Internet Archive should be blocked from scanning and sharing millions of literary works, the Association of American Publishers said Monday in a lawsuit at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. AAP accused IA of sharing “some 1.3 million bootleg scans of print books” through public-facing online libraries. Plaintiffs are Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons and Penguin Random House. The lawsuit “condemns the fact that IA solicits and collects truckloads of in-copyright books in order to copy and make them available without permission,” AAP said, arguing there are no exceptions for this activity under fair use, the first sale doctrine or in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. IA founder Brewster Kahle called the lawsuit “disappointing.” IA “acquires books and lends them, as libraries have always done,” which supports the publishing industry, he emailed. “Publishers suing libraries for lending books, in this case, protected digitized versions, and while schools and libraries are closed, is not in anyone's interest.” For too long, "IA has brazenly scanned and distributed published works while refusing to abide by the traditional contours of copyright law,” Copyright Alliance CEO Keith Kupferschmid said. Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer wrote in support of IA, saying controlled digital lending is fair use under copyright law: "The National Emergency Library, which expands on CDL, is justified under the circumstances of the pandemic, when so many print books paid for by the public are inaccessible." He urged Congress to support legislation "clarifying the right of libraries to make print books available to patrons electronically, and to serve their constituencies during times of emergency.”
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai questioned Twitter’s policies, as the platform for a second day flagged President Donald Trump’s tweets (see 2005280060). Pai asked Friday whether tweets from Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei violate platform rules about glorifying violence, rules that Twitter cited in flagging Trump.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that would remove liability protections for online platforms that censure or edit content (see 2005270016). There would be a role for antitrust agencies and the FCC, whose commissioners reacted along party lines to the EO. “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers,” Trump said, claiming tech monopolies have “unchecked power” to censor and restrict human interaction.
Congress should require radio stations pay artists for broadcasting their music, SoundExchange and music performance rights holders told the Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee Wednesday. Such a drastic change would upend the free radio broadcast model, said NAB and National Religious Broadcasters.
The White House will “hopefully” make an announcement before 5 p.m. EDT Thursday on an executive order from President Donald Trump, said White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. A draft executive order seeks to clarify the scope of the tech industry’s content liability shield, potentially exposing platforms to DOJ and FTC scrutiny. Various shields allow platforms to censor conservative voices, McEnany said. The intention is to remove those shields and shed light on platform decisionmaking, she added.
If enforcers pursue an antitrust case against Google, it will be difficult to prove and is unlikely to result in major platform restructuring, ex-DOJ officials said in interviews. Econ One Research Managing Director Hal Singer argued there's a case to be made against Google’s advertising technology practices, and Public Knowledge Senior Policy Counsel Charlotte Slaiman cautioned against predictions until all facts are known.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512, which governs online infringement, is “unbalanced” and out of sync with Congress’ original intent, the Copyright Office concluded (see 2005210029) in a years-in-the-making report Thursday. It highlighted areas where the tech and creative industries have clashed over the years, drawing mixed reviews. "While the Office is not recommending any wholesale changes to section 512, the Report points out these and other areas where Congress may wish to consider legislation to rebuild the original balance between rightsholders and online service providers,” the office said.
The House Homeland Security Committee will focus more on encryption and locked phones, House Intelligence and Counterterrorism Subcommittee Chairman Max Rose, D-N.Y., said Wednesday. During a subcommittee webcast, he said he doesn’t “love” the idea of terrorists communicating through encrypted platforms and police not having immediate access to such an alleged criminal's phone after an attack.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology should develop metrics and measurements to guide the cybersecurity framework (see 1909270056), said Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., Tuesday. The framework has helped organizations assess cyber risks, but it must be a “living document,” she told the Information Technology Industry Council. NIST didn’t comment.
Members of Facebook’s oversight board defended the body Monday as politically neutral and free from undue company influence (see 2005120056). Board members wouldn't have taken the position if they thought they were “providing cover” for Facebook, said University of Oklahoma College of Law professor Evelyn Aswad during an Aspen Institute webcast: The goal is to be as neutral as possible and look at every issue from various angles. Members will be paid, and individual payment amounts aren’t publicly available, said Stanford Law School professor Michael McConnell. Pay is based on what each member could command with alternative use of their time, he noted, saying he expects to spend about 15-20 hours monthly. The board will make binding decisions on content moderation, and can advise on content moderation policies, said Columbia Law School professor Jamal Greene. “We’re not front lines internet cops,” said McConnell, calling it a deliberative body for appeals. Facebook will refer policy questions to the board for nonbinding guidance, McConnell added, noting the company must respond publicly with its decisions on whether it agrees with the guidance. Cato Institute Vice President John Samples said his understanding is that decisions about advertising content will be within the remit of the panel. He called the body an attempt to challenge the content moderation status quo, which people are unhappy with. It’s better than the alternative of having a stronger government role, he said.