A Case for the CASE Act
I knew it would only be a matter of time before the excitement of the CASE Act would be met with a long list of disadvantages and loopholes.
I just didn’t imagine it would be this soon, and maybe this is not new information for copyright law experts.
But despite the skepticism, and the obvious limitations of the CASE Act in receiving, arguably the “full benefits” (statutory damages, attorney’s fee etc.) of copyright ownership, I remain hopeful the CASE Act will bridge the access to justice gap that generally plagues the IP field.
So, yes, as the article mentions, there is a potential for abuse by copyright “trolls” and the relief may not be as extensive as would be awarded through the federal court system, but the CASE Act will likely serve as the only place for everyday copyright owners to enforce their rights and receive relief.
It is too premature to elect the pitfalls or other downfalls of other intellectual property process’ onto the system proposed for the CASE Act. Stopping the CASE Act before it starts, deprives copyright owners the opportunity to have a judicial remedy for relief besides expensive litigation.
One key piece that is not taken into account by CASE Act skeptics is that larger copyright owners or those being brought to copyright small claims court may elect to litigate there because it would significantly decrease their cost as well as cap the amount of relief.
The CASE Act has the potential to be a win-win situation more than it presents the opportunity for abuse. It may also decrease the amount of cases taht are brought in federal court.
After all, isn’t the aim of Intellectual property law to encourage and incentive creation for all?
It’s high time that intellectual property law protect all copyright owners and not just those who have the financial resources and business acumen to initiate high-priced litigation.
Maybe we can all agree that Instead of cutting the CASE Act down before it begins, how about giving it the opportunity to be developed into a system that has the potential to benefit copyright law as a whole.
We can make adjustments along the way.
A response to this article:
