The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 14-20:
NEW YORK -- CBP issued a request for proposals seeking a private company to collect fines on its behalf, CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske said at the Court of International Trade Judicial Conference on Nov. 21. Once selected, the collection agency will cost nothing to the taxpayer, instead taking a percentage of whatever fines it collects, he said. “Perhaps they’ll do a better job,” he said, noting congressional criticism of CBP’s collection efforts. “I’m not sure,” he said. In any case, CBP will learn about new collection methods and how they work, Kerlikowske said. A CBP official said in July that CBP is going through a procurement process with “multiple vendors” to find a company to collect unpaid antidumping and countervailing duties (see 1607280025).
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Nov. 14-20 in case they were missed.
Content owners and tech sector stakeholders again stuck to their stated positions on the need for new permanent exemptions to Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 1201's provisions barring the circumvention of technological protection measures in reply comments due late Wednesday. Stakeholders have viewed the consistency of all participants' positions on Section 1201 as making it likely that the Copyright Office will make recommendations for a revamp of the process for granting exemptions to the ban (see 1610270063 and 1611010059). Content owners used the reply comments to caution the CO against making legislative recommendations in their Section 1201 study report and instead focus on using its existing authority to fix issues with its triennial process for reviewing nonpermanent TPM exemptions. The tech sector again urged the CO to proceed with its proposed new permanent exemptions in addition to fixes to the triennial review process.
Content owners and tech sector stakeholders again stuck to their stated positions on the need for new permanent exemptions to Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 1201's provisions barring the circumvention of technological protection measures in reply comments due late Wednesday. Stakeholders have viewed the consistency of all participants' positions on Section 1201 as making it likely that the Copyright Office will make recommendations for a revamp of the process for granting exemptions to the ban (see 1610270063 and 1611010059). Content owners used the reply comments to caution the CO against making legislative recommendations in their Section 1201 study report and instead focus on using its existing authority to fix issues with its triennial process for reviewing nonpermanent TPM exemptions. The tech sector again urged the CO to proceed with its proposed new permanent exemptions in addition to fixes to the triennial review process.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 7-13:
Just providing Internet access doesn't infringe copyright, and a U.S. District judge in Alexandria, Virginia, "effectively guided the jury" to do exactly what the Supreme Court has cautioned against in other copyright infringement cases -- to find contributory infringement based solely on not taking active steps to avert infringement by a third party, CTA and Computer & Communications Industry Association said in a joint amicus curiae brief (in Pacer) filed Monday with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief was filed in Cox Communications' appeal of the lower court's ruling in favor of BMG Rights Management in its torrent piracy lawsuit against the cable ISP (see 1608190030). CTA/CCIA said Judge Liam O'Grady "compound[ed] this error" when he instructed the jury that it could find willful blindness from a general awareness of possible infringement instead of following Supreme Court precedent that requires deliberate actions. The lower court also held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wasn't a defense yet let the jury base its verdict on facts related to whether Cox had satisfied its safe harbor immunity from damages under the DMCA, CTA/CCIA said. "The jury was essentially invited to draw inferences of liability" from Cox not shutting off alleged copyright infringers rather than from whether the cable operator's workers took any volitional acts to encourage copyright infringement, the trade groups said. They called the ruling "contrary to sound public policy," arguing it undermined congressional intent in Section 512 of the DMCA, which covers liability limitations. CTA/CCIA called for the judgment against Cox to be reversed and for the case to remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the cable ISP or a new trial. Counsel for BMG didn't comment.
Just providing Internet access doesn't infringe copyright, and a U.S. District judge in Alexandria, Virginia, "effectively guided the jury" to do exactly what the Supreme Court has cautioned against in other copyright infringement cases -- to find contributory infringement based solely on not taking active steps to avert infringement by a third party, CTA and Computer & Communications Industry Association said in a joint amicus curiae brief (in Pacer) filed Monday with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief was filed in Cox Communications' appeal of the lower court's ruling in favor of BMG Rights Management in its torrent piracy lawsuit against the cable ISP (see 1608190030). CTA/CCIA said Judge Liam O'Grady "compound[ed] this error" when he instructed the jury that it could find willful blindness from a general awareness of possible infringement instead of following Supreme Court precedent that requires deliberate actions. The lower court also held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wasn't a defense yet let the jury base its verdict on facts related to whether Cox had satisfied its safe harbor immunity from damages under the DMCA, CTA/CCIA said. "The jury was essentially invited to draw inferences of liability" from Cox not shutting off alleged copyright infringers rather than from whether the cable operator's workers took any volitional acts to encourage copyright infringement, the trade groups said. They called the ruling "contrary to sound public policy," arguing it undermined congressional intent in Section 512 of the DMCA, which covers liability limitations. CTA/CCIA called for the judgment against Cox to be reversed and for the case to remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the cable ISP or a new trial. Counsel for BMG didn't comment.
The World Trade Organization recently posted the following notices:
If the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denies the FTC's request for an en banc rehearing in its consumer protection fight with AT&T Mobility, Congress may act to provide the commission with the necessary authority, experts said in interviews last week. That's gotten more complicated with the election of Donald Trump, whose views about privacy, consumer protection and telecom aren't really known (see 1611090016). Some have predicted Trump-appointed commissioners would roll back FCC ISP privacy rules (see 1611090034).