The Shaky Rationale For TPP’s Copyright Term

Question copyright by Stephan Baum.svg

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is supposed to be a free trade agreement among 12 Pacific Rim nations. But the TPP also includes some contentious intellectual property provisions, including a requirement that all member states have a minimum copyright term of life plus 70 years – thus forcing six nations to increase their copyright terms by 20 years. This copyright term extension is strongly criticised by some experts, who claim it is antithetical to the goals of copyright law. Moreover, this copyright term extension runs counter to the stance of the US Copyright Office, which has been trying to weaken the current US copyright term of life-plus-70. [Note: Part 2 of 2 articles]

TPP’s Copyright Term Benefits US, Burdens Others

US flag flies over world 2 by Svilen Milev

The US got its way. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) will require all member nations to have a minimum copyright term of life plus 70 years. As a result, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, and three other nations will have to increase the duration of copyright by 20 years. This copyright term extension will benefit powerful interests in the US, but will hurt consumers and creators in six other nations that are part of the TPP.

US Congress Reconsiders Anti-Patent Troll Law

US_Capitol_dome

It happened again on 5 February. The powerful chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte introduced the Innovation Act for a second time. This bill, aimed at hurting patent trolls by making a plethora of changes in US patent law, easily passed the House of Representatives last term. It subsequently bogged down in a Democrat-controlled Senate. However, now that the GOP controls both wings of Congress, many observers predict the bill will have soon become law. Other experts aren’t so sure, noting that the Innovation Act is drawing some powerful opposition – and not just from patent trolls.

ISPs In US Face New Copyright Attack

BitTorrent network

It is a novel way to attack online copyright infringement. Two music companies have sued an internet service provider, alleging that because the ISP failed to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers, the ISP is guilty of secondary infringement. This lawsuit troubles many copyright experts and its success is far from certain, but the music companies may achieve their aims regardless.

US Courts Recognise New Performers’ Rights

red guitar

For performers and record labels in the United States, it is terrific news. They possess previously unrecognised rights in audio recordings, according to three recent court rulings. But not everyone is pleased about this. The decisions not only upend 75 years of US copyright law, they create big problems for broadcasters, webcasters and many other internet firms, all of whom now face hefty liability for copyright infringement.

Little-Known Case May Dramatically Change US Patent System

800px-Supreme_Court

The patent case recently argued before the US Supreme Court is relatively unknown, and for good reason. It involves no exciting new technology. It has no controversial patent claims (e.g., covering human genes). However, Teva Pharms. USA v. Sandoz, Inc. could produce major changes in America’s patent system.

US Cracking Down On Software Patents

red power button icon

The US courts are aggressively applying the ruling. So is the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Thanks to their common interpretation of the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, it is now open season on software patents.

US High Court Opens Door To More (And Older) Copyright Suits

Music, movie, and television companies suffered a major defeat yesterday, when the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The ruling will lead to a flood of new copyright infringement suits against these content companies, according to many experts. And content companies may not be the only losers.

Copyright Ruling In US May Impair Free Speech

The 9th Circuit’s recent decision in Garcia v. Google has sparked outrage among many internet businesses, media organisations, civil rights groups, and copyright experts. They assert the ruling significantly alters US law in a manner that will greatly restrict free speech. But a minority of experts say there is nothing to fear.