re then able to read it on any device you want, and after two or three weeks, whatever the checkout term is, the book is “returned” to the library.

To accomplish this, publishers employ a variety of licensing models that have evolved over the decades and that continue to evolve to meet both the needs of publishers and libraries. Today, all the Big Five publishers make their entire ebook catalogs available for digital library lending, and the evidence shows that this is a well-functioning market. Library patrons have access to more ebook titles than at any other point in history. Readership is flourishing—Overdrive, which is the largest ebook aggregator, reported that in 2021 there was over half a billion checkouts of library ebooks worldwide. And the pricing is fair and sustainable—Overdrive also reported in 2021 that the average cost per title for libraries declined in 2021.4Overdrive, Over 120 library systems reach 1 million digital checkouts in 2021, January 12, 2022. Libraries have been able to significantly grow their ebook collections over the decades with collection budgets that, when adjusted for inflation, have essentially been flat.5According to statistics collected by the Institute of Museum and Library Services through its annual Public Libraries Survey, public libraries in the US spent $1.39 billion on total collection materials (physical and digital) in 2020 (the most recent year statistics were available). In 2000, when adjusted for inflation, that number was $1.68 billion. Between 2011-2020, the total number of ebooks in library holdings skyrocketed by over 2,100%. They’ve been able to get more for their buck.

That said, I want to talk about the specific threats in this market. The first is what’s been called “controlled digital lending”, or “CDL.” CDL is a theory that was created by academics—it doesn’t appear in the Copyright Act, and it doesn’t arise from case law. Advocates argue that this theory allows them to make and distribute digital scans of physical books online without the permission of the copyright owner needed. The “controlled” part of this theory refers to a set of requirements that these academics have also come up with (again, not derived from case law or statute) that they argue makes the digital lending of these unauthorized scans of physical books replicate physical lending of books. They believe that is sufficient to make the process lawful.

Under the guise of CDL, one entity in particular, Internet Archive, has been systematically digitizing and providing public access to complete copies of millions of copyrighted books through its Open Library program. In response, in June 2020, a group of publishers sued Internet Archive for copyright infringement claiming direct harm to both their print and ebook markets in all market segments because Internet Archive is providing competing substitutes.6Elizabeth A. Harris, “Publishers Sue Internet Archive Over Free E-Books,” NYTimes, June 1, 2020.

That case is ongoing; parties recently completed briefing on cross motions for summary judgment—and, somewhat unusually at the District Court stage, there’s been a number of amicus briefs that have been filed. One in particular from an organization called the Copyright Alliance, which represents a broad spectrum of both individual creators and industries within the creative industries, noted that while Internet Archive’s infringing activity is already harming existing markets for books, if the practice expands to other copyrighted works (which it very much could) such as music, film, television, video games, and the visual arts, it would cause widespread harm to all creative professionals and undermine the very purpose of copyright.7Amicus Brief of Copyright Alliance, Hachette Book Group v. Internet Archive (Aug. 12, 2022). Indeed, I think CDL is just a few steps away from a full-blown digital first sale doctrine—and all the harms that would bring to the creative economy.

The second threat is in the states. Beginning in 2021, states across the United States introduced or enacted legislation that would essentially create a compulsory license for the library lending of ebooks and, in some cases, audio books.8Terrica Carrington, “Preempted Copyright Legislation on the Move in Several States“, Copyright Alliance (June 1, 2021). In addition to mandating that book publishers license ebooks to libraries, these laws, which are largely similar across states, would have done a number of additional things, including outlawing windowing (which is a common practice in many copyright industries) outlawing any limitations on the number of licenses offered to libraries, and requiring that licenses be made on otherwise undefined reasonable terms, which would effectively authorize any given state to dictate the terms and pricing of ebook licenses.

The advocates of these state ebook bills essentially define “reasonable terms” as meaning that ebooks should have what they see as “print equivalent” pricing and terms.9See, e.g., Maryland Library Association Statement on Maryland’s Digital Content Law (July 27, 2021). This view is flawed because ultimately what they’re saying is that it’s unreasonable for copyright owners to differentiate formats and markets—in this case, the very different formats of physical books and ebooks in the very distinct markets of physical books and ebook lending. In other words, the mere exercise of a copyright owner’s exclusive rights is unfair.

