Library Copyright Alliance Comments on South Africa’s Copyright Amendment Bill (B13-2017)

 Posted by on July 6, 2017  Comments Off on Library Copyright Alliance Comments on South Africa’s Copyright Amendment Bill (B13-2017)
Jul 062017

[Printable PDF of this Comment] 

The Library Copyright Alliance (“LCA”) consists of three major library associations in the United States: the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries. These associations represent over 100,000 libraries in the United States employing more than 350,000 librarians and other personnel. An estimated 200 million Americans use these libraries over two billion times each year. These libraries spend over $4 billion annually acquiring books and other copyrighted material. Continue reading »

Jan 212017

[Reposted from the Association of Research Libraries, Link (CC-BY)] In December 2016, strong endorsements of fair use appeared in somewhat unexpected places.

First, the Joint Strategic Plan (“JSP”) released by the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator on December 12, 2016, stated that nothing in the JSP:

should be interpreted as limiting the scope of exceptions and limitations, such as fair use, under U.S. copyright law. To the contrary, the basic principles that have permitted the Internet to thrive must be safeguarded, and the Strategic Plan expressly recognizes and celebrates advancements in technology. The way people use and access content – which has led to new and innovative uses of media (e.g., remixes and mashups involving music, video and the visual arts), and fair use, for example – will undoubtedly continue to evolve. We must work to foster creativity, understanding the role of exceptions and limitations as not only part of our body of laws, but as an important part of our culture. Indeed, it is the combination of strong copyright rights with a balance between the protection of rights and exceptions and limitations that encourages creativity, promotes innovation, and ensures our freedom of speech and creative expression are respected. Continue reading »


Fair Use as a Tool for Reining In Foreign Judges?

 Posted by on October 21, 2016  Comments Off on Fair Use as a Tool for Reining In Foreign Judges?
Oct 212016

jband[Cross posted from Project Disco, Link] At a conference last week sponsored by Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts, a panel I participated in considered an unexpected prospect: the copyright fair use doctrine as a mechanism for creating more certainty in international copyright law.

Balanced copyright proponents have long supported the “export” of fair use through trade agreements. If the United States was encouraging trading partners to adopt U.S. IP standards, those standards should include not only the higher protections provided by U.S. law (e.g., copyright term of life plus 70 and prohibitions on circumvention), but also our robust exceptions and limitations, such as fair use. Continue reading »

Dec 022015

jbandIn 2012, I published a law review article where I argued that when a defendant engages in the type of activity permitted by a specific exception under the Copyright Act, but does not qualify for a technical reason, the court should give weight to the defendant’s substantial compliance with the exception when considering the first fair use factor (the purpose and character of the use).1 In adopting a specific exception, Congress recognized the strong public policy interest in permitting the use in cases meeting the exception’s requirements. Significantly, the same public policy interest still exists in cases where many, but not all, of the exceptions’ requirements are met. While the existence of a specific exception should not be dispositive of the fair use analysis, I argued that it should have a positive influence on the first fair use factor. Since then, both the Second Circuit and the Register of Copyrights have given substantial weight to specific exceptions in the context of consideration of the first fair use factor.

Click here for the full update (PDF).


Flexibility in the TPP Statutory Damages Provision

 Posted by on November 25, 2015  Comments Off on Flexibility in the TPP Statutory Damages Provision
Nov 252015

jbandThis article is part of an IP-Watch and series analyzing the Trans Pacific Partnership intellectual property provisions by leading experts around the world.  The series will publish weekly through the first quarter of 2016.

During the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, many concerns were voiced about how TPP would mandate adoption of U.S. style statutory damages. Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a court can award damages of up to $30,000 per work infringed, which can be ratcheted up to $150,000 per work infringed in cases of willful infringement. Scholars have found that statutory damages in the U.S. have discouraged investment in innovative technologies while incentivizing the emergence of copyright trolls.

So how bad is the statutory damages provision in the final TPP agreement? Continue reading »

Nov 112015

jbandNote:  The original version of this paper was posted on October 20, 2015.  It was updated on November 10, 2015 taking into account the release of the official TPP text. (eds.)

