Author Archives: Christina Frangiosa

New “Personal Information Privacy” Legislation Introduced

by Christina Frangiosa

On January 8, 2014, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) re-introduced a personal privacy protection bill intended “to prevent and mitigate identity theft, to ensure privacy, to provide notice of security breaches, and to enhance criminal penalties, law enforcement assistance, and other protections against security breaches, fraudulent access, and misuse of personally identifiable information.”  Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2014, S. 1897 at preamble (introduced Jan. 8, 2014).  Sen. Leahy introduced prior versions of this bill in 2005, and in each of the four Congresses since.  Press Release, “Leahy Reintroduces Data Privacy Legislation,” Jan. 8, 2014.

Sen. Leahy’s published summary of the bill provides a detailed list of the key components.  There are two principal titles in this bill:  1) Enhancing Punishment for Identity Theft and Other Violations of Data Privacy and Security; and 2) Privacy and Security of Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”).  (There is a third title, relating to compliance with a statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, but the text is a short paragraph and just relates to budget compliance.)  See Leahy’s Section-By-Section Analysis of the Bill.

Continue reading …

Index of Articles in 2013

by Christina Frangiosa

Well, 2013 turned out to be a very busy year (on a personal level, so there aren’t as many articles posted here during the year!), and 2014 promises to be very interesting. Given the public debates about copyright reform, we will probably be covering copyright law more than previously. However, the 1976 version of the Copyright Act took over two decades to finalize (“In fact, former Register of Copyrights Barbara Ringer, who had worked closely with Congress for much of the 1976 revision process, later called it a ‘good 1950 copyright law.'” from March 20, 2013 Speech By Maria Pallante), so I do not expect that all of the issues raised about digital publication and distribution (among others) will be resolved overnight.

We expect to see more proposals on the trademark side as well, although it’s likely that members of Congress may avoid controversial issues this year. As a result, it is hard to predict whether we expect to see any revisions to the COICA/PIPA/SOPA drafts (relating to counterfeiting by predatory foreign websites), given that these proposals each had their own challenges in public debate.

I look forward to your comments in the coming year, and wish you all the best in your own practices! Continue reading …

New Copyright Proposal Addresses Performance Rights

by Christina Frangiosa

According to the BNA, Rep. Melvin L. Watt (D-NC) introduced the Free Market Royalty Act (H.R. 3219) on September 30, 2013.  See “Rep. Melvin Watt Introduces Bill to Create Performance Right for Recording Artists,” BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal – Daily Update, No. 191 (Oct. 2, 2013).  Rep. Watt stated that this bill provides “a ‘performance right’ that will obligate AM/FM radio stations to compensate performers for the use of their music just as cable, satellite and internet radio are obligated to do.”  Press Release, “Congressman Watt’s Statement on the Introduction of H.R. 3219, the Free Market Royalty Act,” October 1, 2013.  (Note that the index of Rep. Watt’s press releases indicates that this was issued on October 1.  The release itself shows no date.  Congress.gov indicates it was introduced on September 30, and has already been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.)

Rep. Watt explains that under current law, when an AM or FM station plays a song, the composer and the publisher both receive royalties and the performer does not.  Press Release.  This bill proposes to level that playing field, and put compensation for music broadcasting on par with international counterparts.  Id.
As of this writing, there are no co-sponsors to the bill.  The text of the bill has not been received by the Library of Congress to post on its website, which states instead:

Continue reading …

IPEC Victoria Espinel Steps Down

by Christina Frangiosa

Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, has stepped down from her position, effective Friday, August 9, 2013. Andrew Ramonas, “White House IP Chief Victoria Espinel Steps Down,” Corporate Counsel, Aug. 13, 2013. Until a new IPEC is officially named, Howard Shelanski, administrator of the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, will act as Interim IPEC. Id.

According to Corporate Counsel, “Congress created the intellectual property enforcement coordinator post in the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (text), and the Senate confirmed Espinel as the coordinator in December 2009. She previously was an IP law professor at George Mason University School of Law and the first assistant U.S. trade representative for intellectual property and innovation.” Id. Continue reading …

USPTO Extends Deadline for Voluntary Best Practices Study

by Christina Frangiosa

The USPTO recently requested comment from the public on the topic of “processes, data metrics, and methodologies that could be used to assess the effectiveness of cooperative agreements and other voluntary initiatives to reduce intellectual property infringement that occurs on-line—such as copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting.” See Prior Blog Post, White House Releases Second Joint Strategic Plan for IP Enforcement (June 20, 2013). The original deadline for comment was July 22, 2013.

On July 17, 2013, the USPTO extended the deadline until August 21, 2013.

Interested parties should respond to the current regulation (Fed. Reg. No. 2013-17166, see explanation in “Voluntary Best Practices Study; Extension of Comment Period“) and include the information itemized in the original request (Fed. Reg. No. 2013-37210).