The Case Against The CASE Act: Special Edition

As the U.S. House Judiciary Committee prepares to take up the Copyright Alternative in Small Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act this week, members of the Re:Create Coalition and other groups continue to raise their concerns with the flawed bill that tramples on Americans’ due process rights and the constitutional role of our courts. See below for more on why the bill poses such a threat to everyday Americans and our Constitution. 

CASE Act Ignores Realities Of Copyright Law. In an op-ed for Morning Consult, Re:Create Coalition Executive Director Joshua Lamel examines the flawed details of the CASE Act and how it “ignores the realities of copyright infringement and copyright law.” “Sometimes a bill with the best of intentions can have the worst of results. Unfortunately, the Copyright Alternative in Small Claims Enforcement Act, which recently passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, is exactly this type of legislation,” wrote Lamel.

If You Build It, They Will Troll. In a recent op-ed, Innovation Defense Foundation head Wayne T. Brough elevates the flawed legislative process as the bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without a hearing to allow for debate and input. He also points to serious concerns with how the bill will promote copyright trolls: “Even more disconcerting, the legislation would encourage more copyright abuse by allowing not just creators — photographers, authors, musicians, filmmakers — to file claims but also copyright trolls, who have become somewhat of a growth industry in the digital world.”

EFF: CASE Act Moves Forward With Hearing But With Plenty Of Flaws. In a blog following the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to approve the CASE Act, EFF highlighted the “huge flaws” that would have been raised had a hearing been held, including how the bill will support copyright trolls who take advantage of consumers. As a potential solution, EFF’s Katharine Trendacosta suggested, “If the CASE Act was not opt-out, but instead required respondents to give affirmative consent, or ‘opt-in,’ at least the Copyright Office would have greater incentive to design proceedings that safeguard the respondents’ interests and have clear standards that everyone can understand.”

CDT: The Road To Copyright Trolling Is Paved With Good Intentions. CDT’s Stan Adams penned a blog post explaining the CASE Act’s good intentions that have ultimately resulted in “a legal disaster waiting to happen.” He outlined the bill’s problems for due process, separation of powers, outrageous statutory damages, copyright registration and the average consumers who will become defendants.

What They Are Saying About The CASE Act: Click here for additional resources on CASE Act concerns raised by creators, users, startups, tech industry and digital rights advocates.