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement contains an important provision concerning achieving balance in the copyright systems of the twelve countries party to that free trade agreement. This provision was not present in the early draft of the agreement. Then, in July 2012, the United States proposed language that formed the basis of the text of the provision. This language subsequently was strengthened over the next three years to its final form. This paper recounts the evolution of this provision. Because of the lack of transparency of the TPP negotiations, it is difficult to reconstruct a precise timeline of when specific language was proposed, who proposed it, and why. However, a combination of leaked drafts and public statements provides evidence of the provision’s trajectory.

Click here for the full paper (PDF)

Mar 102015

jbandUpdated March 10, 2015, to include UK Fair Dealing amendments.

Updated on April 3, 2013, to include Liberia.

More than 40 countries with over one-third of the world’s population have fair use or fair dealing provisions in their copyright laws. These countries are in all regions of the world and at all levels of development. The broad diffusion of fair use and fair dealing indicates that there is no basis for preventing the more widespread adoption of these doctrines, with the benefits their flexibility brings to authors, publishers, consumers, technology companies, libraries, museums, educational institutions, and governments. Continue reading »

Mar 102015

jbandBoth political parties have begun to focus greater attention on the growing income inequality in the United States. While there probably are many factors contributing to the inequality, one factor has received relatively little attention: the nature of the U.S. political system encourages increasingly complex regulatory frameworks, which benefit those with more resources to navigate those frameworks. As the frameworks get more complex, the advantage of those with resources increases. Continue reading »


David and Project Goliath

 Posted by on December 19, 2014  1 Response »
Dec 192014

jon-bandThe name the Motion Picture Association of America used for its anti-Google campaign—“Project Goliath”—may be more self-revelatory than the MPAA expected.

It has been widely reported that the hacked Sony Pictures emails reveal that in early 2014, MPAA launched Project Goliath, a policy initiative to develop legal tools to block access to websites that facilitate infringement. The effort to develop such legal tools at the federal level failed spectacularly with the SOPA/PIPA debacle, so Project Goliath attempted to enlist the support of state attorneys general. The news reports about Project Goliath speculate that “Goliath” is a code name for Google, one of the most vocal opponents of SOPA/PIPA and a frequent target of entertainment industry complaints that its search engine directs users to infringing sites such as cyberlockers. Google in a policy blog expressed “deep concerns” about the revelations, and asked why the MPAA, an organization that claims to be committed to the First Amendment and artists’ freedom of expression, was “trying secretly to censor the Internet.” The MPAA responded that “Google’s effort to position itself as a defender of free speech is shameful.” Continue reading »

Jul 302014

jon-band[This post was updated on August 4, in response to the President’s signature of the cell phone unlocking bill.]

On July 25, 2014, the House of Representatives passed the version of cell phone unlocking legislation adopted ten days earlier by the Senate. President Obama promptly announced that he would sign the legislation, bringing at least a short-term resolution to a controversy that had burst into the public eye early in 2013. The underlying issue, however, has much deeper roots, stretching back to the enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998. Moreover, the legislation only temporarily permits consumers to unlock their cell phones to access other mobile networks. In 2015, the Librarian of Congress will determine whether to renew this permission for another three years. A permanent solution to this problem appears precluded by the free trade agreements to which the United States is a party. This paper examines the legal background of this matter. Continue reading »

Jun 102014

lca[Library Copyright Alliance Press Release, Link] The Library Copyright Alliance is extremely pleased with today’s decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, finding in favor of fair use. The Library Copyright Alliance filed an amicus brief (PDF) in the case, supporting HathiTrust’s position and the lower court’s finding of fair use. Jonathan Band, counsel for the Library Copyright Alliance, said, “The decision is a significant victory for the public.” Continue reading »

May 072014

jon-bandThe Administration’s 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement identifies “protection of public health and safety” as one of its “primary concerns.” A press release issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on March 24, 2014, concerning its intellectual property seizures in fiscal year 2013 suggests that its IP enforcement efforts are largely targeted at preventing the importation of counterfeit products that threaten health and safety. The actual statistics, however, reveal a somewhat different story: that DHS is either exaggerating the danger posed by counterfeit goods to health and safety, or it is not taking that danger seriously enough. Continue reading »