The Copyright Alliance and CreativeFuture headed an open letter to elected officials Tuesday urging them to “embrace a strong copyright system” and ensure that U.S. copyright laws “protect creatives from those who would use the internet to undermine creativity.” Both content-side groups have been active in lobbying on copyright legislative issues as the House Judiciary Committee moved forward in its copyright law review. The letter, which CA claims was endorsed by more than 70,000 content-side stakeholders, also urges policymakers to include them as “part of the conversation” on copyright issues. “There is no 'left' or 'right' when it comes to respecting copyright,” the letter said. “The creative community stands united in support of a copyright system that will continue to make the United States the global leader in the creative arts and the global paradigm for free expression.”

The Copyright Royalty Board said Friday it “will not entertain filings related to distribution” of the Digital Audio Recording Technology (DART) Musical Works and Sound Recordings royalty funds “until further notice.” The DART funds are now “depleted,” with royalties qualifying for the DART fund having “declined dramatically” during 2016, CRB said. The funds are so depleted the royalty amounts “deposited are insufficient to cover the costs of managing the DART funds and subfunds and distributing royalties to claimants,” the board said. Ongoing litigation on its interpretation of DART provisions in the Copyright Act “might result in additional royalty deposits in the future,” CRB said. Parties intending to claim DART royalties for 2017 and beyond should continue to file timely claims, with the window for 2017 claims Jan. 1-Feb. 28, 2018, CRB said.

The Copyright Alliance is supporting member Oracle in the company’s appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals of a San Francisco federal jury’s 2016 verdict that Google’s fair use defense for its use of the coding and names contained in Oracle's Java application programming interface (API) technology in its Android mobile operating system qualifies as a transformative fair use (see 1605260067). Oracle argued in its opening brief earlier this month that it believes the Federal Circuit should overturn the San Francisco jury’s verdict because Judge William Alsup “repeatedly undermined Oracle's case” in a way that caused the jury to wrongly find in Google’s favor (see 1702130043). The San Francisco jury’s verdict “is deeply concerning for the artists, authors, software developers, and other creators who rely on the copyright laws to protect their livelihoods,” the CA said in an amicus brief: “In holding that Google’s use of Oracle’s API packages constituted fair use, the district court” erred in its fair use analysis. “The district court’s legal errors, if applied to other types of works, would be particularly problematic for small businesses and individuals, including many of the Copyright Alliance’s members,” the group said. Several other groups also filed amicus briefs on Oracle’s behalf, including BSA|The Software Alliance and the Competitive Carriers Association. MPAA, the Independent Film & Television Alliance and Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists filed a joint brief for Oracle. RIAA and the Association of American Publishers filed for Oracle, as did a coalition of photographers’ groups led by the Digital Media Licensing Association.

MPAA and the Software and Information Industry Association lauded reintroduction Tuesday of the Copyright Office for the Digital Economy Act (HR-890). The bill would separate the CO from the Library of Congress but keep it within the legislative branch (see 1702070045). CO “modernization enjoys bipartisan, bicameral support, as evidenced by” a CO-centric proposal from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and committee ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich. (see 1701310047), said MPAA CEO Chris Dodd in a statement. The Goodlatte/Conyers proposal suggested giving the office more autonomy from the LOC (see 1612080061 and 1612220048). Dodd also cited “statements from” Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and former committee ranking member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. HR-890 “represents the bipartisan consensus that the way that the Copyright Office has operated in the past is no longer viable,” said SIIA Senior Vice President-Public Policy Mark MacCarthy in a statement.

The Copyright Office issued a final rule Thursday allowing an author, claimant to a copyright or representative to ask the office to remove “extraneous and unnecessary” personally identifiable information from online versions of their copyright's application. PII that's eligible for removal includes driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, banking information and credit card information, the CO said in a notice in the Federal Register. The CO agreed to a recommendation from the National Center for Transgender Equality that the office modify the rule as proposed in a September NPRM (see 1609150010) to also allow authors and claimants to replace their names in the online record amid concerns that including a transgender person's birth name in the online record could jeopardize that person's well-being. The CO declined to adopt recommendations by the National Writers Union and others seeking to eliminate the requirement that an alternative physical address be used in place of a primary address in public online registration records. Copyright Act Section 409 clearly requires that “the claimant must provide a physical mailing address -- not an electronic mailing address,” the CO said: The office has always advised applicants to “think carefully before providing a claimant’s personal physical address, and are instead encouraged to provide a third-party agent’s address, a post office box, or a non-personal email address.” It declined requests to modify a proposed $130 fee for requests to remove extraneous PII or the $60 fee for requests for reconsideration of previously denied PII removal requests.