These state laws would have been harmful to authors and publishers if they were passed. Fortunately, none of them have survived—one passed in New York was vetoed10Senate Bill S2890B Status Page, New York State Senate. and one passed in Maryland was struck down by a federal court this past summer.11Memorandum Opinion, Association of American Publishers v. Frosh, 1:21-CV-03133-DLB, D.Md (June 13, 2022). But I think it also creates a harmful precedent for other ill-advised encroachments into the framework that copyright owners rely on that encourages vibrant and sustainable creative industries which promote the progress of science and useful arts.

References

References
1 In his 1838 work, Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth, Augustin Cournot invoked a single theorem for the foundations of economics: “that each one seeks to derive the greatest possible value from his goods or his labor.” This view has remained relatively stable through the development of modern economics.
2 Accord Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 n.18 (2003).
3 In the mid-1990s, Congress rejected a bill that would create a “digital first sale” exception, H.R. 3048, 105th Cong. (1997), and in its more recent years-long, comprehensive review of the Copyright Act, declined to advance any similar proposals, see Copyright, House Judiciary Committee. In 2001, the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information of the Department of Commerce prepared a report in compliance with § 104 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which recommended against expanding the first sale doctrine to digital transmissions. In 2016, the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force prepared a “White Paper on Remixes, First Sale, and Statutory Damages,” which likewise recommended against expansion of the first sale doctrine to digital transmissions.
4 Overdrive, Over 120 library systems reach 1 million digital checkouts in 2021, January 12, 2022.
5 According to statistics collected by the Institute of Museum and Library Services through its annual Public Libraries Survey, public libraries in the US spent $1.39 billion on total collection materials (physical and digital) in 2020 (the most recent year statistics were available). In 2000, when adjusted for inflation, that number was $1.68 billion. Between 2011-2020, the total number of ebooks in library holdings skyrocketed by over 2,100%.
6 Elizabeth A. Harris, “Publishers Sue Internet Archive Over Free E-Books,” NYTimes, June 1, 2020.
7 Amicus Brief of Copyright Alliance, Hachette Book Group v. Internet Archive (Aug. 12, 2022).
8 Terrica Carrington, “Preempted Copyright Legislation on the Move in Several States“, Copyright Alliance (June 1, 2021).
9 See, e.g., Maryland Library Association Statement on Maryland’s Digital Content Law (July 27, 2021).
10 Senate Bill S2890B Status Page, New York State Senate.
11 Memorandum Opinion, Association of American Publishers v. Frosh, 1:21-CV-03133-DLB, D.Md (June 13, 2022).
By , November 18, 2022.

Authors Guild Applauds Arrest, Indictment of Major E-Book Pirates — “According to court filings, the U.S. Department of Justice is charging Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova with criminal copyright infringement, wire fraud, and money laundering for operating the popular Z-Library pirate site. The pair was arrested on November 3 in Cordoba, Argentina at the request of U.S. authorities, just days after site’s highly trafficked domains were seized by the DOJ and blocked.”

US—Copyright Round-Up — Copyright expert Paul Goldstein highlights several recent US appellate decisions touching upon personal jurisdiction for online infringement, fair use, and copyright and AI.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Validity of Unicolors’ Copyright Registration on Remand, But H&M Scores Big on Remittitur Calculations — “On November 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. following remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, which earlier this year clarified the knowledge standard required for invalidating copyright registrations based on inaccuracies in the registration application.”

‘Wild West’ of Generative AI Raises Novel Copyright Questions — “The rapid rise of artificial intelligence applications has left the burgeoning industry reckoning with how the powerful new technology interacts with copyright laws that govern everything from source code to art prints. The legal landscape is far from clear, with both the creators of AI tools and the artists who use them confronting copyright questions that haven’t yet been answered.”

By , November 11, 2022.

A North Carolina Filmmaker Continues to Challenge State Sovereign Immunity — Litigation in Allen v. Cooper did not end with the Supreme Court decision in March 2020 holding that Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity for copyright infringement claims. Learn more about the background of the case here and where things stand now.

Z-Library Aftermath Reveals The Feds Seized Dozens of Domain Names — Torrentfreak reports on the US action against the pirate book site here. According to the site, “All signs suggest that the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI are behind the action, a theory supported by an updated seizure banner. While Z-Library remains operational through the Tor network, new details show that more than a hundred domains were affected by the action, including the ‘GLOBAL Electronic library.'”

