The Copyright Office is extending to March 30 the comment deadline for its study on how existing U.S. law protects the moral rights of attribution and integrity. The study, initiated in January, will examine whether changes in U.S. law are needed to protect moral rights (see 1701230061). Replies are now due May 15, the CO said in a notice set to run in Thursday's Federal Register. The CO separately said in Wednesday's Federal Register it's withdrawing a portion of its final rule allowing an author, claimant to a copyright or representatives to ask the office to remove “extraneous and unnecessary” personally identifiable information from online versions of their copyright application (see 1702020030). The CO said it was withdrawing it because a separate rule that adopted technical amendments to the office’s regulations for registration, recordation, licensing and other services (see 1702060043) already updated some of the rules changes.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Monday a 2015 Jacksonville district court ruling that granted cruise line Royal Caribbean a default judgment against Cruise Traffic over the latter's cybersquatting of two domain names -- RoyalCaribean.com and RoyalCarribean.com. Royal Caribbean filed an in rem lawsuit against Cruise Traffic under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, claiming Cruise Traffic used the two domain names to “wrongfully profit” from the cruise line’s reputation. The Jacksonville court granted a default judgment against Cruise Traffic when Royal Caribbean’s notice to the address for Jai George, the domains’ original listed registrant, went undelivered because the address included on registration documents was no longer correct. Royal Caribbean also attempted to contact Bindu Joseph, George’s sister-in-law, to whom George transferred registration of the domains. Cruise Traffic appealed, claiming the Jacksonville court didn’t have in rem jurisdiction and Royal Caribbean didn’t exercise due diligence in its attempts to contact Joseph. A three-judge 11th Circuit panel ruled per curiam that the Jacksonville court was correct in saying “Royal Caribbean would be prejudiced by the continued use of the Domain Names. This determination was supported by evidence the Domain Names diverted customers attempting to book cruises directly through Royal Caribbean to third-party agents, to whom Royal Caribbean then paid a commission. In other words, Royal Caribbean incurred additional expenses due to the use of the Domain Names.” Judges Lanier Anderson, Stanley Marcus and Beverly Martin heard the case. They panel ruled that the Jacksonville court did have jurisdiction and said it was “unpersuaded” by Cruise Traffic’s claim that Royal Caribbean didn’t exercise proper due diligence. “Royal Caribbean did all that it was required by statute when it sent notice to Joseph via mail and email and published notice,” the 11th Circuit said in its opinion. It said Cruise Traffic couldn't be considered a “registrant or authorized licensee” because that issue was not raised at the Jacksonville court. Royal Caribbean and Cruise Traffic didn’t comment.

The European Parliament Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee deleted a proposed pan-EU ancillary copyright aimed at allowing publishers to claim royalties from news aggregation services like Google News (see 1609140010), in a published draft opinion Thursday on the European Commission's proposed copyright directive for the digital single market. The proposed ancillary right drew flack from the Computer and Communications Industry Association, Center for Democracy and Technology, CTA, Mozilla and other U.S. stakeholders (see 1608290062, 1609060078, 1609120026 and 1609150053). Catherine Stihler, MEP for Scotland, deleted the ancillary or “publisher's right” in the draft opinion, saying it lacked “sufficient justification.” Some EU-based groups also opposed keeping the ancillary right in the copyright directive, saying this month it was “fundamentally misconceived.” The EP committee's draft opinion also amends language on intermediary liability and filtering, adds a user-generated content exception to copyright, and broadens the scope of the copyright exception for text and data mining. CCIA “welcomes” the EP committee's draft opinion as a “good first step in the right direction,” said Europe Public Policy Manager Maud Sacquet in a news release. “CCIA urges the Parliament and Member States to follow this first step, to stand up for the deletion of the publishers’ right in the EU and to go even further by entirely deleting all provisions undermining the e-Commerce Directive.”

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed amicus briefs Wednesday urging the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm a 2015 District Court ruling in New Bern, North Carolina, that World Programming Limited (WPL) didn't infringe the copyright on SAS Institute’s software. A federal jury awarded SAS more than $79 million in damages after deciding WPL engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by reverse engineering SAS’ software. Judge Louise Flanagan issued a summary judgment that WPL hadn't violated the copyright on SAS’ software because WPL only reverse engineered the SAS software’s functionality. CCIA and EFF argued that affirmance of the court decision would help maintain the precedent that copyright doesn’t protect interfaces needed for interoperability. “A company that exercised proprietary control over its products’ interfaces could dictate which products made by other firms -- if any -- could interoperate with its software,” CCIA said. “This would extend statutory rights far beyond what is necessary to protect the original expressive elements to which copyright has traditionally attached. It would also override limitations on copyright crafted to protect the public good.” The Internet Association and Engine also signed onto CCIA’s brief. Circuit courts have for decades said Copyright Act Section 102 “does not cover the processes, systems, and methods of operation that [a programmer’s source] code may employ to interface with other software,” EFF said in its brief (in Pacer). “If SAS’s view had been accepted at the birth of modern computing, many important technologies would never have existed or succeeded.”

Public Interest Registry said it will indefinitely pause “further development” of its planned Systemic Copyright Infringement Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy (SCDRP) amid stakeholder scrutiny. PIR, the domain registry for the .org top-level domain, was developing SCDRP in concert with the Domain Name Association’s development of its Copyright Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy, a voluntary third-party mechanism akin to ICANN’s trademark-centric uniform dispute resolution policy that would address copyright infringement through the use of domain names (see 1702080085). The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Internet Commerce Association were among stakeholders criticizing DNA’s proposal and seeking further information on PIR’s plans (see 1702100054 and 1702170058). PIR said Thursday it paused development of SCDRP to “reflect on those concerns and consider forward steps.”

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and other tech sector stakeholders urged the Copyright Office not to recommend sweeping changes to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512’s notice-and-takedown process and the statute's safe harbors, as expected (see 1702210059). The CO reported receiving 77 comments through midnight Tuesday on its second round of questions on the study of Section 512, which targeted questions on how Section 512 balances the need to foster online innovation and the rights of the content industry. The CO sought input on how policymakers should factor divergent views on the efficacy of Section 512’s safe harbors and divergent views on how to update the statute (see 1611080021). “Because online content such as commentary and parody may require using pre-existing content in ways permitted by limitations and exceptions, ‘stay-down’ obligations are likely to lead to suppression of content making lawful use of works that were previously the subject of takedown demands,” CCIA said in its filing. Re:Create Coalition said Section 512 helped foster a “growing and important class of ‘new creators,’” and “failing to listen to them would be to ignore the core mission of the Copyright Office and any government entity -- to serve the public.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation said a “filtering mandate would not be the minor change to existing law that the anodyne phrase ‘notice-and-stay-down’ suggests, but would rather dismantle the careful balance reflected in the DMCA.” Policymakers “should be wary of tampering with the delicate balance of the current regime, which could jeopardize the rights of both copyright holders and users while also undermining the foundations of the digital economy,” said the R Street Institute and the Center for Democracy and Technology in their joint comments. “Absent these protections, online services and access providers would feel compelled to strictly monitor or restrict their customers' activity for fear of litigation, likely leading to the suppression of significant amounts of protected speech.”

A coalition of industry and right-leaning groups and officials urged President Donald Trump's administration Tuesday to implement pro-IP rights policies and practices. Former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, ACT-The App Association, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council and NetCompetition were among the entities that signed the open letter. The administration should protect IP rights through “effective” provisions in trade agreements that use the “lure of access to the U.S. market” as an “incentive to convince trading partners they should increase” their IP rights protections, the groups said. The administration should consider IP protection “integral” to consumer protection and national security, the groups said. IP protection is also a “critically important” complement to internet freedom since both allow for a “truly free community” in which “people can engage in legitimate activities safely, and where bad actors are held accountable,” the groups said. They also encouraged promotion of voluntary initiatives that allow good-faith actors to work within the private sector “to address illegal conduct. These voluntary efforts can empower consumers to make educated decisions about their online activities and encourage creativity, innovation, investment and jobs.”

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.

The Copyright Alliance, DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) and Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator (AACS LA) and video filtering company ClearPlay support various content companies in VidAngel's appeal of a U.S. District Court's preliminary injunction (see 1702100010). There are other routes to providing filtered video content than via violations of copyright owners' rights, the Copyright Alliance said in an amicus brief (in Pacer) filed Wednesday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It warned of VidAngel's arguments having a ripple effect across copyright law. The Copyright Alliance said VidAngel's argument that since it bought the video content, it can do what it wants to it "is a mutant form of the first sale doctrine in Section 109 of the Copyright Act." The AnyDVD and AnyDVD HD device drivers used by VidAngel to rip video content "are unlawful circumvention tools" banned by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's Section 1201 and related anti-circumvention laws in other countries, DVD CCA/AACS LA said in an amicus brief (in Pacer) Wednesday. VidAngel's attempt to legitimize its offering also would legitimize such illegal circumvention software, they said. The groups said VidAngel hasn't sought from the Library of Congress a Section 1201 circumvention protection exemption, and the LoC has twice rejected exemptions for format-shifting, which VidAngel claims its service performs. ClearPlay, in its amicus brief Tuesday, said its own service doesn't circumvent access controls or make copies of copyrighted material or make unlawful public performance, thus demonstrating those steps can't credibly be claimed as necessary: "Whatever the legality of VidAngel’s process, it cannot be based on VidAngel’s unauthorized conduct being essential for video filtering." Counsel for VidAngel didn't comment Friday.

Technicolor filed a series of patent infringement complaints against Samsung in France and Germany, Technicolor said in a Wednesday announcement. Ten Technicolor patents are at issue in the complaints covering video coding, telecom and “other associated technologies,” Technicolor said. The complaints involve a “range” of Samsung products, including mobile phones and TVs, it said. Technicolor held “extensive negotiations” with Samsung “to reach a fair agreement,” but decided to take legal action “to protect itself and defend the value of its intellectual property,” it said. Samsung representatives didn’t comment.