Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Can Congress make it all better? If “it” is something as complicated as the ongoing struggle to adapt copyright law to the challenges of the digital age, the answer is probably no. As the Congressional Budget Office pointed out this summer, forbearance can be a sound legislative strategy. Sometimes it’s wiser to wait and see what a motivated market and advancing technology will create before proposing a statutory solution. But lawmakers are not innately wait-and-see kind of people. Neither are industry lobbyists. So Congress has drafted many proposals to “fix” copyright law. This issue of Legal Times’ IPlooks at several intellectual property bills pending before Congress. Public interest advocate Gigi Sohn warns that the so-called Induce Act would make it too easy to allege infringement (” Radical Act Would Induce Big Chill“). Practitioner Jonathan Band describes the push for the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act — an effort (ironically) to adjust copyright law in light of the last major effort to adjust copyright law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (” How to Temper the Excesses of the DMCA“). Practitioner Gianna Arnold looks at the ongoing debate over sui generis database protection (” Databases Seek Legislative Shield“). And Bruce Lehman, the former head of the Patent and Trademark Office, suggests that there’s been more sound and fury over the DMCA than the facts call for (” Former PTO Chief Pokes At DMCA Fallout“). All this debate seems to boil down to a very simple question: Between creators, competitors, and consumers, what’s fair? This fall, the Supreme Court will address another issue of fairness — in trademark law. While the parties involved, like the players in the digital content debate, are stretching technology in new ways — permanent eyeliner, to be exact — the legal problem is more traditional. In the case of KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impression, the Court is asked to decide when using one party’s descriptive mark to describe another party’s product is permissible. W. Mack Webner lays it out in ” A Fair Description?“ — Elizabeth Engdahl Managing Editor

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.