The lawsuit that could rewrite the rules of AI copyright — The Verge interviews the programmer and lawyers behind a class-action suit brought against Microsoft and GitHub alleging the company’s AI-powered programming assistant violates copyright law. Fascinating discussion.

‘Top Gun’ Copyright Lawsuit Survives Paramount’s Motion to Dismiss — Variety reports, “U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson held that there are enough similarities between the film and the 1983 magazine article upon which the original ‘Top Gun’ was based to allow the author’s heirs to pursue the lawsuit.”

By , November 04, 2022.

Frankenstein’s Derivative Monster(s) — Jaci McDole examines the important derivative works right by considering the history of Frankenstein’s monster. Mary Shelley’s famous novel that introduced the character inspired countless derivative works, from translations and reprints, to film adaptations and beyond.

Valancourt Books v. Garland — IP scholar Zvi Rosen summarizes oral arguments held by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals a few weeks ago in Valancourt Books v Garland concerning the mandatory deposit provisions found in the US Copyright Act. Rosen notes, “This case might seem esoteric, but it implicates fundamental questions of the power of Congress to regulate speech, and whether such mandatory deposit of valuable books constitutes a taking of private property without compensation.”

Two Copyright Claim Wrongs Don’t Make a Copyright Claim Right: Analyzing Melendez v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. — Analysis of a recent Second Circuit decision that affirmed the dismissal of right of publicity claims brought by “Stuttering John,” a character appearing on the Howard Stern Show. The Circuit Court agreed with the lower court’s decision that these claims are preempted by the federal Copyright Act.

Record Labels Win $47 Million Piracy Liability Verdict Against ISP Grande — A jury awarded the damages after finding the ISP liable for willful copyright infringement occurring as a result of its subscribers’ repeated infringing conduct.

Mexico and Switzerland Question Need for Extension of COVID IP Waiver — “Ultimately, the two countries want to ensure that public health is being protected and that TRIPS-related rights are not hindering that goal, but based on the evidence at hand they express skepticism that an extension of the TRIPS waiver will have any practical impact: ‘If a systemic problem regarding the access to COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics is demonstrated conclusively and such lack of access is caused by the current IP system, steps have to be taken to improve the situation to ensure unimpeded access. However, based on the information laid out above, we do not face a situation where we have an IP-induced lack of access to or a lack of manufacturing capacity of COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics. As a consequence, no adjustments to the IP system seem to be required.'”

By , October 28, 2022.

Copyright Office Issues NPRM to Correct MLC’s ‘Erroneous’ Dispute Policy on Post-Termination Blanket License Royalties — Your head can start spinning if you think too long about the intersection of termination rights, statutory licenses, and mechanical reproductions. But the Copyright Office has recently waded into those waters because it needs to answer the important question: who gets paid.

C-IP2 2022 Fall Conference Panel Discusses Copyright Under Pressure — Last month, I participated on this panel as part of C-IP2’s annual fall conference. This article summarizes the discussion, which focused on “the current state of copyright law, the pressures it has come under in recent years, and their differing perspectives on how the digital world is shaping copyright” and covered issues such as “enforcement techniques, trends in fair use, and the impact of evolving technology on copyright.”

Survey: Creators describe tense relationship with social media — From Axios, “In Patreon’s survey of more than 1,500 creators (some of whom do not use Patreon), 70% say they feel social media platforms put them at a disadvantage, but 60% say they are reliant on those platforms to showcase their work. Seventy-five percent of creators said in response to survey questions they wish to make more diverse work, but feel compelled by social media algorithms to keep putting out what may perform best.”

Move Slow and Fix Things — Although this article focuses on admissions in elite universities, it makes a broader point about how nowadays, innovation and disruption is privileged over maintaining existing things. I see a parallel to broader discussions of copyright. That is, notwithstanding copyright’s requirement of originality, the legal framework is built around the maintenance art and knowledge, supporting, for example, the intellectual and creative labor that goes into scientific, cultural, and entertainment institutions. Many challenges to copyright over the past several decades have portrayed it instead as a “barrier” to innovation. That portrayal deserves closer scrutiny.

