Tillis Aims for Bipartisan DMCA Bill in April or May

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., now the top Democrat, “supports a strong and inclusive IP system that incentivizes innovation and protects creators,” a spokesperson said. “He looks forward to working with Ranking Member Tillis to ensure that our system continues to accomplish those goals.” Coons’ office didn’t comment.

Tillis said his office will thoroughly review comments and “make changes to the Digital Copyright Act based on this extensive feedback.” Once the legislation is introduced, Tillis plans to bring stakeholders back to the table. Big tech companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter can take a number of actions now to address copyright piracy, he said: “I’d love to see a situation where these big tech companies voluntarily address this problem so that Congress doesn’t have to. But if they don’t, I’ll do everything in my power to reform the DMCA and protect America’s creative economy from online copyright piracy.”

Much of the legislative discussion focused on DMCA Section 512, which established a notice and takedown system for platforms and copyright owners to address online infringement. It includes limitations on liability for platforms that are in compliance, plus knowledge standards.

The discussion draft would “undermine” the certainty that Section 512 provides American digital services, businesses, creators and users, commented the Computer & Communications Industry Association and the Internet Infrastructure Coalition. The “sweeping changes” to Section 512 are based on the incorrect premise that the provision is no longer working as Congress intended, CCIA wrote with i2Coalition. The draft “gives primacy to the protection of intellectual property interests,” they wrote.

Section 512 isn’t working correctly, and last year’s hearings “bore that out,” said Copyright Alliance CEO Keith Kupferschmid in an interview. “We would certainly like to see some improvements, either legislatively or through working with the various platforms to come up with voluntary agreements on some of those issues.” Platforms have been unwilling to negotiate because they have no risk of liability, he said (see 2010050061).

If Congress enacted the proposed Section 512 amendments, “far less content would be created and made available to the public,” the Library Copyright Alliance commented. Without the current safe harbors, “libraries and commercial entities could not permit individuals and small entities to access the Internet and upload their content without burdensome review,” the group wrote. Rather than tweak the DMCA, Tillis’ Digital Copyright Act proposal would completely destroy its core framework and replace it with a “system that will chill online creativity, take choices away from consumers and harm the internet ecosystem,” Re:Create wrote.

The discussion draft’s Section 512 amendments would violate the Constitution and defeat the voluntary essence of the Copyright Claims Board, Public Knowledge commented. PK claimed the proposal would force individuals to submit to CCB jurisdiction to file counter notifications, which violates the Seventh Amendment and undermines the First Amendment. PK welcomes efforts to make the DMCA more responsive to users, especially with blatant abuse, but the draft “fails to strike a meaningful balance between users’ rights and the desires of rights holders,” it said.

The discussion draft would be “bad for startups that encounter user-generated content,” Engine commented. It would disrupt 512 in fundamental ways, “upsetting the statutory framework at the foundation of innovation, creative expression, and economic growth” that wouldn’t have been possible 25 years ago, Engine said. The R Street Institute raised concerns about the new measures to “replace the current ‘notice-and-takedown,’ regime with a ‘notice-and-stay-down’ regime.” It said that would impose “significant new regulatory burdens across the online ecosystem that will harm consumers, reduce innovation and threaten free speech.”