![\"copyright](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/copyrightglass-1.jpg\")
It is a busy week for copyright proposals in the United States, one that will resound far into the year ahead. <\/p>\nIt is a busy week for copyright proposals in the United States, one that will resound far into the year ahead. <\/p>\n
A few hours after the \u2018CASE Act\u2019 and the \u2018Protecting Lawful Streaming Act\u2019 were approved as part of the spending bill<\/a>, a discussion draft for a new and improved version of the DMCA was revealed. <\/p>\n The draft (pdf)<\/a> was published by Senator Thom Tillis, who started a thorough review<\/a> of the copyright law last year. After hearing dozens of experts and stakeholders, the Senator released what he considers to be a more modern version of the 20-year old DMCA. <\/p>\n \u201cThe Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed in 1998, and while it was revolutionary at the time, the law simply hasn\u2019t kept pace with changes in technology. The DMCA is now antiquated and is past-due for modernization,\u201d Senator Tillis said. <\/p>\n \u201cThis discussion draft is the result of a year-long series of hearings and months of feedback from creators, user groups, and technology companies.\u201d<\/p>\n Titled the \u201cDigital Copyright Act of 2021,\u201d the proposal suggests various updates and changes that have ignited instant opposition from digital rights groups. We will provide a summary of some key proposals but there will be more to unpack in the future. <\/p>\n The current DMCA requires online services to remove copyright-infringing links or files when they are alerted by copyright holders. This won\u2019t change in the new proposal but simply taking down content is no longer sufficient. <\/p>\n When copyright holders inform services that \u2018complete or near complete\u2019 copies of their works are being shared online without permission, these platforms have to ensure that this content stays offline.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n While the draft doesn\u2019t mention filters specifically, the \u2018staydown\u2019 language indirectly requires online sites and services to monitor and filter uploaded content. This would be similar to Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive. <\/p>\n Copyright holders have argued in favor of a staydown requirement for years. They argue that this is essential to end the piracy \u2018whack-a-mole\u2019 where they have to send hundreds of takedown requests for the same content.<\/p>\n The existing DMCA already requires ISPs to disconnect repeat infringers, but it\u2019s not clear when this should happen, and if notifications from rightsholders are sufficient as evidence. <\/p>\n This ambiguity has led to a series of lawsuits where ISPs are accused of failing to adhere to the DMCA. The new Digital Copyright Act should bring an end to this uncertainty. <\/p>\n The discussion draft proposes to get rid of the \u201crepeat infringer\u201d and replace it with \u201cpersons that, on multiple occasions, were the subject of notifications (\u2026) that were not successfully challenged.\u201d<\/p>\n More importantly, it requires the Copyright Office, together with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to develop a policy model that specifies what a frequent offender is and how these persons should be handled. <\/p>\n This suggestion is in line with the Copyright Office\u2019s own assessment from earlier this year, which called on Congress to clarify when a user\u2019s account should be terminated<\/a>.<\/p>\n The discussion draft also proposes using a small claims tribunal for smaller copyright offenses. This pretty much means incorporating the CASE Act in the new law but that seems unnecessary now that the proposal has already been passed. <\/p>\n A more novel suggestion in the \u2018DMCA 2.0\u2019 is to keep a list of companies and copyright holders that repeatedly send false takedown notices. These \u2018flagged\u2019 abusers are placed on a list maintained by the Copyright Office.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n When online services receive takedown notices from blacklisted senders they are not required to act. In other words, they can ignore these takedowns without losing their safe harbor. <\/p>\n As mentioned earlier, the above is just an initial rundown of the proposal, which by itself is merely a discussion draft. And based on the early responses, there is plenty to discuss, or not. <\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s nothing to discuss,\u201d The Electronic Frontier Foundation notes<\/a> in an early response adding that \u201cthe bill, if passed, would absolutely devastate the Internet.\u201d<\/p>\n Re:Create is equally offended<\/a> by the draft stating that the proposed Digital Copyright Act \u201cwould fundamentally end online creativity as we know it.\u201d<\/p>\n Public Knowledge, meanwhile<\/a>, notes that the draft text \u201cwould significantly curtail online speech, subjecting every upload to mandatory content filtering while effectively eliminating fair use on the internet.\u201d<\/p>\n As is often the case with copyright law proposals, the responses are mixed. Rightsholders are pleased with most of the suggestions, which is reflected in an early response from 22 music groups<\/a>. <\/p>\n \u201cThrough a thoughtful, deliberative process, Senator Tillis has developed an important proposal. By digging deep into the substance, engaging a broad universe of stakeholders and experts, and confronting the issues, Senator Tillis and his team have started an important discussion about how best to provide incentives for success,\u201d they say.<\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals<\/a> here for the holidays.<\/p>\nNotice and Staydown<\/h2>\n
![\"staydown\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/staydown.jpg\")
<\/center> <\/p>\nDisconnecting Repeat Infringers?<\/h2>\n
Small Claims, Copyright Abuse, and More<\/h2>\n
![\"abusers\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/abuse.jpg\")
<\/center><\/p>\nPraise and Outrage<\/h2>\n