Meta defeats photographer’s lawsuit over Facebook embedding, for now — Unsurprisingly, a district court in the Ninth Circuit remained bound to that Circuit’s “server test” for determining infringement of the public display right.

By , October 21, 2022.

Zelensky hails power of books and knowledge in Frankfurt Book Fair address — The Bookseller reports of the speech from Ukrainian President Zelensky, “He told delegates ‘knowledge is the answer’ to ‘those who are scared, to those who manipulate and to those who don’t believe’. ‘Books, documentary scripts, articles, reports — these are the answers. I invite all of you to Ukraine: publishers, authors, business people and public figures, educators and journalists. Everyone. Take a look at what our people are going through. What we have managed to gain. What are the threats we are still facing. Witness it and tell about it.’ His speech was greeted with a standing ovation.”

How GitHub Copilot could steer Microsoft into a copyright storm — “GitHub Copilot – a programming auto-suggestion tool trained from public source code on the internet – has been caught generating what appears to be copyrighted code, prompting an attorney to look into a possible copyright infringement claim.”

RIAA Flags ‘Artificial Intelligence’ Music Mixer as Emerging Copyright Threat — “The RIAA has submitted its most recent overview of notorious markets to the U.S. Trade Representative. As usual, the music industry group lists various torrent sites, cyberlockers and stream-ripping services as familiar suspects. In addition, several ‘AI-based’ music mixers and extractors are added as an emerging threat.”

That company’s ‘About Us’ page may be full of fake pictures of ‘people’ who don’t actually exist — Just in case you got the impression that AI is only raising copyright-related concerns. “Some companies are using fake, AI-generated images of ‘staff’ who don’t exist on their ‘about us’ pages in an attempt to make their company look bigger.”

The Supreme Court’s Self-Conscious Take on Andy Warhol — “Judging from oral argument, the Justices seemed to lean toward deciding for Goldsmith. Several of them seemed particularly concerned that deciding against her might result in upending the general understanding that an adaptation of a book into a movie or a television show is not fair use and requires payment to the author, even though Hollywood often adds new meanings—including altered plotlines, themes, and characters—to the original material. If those changes were considered ‘transformative,’ the entire industry’s assumption that book authors are to be paid for use of their intellectual property would be disrupted, giving Hollywood a windfall.”

By , October 14, 2022.

Supreme Court Struggles with Warhol’s Transformative Use Theory — Wednesday’s oral arguments in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith dominated the copyright news this week. First up, Kevin Madigan writes a play-by-play summary of the arguments, concluding, “While the Justices at times seemed skeptical of AWF’s position that a mere difference in meaning or message constitutes a transformative use, it’s difficult to predict an outcome based on oral arguments—especially with copyright stalwarts Ginsburg and Breyer no longer on the bench.”

The Surprisingly Confused History of Fair Use: Is it a Limit or a Defense or Both? — Next, Marquette Law School professor Bruce Boyden continues his illuminating series on the legal history of the fair use doctrine. In this first article, he observes how early courts used the term to encompass both a carve-out to infringement and a description of noninfringement. In Alan Latman and the Modern Fair Use Doctrine, Boyden looks at a Copyright Office report from 1955 that considers whether and how a revised copyright statute should address the doctrine.

Andy The Appropriator: The Copyright Battles You Won’t Hear About at The Whitney’s Warhol Exhibit — Finally, this 2019 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts article notes that Goldsmith is not the first time the artist or his foundation faced claims of infringement. According to the article, “Warhol was sued at least three times by photographers who filed copyright infringement claims against him for using their photographs in his work. . . . All three photographers settled with Warhol out of court, but Warhol vowed to use his own photographs in his work thereafter.”

More Than 20,000 Pirate Sites Are Blocked By ISPs Around the Globe — “The Motion Picture Association has provided a fresh overview of global pirate site-blocking efforts, which now span over 20,000 sites. Blocking measures have expanded to 39 countries in recent years, with the United States remaining the key absentee. The lack of US participation is partly due to a shortcoming in US copyright law, which lacks a carve-out for no-fault injunctions.”

