Panama Pressing Harsh New Copyright Law

How would you feel if the fines for speeding went directly into the pockets of the police officers issuing speeding tickets?  What if the fines were thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars?  And what if, when you went to dispute a ticket, the police officers pocketing the money were the ones deciding your case?

Seems a sure-fire recipe for abuse and conflict-of-interest. Yet according to published reports, Panama’s Congress voted to pass a new copyright law yesterday that follows just this model. Under Bill 510, the nation's copyright agency will have the authority to accuse individuals of copyright infringement, conduct hearings itself, impose fines of up to US $100,000 and keep the money for its own use and for bonuses to its employees. Artists and civil society groups in Panama are urging President Ricardo Martinelli not to sign the bill into law.

CDT has warned repeatedly that U.S. trade policy - by demanding that other countries adopt strong copyright enforcement provisions and saying little if anything about the laws and policies that moderate copyright or limit its reach - effectively invites U.S. trade partners to adopt unbalanced, one-sided copyright regimes.  Panama appears poised to become a prime example: Its new law is being adopted in an effort to implement its obligations under the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.

Indeed, according to Sean Flynn at infojustice.org, the legislation features one of the precise problems CDT has warned about in our writing about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade negotiations: It extends the reproduction right to cover temporary copies, such that even ephemeral buffer copies, ubiquitous in the digital world, become potential fodder for additional copyright lawsuits.  (For a full discussion of why this makes zero policy sense, see this law professors' brief from the 2007 Cablevision DVR case here in the United States.) In addition, Flynn and others caution that the legislation may significantly narrow fair use-like policy for Panama.

The bottom line is, there appear to be real problems with this legislation, and ultimately with the U.S. using trade agreements to export incomplete and one-sided versions of copyright law.

View the original article here

Panama Pressing Harsh New Copyright Law

How would you feel if the fines for speeding went directly into the pockets of the police officers issuing speeding tickets?  What if the fines were thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars?  And what if, when you went to dispute a ticket, the police officers pocketing the money were the ones deciding your case?

Seems a sure-fire recipe for abuse and conflict-of-interest. Yet according to published reports, Panama’s Congress voted to pass a new copyright law yesterday that follows just this model. Under Bill 510, the nation's copyright agency will have the authority to accuse individuals of copyright infringement, conduct hearings itself, impose fines of up to US $100,000 and keep the money for its own use and for bonuses to its employees. Artists and civil society groups in Panama are urging President Ricardo Martinelli not to sign the bill into law.

CDT has warned repeatedly that U.S. trade policy - by demanding that other countries adopt strong copyright enforcement provisions and saying little if anything about the laws and policies that moderate copyright or limit its reach - effectively invites U.S. trade partners to adopt unbalanced, one-sided copyright regimes.  Panama appears poised to become a prime example: Its new law is being adopted in an effort to implement its obligations under the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.

Indeed, according to Sean Flynn at infojustice.org, the legislation features one of the precise problems CDT has warned about in our writing about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade negotiations: It extends the reproduction right to cover temporary copies, such that even ephemeral buffer copies, ubiquitous in the digital world, become potential fodder for additional copyright lawsuits.  (For a full discussion of why this makes zero policy sense, see this law professors' brief from the 2007 Cablevision DVR case here in the United States.) In addition, Flynn and others caution that the legislation may significantly narrow fair use-like policy for Panama.

The bottom line is, there appear to be real problems with this legislation, and ultimately with the U.S. using trade agreements to export incomplete and one-sided versions of copyright law.

View the original article here

Panama Pressing Harsh New Copyright Law

How would you feel if the fines for speeding went directly into the pockets of the police officers issuing speeding tickets?  What if the fines were thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars?  And what if, when you went to dispute a ticket, the police officers pocketing the money were the ones deciding your case?

Seems a sure-fire recipe for abuse and conflict-of-interest. Yet according to published reports, Panama’s Congress voted to pass a new copyright law yesterday that follows just this model. Under Bill 510, the nation's copyright agency will have the authority to accuse individuals of copyright infringement, conduct hearings itself, impose fines of up to US $100,000 and keep the money for its own use and for bonuses to its employees. Artists and civil society groups in Panama are urging President Ricardo Martinelli not to sign the bill into law.

CDT has warned repeatedly that U.S. trade policy - by demanding that other countries adopt strong copyright enforcement provisions and saying little if anything about the laws and policies that moderate copyright or limit its reach - effectively invites U.S. trade partners to adopt unbalanced, one-sided copyright regimes.  Panama appears poised to become a prime example: Its new law is being adopted in an effort to implement its obligations under the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.

Indeed, according to Sean Flynn at infojustice.org, the legislation features one of the precise problems CDT has warned about in our writing about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade negotiations: It extends the reproduction right to cover temporary copies, such that even ephemeral buffer copies, ubiquitous in the digital world, become potential fodder for additional copyright lawsuits.  (For a full discussion of why this makes zero policy sense, see this law professors' brief from the 2007 Cablevision DVR case here in the United States.) In addition, Flynn and others caution that the legislation may significantly narrow fair use-like policy for Panama.

The bottom line is, there appear to be real problems with this legislation, and ultimately with the U.S. using trade agreements to export incomplete and one-sided versions of copyright law.

View the original article here

CDT Weighs in on Copyright Enforcement Strategy

The Administration's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) is expected to release its new "Joint Strategic Plan" by the end of this year.  Responding to the IPEC's request for comments from the public to assist with developing the new plan, CDT has submitted its recommendations.

The plan faces a substantial challenge in the wake of the bruising battle and public uprising over PIPA and SOPA:  namely, the widespread public perception that the Federal Government's approach to copyright serves a narrow set of corporate interests and ignores important competing values. This colors the debate over copyright policy and, ultimately, threatens to further erode public respect for copyright itself.  That's a risk that copyright holders and enforcers need to take seriously, because dwindling respect for copyright can fuel high levels of infringement, creating a vicious cycle.

What can the Federal Government do about this challenge?  Well, at a minimum, it can ensure that its approach to copyright enforcement and policy is forthright, fair, and respectful of other interests.  As we explain in our comments, that means taking care to fully assess collateral impacts; establishing guidelines and procedures to minimize the risk of collateral damage, especially with respect to domain name seizures; allowing much greater transparency in trade negotiations over copyright; and supporting affirmative initiatives or reforms that focus on the copyright regime from the point of view of Internet users or other stakeholders, rather than just the major copyright industries.

Our comments also recommend some core principles:  target enforcement carefully on true bad actors; don't call for new network-policing roles for Internet intermediaries; focus on effective and efficient use of existing legal tools, rather than calling for new ones; and set realistic goals.

Finally, our comments discuss the advantages and risks of trying to reduce copyright infringement through voluntary, collaborative efforts between copyright holders and other parties in the Internet ecosystem.  Actions that focus on educating users about copyright pose limited risks, since they generally won't cause significant harm even if applied in an overbroad or imprecise manner.  Actions that put private parties in the quasi-judicial role of imposing concrete sanctions are much more problematic, particularly when they are the product of an industry-wide or multi-party framework that arguably is a stand-in for government.  CDT recommends distinguishing between different kinds of voluntary action and emphasizing the importance of broad stakeholder participation and procedural safeguards.

We'll see how our recommendations fare.  Whether or not they find their way into the written strategy, however, we think our principles and recommendations have a key role to play in enabling copyright policy to chart a sound course that the public can accept and respect.

View the original article here