House Overwhelmingly Votes to Empower Copyright Trolls and to Bankrupt Americans For Sharing Photosby Mike Masnick
Nov. 04, 2019
'I Am Doing Fine': Ron Paul Tweets From Hospital After Suffering Medical Incident On Live Stream
VIDEO: BLM Mob Swarm Driver, Attack His Car, Chase Him Down, Pin Him In & Try to Pull Him From Vehicle
Pennsylvania: FBI Finds Military Mail-In Ballots Discarded - All Were Cast For Trump
Kyle Rittenhouse's Mother Given 'Standing Ovation' At Wisconsin GOP Event
Support For BLM 'Protests' Plummets: 44% Oppose Versus 39% Who Approve in New AP-NORC Poll
Perhaps not a surprise, but Congress did what Congress does and voted overwhelmingly to approve the CASE Act, which is better described as the "we need more copyright trolling" act, and which is very likely unconstitutional. Only 6 Reps voted against the bill, with 410 voting for it (15 didn't vote -- including, Doug Collins who infamously laughed that anyone might be inconvenienced by a "small" $30,000 fine). I will say kudos to the six reps who voted against it: Amash, Davidson, Gianforte, Kelly, Massie, and Norman. Frankly, the most surprising "yes" vote here was Rep. Lofgren, who historically has been great on copyright (and other issues). I'm surprised to see her on the wrong side of this bill and helping to enable trolling like this.
Rep. Hakeen Jeffries, who was the sponsor of the bill -- and who (coincidentally, I'm sure) offered lobbyists the chance to join him at the recording industry's biggest party for just a $5,000 contribution -- made a bunch of utter nonsense statements in support of the bill:
"There is no gun that is being held to anyone's head, because the small claims court like tribunal is voluntary in nature," Jeffries told The Verge. "Any argument made to the contrary, represents a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what's at stake as part of the effort to do away with the content copyright laws that have been part of the fabric of our democracy since the founding of the Republic and in fact the Constitution."Sure. The internet doesn't change the Constitution. But Congress sure has gone a looooooooong way in changing copyright law, away from its Constitutional roots, to the point that it is almost unrecognizable. Let's remember that the Constitution only provides for copyright law if it is used to "promote the progress of science," which at the time it was written meant "learning and education." What about the CASE Act promotes education? Can Jeffries answer that?
Also, the Constitution promised us that copyright should only be for "limited times." Yet, Congress has extended copyright over and over and over again such that no one can honestly claim that it matches up with the initial understanding under the Constitution.