Scholar Identifies First Motion Picture Copyright Registration — A big discovery. “This summer, Kluge Fellow Claudy Op den Kamp discovered a letter dated November 14, 1893, from Dickson to Librarian of Congress, Ainsworth Rand Spofford, who was also acting as Register of Copyrights. Dickson asked about the status of the copyright application he submitted the previous month. To Op den Kamp’s great surprise, the letter included eighteen small images printed in two strips on a single sheet. The photographs depicted three men standing around an anvil enacting a scene from a blacksmith shop.”

By , October 07, 2022.

In Memory of Marybeth Peters, Eleventh Register of Copyrights — From the US Copyright Office, “On September 29, 2022, the copyright community lost a friend, advocate, and scholar when Marybeth Peters passed away peacefully in her sleep at the age of 83. Having served the Copyright Office for more than four decades in numerous capacities, including as the Office’s head, she was a global authority on copyright law and a well-known and well-loved presence in the world of copyright.” The broader copyright community shares memories of Peters at the Copyright Alliance’s Tribute Blog in Memory of Former Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters.

The Stakes in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith — Not one, but two articles this week about the Supreme Court’s review of Warhol Foundation, in anticipation of next week’s oral arguments in front of the Court. The first, from Marquette University Law School professor Bruce Boyden considers what various outcomes of the case might mean for the broader art and photography worlds.

Warhol v. Goldsmith: An Examination of Bill Patry’s Analysis — The second, from Neil Turkewitz, canvasses copyright expert Bill Patry’s treatment of the Second Circuit decision up for review in his copyright treatise. As Turkewitz says, “spoiler alert: ‘Warhol’s use was not a fair use.'”

RIAA Thwarts Yout’s Attempt to Declare YouTube-Ripping Legal — A preemptive attempt to have its stream-ripping platform declared non-infringing fails, as Torrentfreak reports. Last week, a federal judge rejected Yout’s argument that it does not circumvent technological protection measures employed by YouTube to prevent downloading audio and video files from the service. This follows a decision just shy of a year ago from a separate federal court finding a similar stream-ripping service liable copyright infringement and violating the DMCA’s anticircumvention provisions.

Guest Post — Missing Revenue in the Global Flip: Getting the Open Access Math Right — Roy Kaufman looks at the ramifications of a “recent OSTP memo calling for zero embargo public access policies for articles resulting from research funded by US Federal agencies.” Kaufman writes, “Whether driven by funders, governments, publishers, institutions, a genuine belief in an open future, or some other motivating factor, the so-called ‘Global Flip,’ will require major changes to the fundamental economics of journal publishing for it to be sustainable. In order to succeed in a flip, a holistic approach is needed, especially to ensure the survival of high-quality society-published journals on which both corporate and academic researchers rely.”

By , September 30, 2022.

AAP Statement on the Death and Legacy of Former Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters — “During her long tenure, Ms. Peters helped to implement both the 1976 Copyright Act and the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which together constitute the foundation of our present-day copyright system. She championed numerous, additional improvements—both statutory and regulatory—through rigorous studies and testimony.”

Fifty Years of U.S. Copyright: Toward a Law of Authors’ Rights? — From copyright scholar Jane Ginsburg, a comprehensive look at the 1976 Copyright Act and “how that law marks a watershed in U.S. copyright, shifting us toward a law of authors’ rights more consonant with the international standards of the Berne Convention on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property.”

The MLC Announces New Data Portal for Distributors — The Mechanical Licensing Collective, which distributes songwriter royalties for mechanical reproductions by digital service providers, has unveiled a new tool that makes it easier for independent distributors like TuneCore and CD Baby to provide data to help identify unmatched recordings and get money earned by songwriters into their hands.

99 Web domains illegally streaming sports, Korean drama blocked — “More than one-third of 1,000 respondents in Singapore in a survey, conducted in December 2021 by research firm YouGov and commissioned by Avia, said that site blocking changed their content viewing habits, such as by subscribing to paid legitimate services instead. In a similar survey by YouGov in Indonesia, more than half of about 2,300 respondents said they had stopped or rarely access pirate services after piracy sites were blocked.”

Upcoming Webinar—Taking the Initiative on IP Protection: Motion Pictures’ Multi-front Battle Against Digital Piracy — The MPA’s Karyn Temple and Jan van Voorn will discuss the “motion picture industry’s comprehensive approach to defending creators’ copyrights worldwide” in this WLF webinar scheduled for October 4, 2:00-3:00pmET.