The Copyright Office extended to Feb. 21 the deadline for submitting comments on its second round of questions on the office's study of Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512's notice-and-takedown process and the section's safe harbors. Stakeholders can submit empirical studies related to Section 512 through March 22, the CO said in Friday's Federal Register. The second round of questions is on balance in the internet ecosystem and how lawmakers should factor diverging views of the efficacy of Section 512's safe harbors. The CO also sought comment on recommendations for modifying Section 512 to reflect changes to copyright case law (see 1611080021).

The Copyright Royalty Board said Tuesday it received a notice from SoundExchange of its intent to audit SiriusXM's 2013-2015 royalty payment statements for its webcasting and digital satellite radio services. SoundExchange monitors royalty payments for Sirius and other services as part of its role in distributing royalties to copyright owners and performers under Copyright Act section 112 and 114 licenses, CRB said in a notice in the Federal Register. CRB said it also received a notice from SoundExchange about its intent to audit the 2013-2015 royalty payment statements submitted by broadcasters Cox Radio and Hubbard Broadcasting. The board separately sought comments on motions requesting partial distribution of 2010-2013 retransmission royalty payments from the cable and satellite royalty funds. MPAA, NAB, NPR, PBS and other claimants jointly agreed that the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Broadcast Music Inc., and the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers should receive 3.5 percent of the 2010-2013 royalties from the satellite fund. The performing rights organizations should also receive 3.5 percent of royalties from the cable fund for 2010-2011, and 3.55 percent of royalties for 2012-2013, claimants said. NPR should receive 0.16 percent of the 2010-2013 royalties from the cable fund, claimants said. Comments on both redistribution motions are due Feb. 22, CRB said.

CBS Studios and Paramount Pictures settled their copyright infringement lawsuit against the makers of a Star Trek fan film (see 1609300002), said a joint stipulation (in Pacer) of voluntary dismissal filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Terms weren't disclosed.

Global Music Rights filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia seeking to dismiss the Radio Music License Committee's antitrust lawsuit against the performing rights organization or to transfer the venue. RMLC sued in November (see 1611210011), claiming GMR was seeking “monopoly” licensing rates from member terrestrial radio stations that are about three times the fees paid by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and Broadcast Music Inc. GMR subsequently sued RMLC in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on antitrust claims (see 1612090062). The entities reached a temporary licensing agreement in late December that didn't end their suits (see 1612270052). GMR said in Friday's motion (in Pacer) that the Philadelphia court is an improper forum for litigating RMLC's claims, and also doesn't have “personal jurisdiction” over the Los Angeles-based PRO. RMLC's claim fails to include any “direct evidence” of “actual prices” to back up its claim about GMR's market power, the PRO said. “This defect is critical, since market power is the ability to 'control prices' without forfeiting market share,” GMR said. “RMLC has not alleged that GMR controls market prices, much less that it could profitably do so.” RMLC's claims rest only on licensing offers “that GMR allegedly made in the course of unsuccessful negotiations,” the PRO said. “Market power cannot be inferred from price demands that were rejected.” RMLC's pursuit of a rate court process for GMR's licensing prices “would stifle competition, neutralize GMR as a competitor in the music licensing market, rewrite the Copyright Act, and usurp the legislative prerogative of Congress, since the Copyright Act expressly does not require a compulsory license or rate for public performance licenses of compositions,” GMR said. RMLC didn't comment Monday.

The Copyright Office is initiating a study on how existing U.S. law protects the moral rights of attribution and integrity, it said Monday. The CO had been expected to initiate a formal analysis of the moral rights issue after it held a symposium on the topic last year. House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., also sought the study (see 1604180069). Stakeholders said then that a formal analysis of moral rights probably won’t lead to the CO changing its position on how U.S. law should deal with moral rights to satisfy the requirements of the Berne Convention (see 1604150074). The moral rights study will examine whether changes in U.S. law are needed to protect moral rights, the CO said in Monday's Federal Register. The House and Senate Judiciary committees previously accepted that moral rights are protected under the Lanham Act and other statutes. The CO sought feedback on how effective those existing laws are in protecting moral rights and whether updates to those laws are needed. The CO sought feedback on how “stronger protections” for either the right of attribution or the right of integrity would affect the First Amendment. The office also sought input on possible exceptions to an explicit moral rights statute, and possible voluntary actions to strengthen moral rights protections. Comments are due March 9, replies April 24.