`
`No. 17-571
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`_______________
`
`FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`WALL-STREET.COM, LLC, ET AL.,
`Respondents.
`
`
`On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
`_______________
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE
`R STREET INSTITUTE AS AMICI CURIAE IN
`SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
`
`
`CHARLES DUAN
`HAROLD FELD
`R STREET INSTITUTE
` Counsel of Record
`1212 New York
`MEREDITH F. ROSE
` AVE NW Ste 900
`PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
`Washington, DC
`1818 N Street NW Ste 410
` 20005
`Washington, DC 20036
`202-525-5717
`202-861-0020
`cduan@rstreet.org
`hfeld@publicknowledge.org
`Counsel for Public Knowledge Counsel for R Street
`
`
`
`Institute
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`of Suit Will Leave the Register Incomplete and
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................... I
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... II
`INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .......................... 1
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 2
`ARGUMENT ............................................................. 5
`I. Permitting the Filing of Registration on the Eve
`Inconsistent ....................................................... 5
`II. Public Policy Favors a Complete and
`Comprehensive Public Record of Ownership ... 7
`A. The Registration Record Is Only Valuable
`To The Extent That It Is Complete ........... 7
`B. Incentives Aimed Toward Comprehensive
`Orphan Works ............................................ 9
`III. Congress Has Consistently Sought to Promote
`Discourage Delayed Registration.................... 13
`A. Congress Explicitly Sought To Prevent
`Delayed Registration ................................ 13
`B. Congress Deliberately Preserved
`Registration To Promote A Public Record14
`CONCLUSION ....................................................... 16
`
`Registration Ameliorate the Problem of
`
`the Completeness of the Public Record and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Silvers v. Russell, 113 F. Supp. 119 (1953) ............ 11
`Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S.
`30 (1939)................................................................ 5
`
`Cases
`Statutes
`Other Authorities
`
`An Act to Amend and Consolidate the Acts
`Respecting Copyright, ch. 320, 35 Stat. 1075
`(1909)................................................................... 13
`
`Alan Latman, Study 19: The Recordation of
`Copyright Assignments and Licenses, in
`COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION: STUDIES PREPARED FOR
`THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS,
`AND COPYRIGHTS 111 (1956) ............................... 14
`Arthur J. Levine & Jeffrey L. Squires, Notice,
`Deposit and Registration: The Importance of
`Being Formal, 24 UCLA L. REV. 1232 (1977) .... 13
`Cassidy R. Sugimoto, The Academic Advantage:
`Gender Disparities in Patenting, 10 PLoSONE 5
`(2015) .................................................................... 9
`CPI Inflation Calculator, U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR
`STAT., https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (last
`visited Sep. 21, 2018). ......................................... 12
`H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476 (1976) ................................ 12
`INT'L FED'N OF THE PHONOGRAPHIC INDUS., Investing
`in Music: The Value of Record Companies (2016)
` ............................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Kyle Jensen et al., Gender Differences in Obtaining
`and Maintaining Patent Rights, 36 NATURE
`BIOTECHNOLOGY 307 (2018)................................ 10
`Louis Johnston & Samuel H. Williamson, What
`Was the U.S. GDP Then?, MeasuringWorth
`(2018), https:// www. measuringworth. com/
`datasets/ usgdp/ result. php ................................. 6
`Maria A. Pallante, The Curious Case of Copyright
`Formalities, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 1415 (2013)
` ............................................................................... 7
`MARIA A. PALLANTE, U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE,
`Orphan Works and Mass Digitization: A Report
`of the Register of Copyrights 35 (2015). ........... 8, 9
`MARYBETH PETERS, U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, Report
`on Orphan Works (2006). ................................. 7, 8
`RECORDING INDUS. ASS'N OF AM., Labels At Work:
`The Music Business in the Digital Age (2018) ..... 6
`STEPHEN E. SIWEK, Copyright Industries in the U.S.
`Economy (International Intellectual Property
`Alliance 2014) ....................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
`Public Knowledge1
`is
`a
`non-profit
`organization that is dedicated to preserving the
`public’s access to knowledge, promoting creativity
`through balanced intellectual property rights, and
`upholding and protecting the rights of consumers to
`use
`innovative
`technology
`lawfully. Public
`Knowledge advocates on behalf of the public
`interest
`for a balanced
`copyright
`system,
`particularly with respect to new and emerging
`technologies.
`The R Street Institute is a non-profit, non-
`partisan public-policy research organization. R
`Street’s mission is to engage in policy research and
`educational outreach that promotes free markets,
`as well as
`limited yet effective government,
`including properly calibrated legal and regulatory
`frameworks that support economic growth and
`individual liberty.
`
`
`
`1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3(a), this
`brief is submitted under parties’ blanket consents
`of Jul 24-25, 2018. Pursuant to Rule 37.6, no
`counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or
`in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary
`contribution intended to fund the preparation or
`submission of the brief. No person or entity, other
`than amicus, its members, or its counsel, made a
`monetary contribution to the preparation or
`submission of this brief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The Court should be wary of Petitioner’s
`“application
`approach”
`to
`the
`registration
`requirement of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), as it severely
`limits the incentive structure, policy rationale, and
`stated Congressional intent underlying § 411(a)’s
`registration
`requirement. By
`contrast,
`the
`“registration approach,” adopted by the court
`below, provides better outcomes on all three fronts.
`The Court has before
`it two opposing
`interpretations of § 411(a)’s registration language.
`Petitioners contend that “registration” for the
`purposes of this section occurs at the moment of
`filing, while respondents argue that a work is only
`“registered” once its application has been accepted
`or rejected by the Register of Copyrights. Aside
`from parties’ rhetorical incongruity, these two
`visions of registration manifest two completely
`different incentive structures, with a rational actor
`approaching registration differently in each case.
`By withholding the ability to litigate until after the
`Register
`of Copyrights has
`completed
`the
`registration process, the “registration approach”
`espoused by respondents encourages prompt,
`prophylactic registration well in advance of any
`potential
`litigation. In essence,
`it creates a
`deterrent against skipping—or untimely making—
`registration of a work. Conversely, the application
`approach treats registration as a litigation “step
`zero” whose value is limited only to cases where an
`infringement has occurred and litigation is desirous
`(or inevitable).
`This is at odds with the fundamental policy
`rationale of registration, namely maintaining a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`in
`comprehensive public record of ownership
`copyrighted works (a category that grows larger
`with each passing revision of the statute). The size,
`scope, and growth rate of copyright-reliant
`industries makes this uniquely important. That
`same boom growth amplifies the risks posed by
`orphan works—those works whose owners, due to
`an incomplete or untimely public record, cannot be
`determined, and which represent a substantial,
`endemic risk to the licensing marketplace.
`In addition to forestalling those dangers, the
`data provided by a robust public record can prove
`exceedingly useful to researchers and policymakers,
`as demonstrated by
`the
`insightful research
`conducted on the Patent and Trademark Office’s
`public datasets. This is uniquely important to
`anyone seeking to study the dynamics creative
`industries, where complex legal regimes, poor
`historical recordkeeping, and opaque business
`practices create a dearth of reliable data.
`When drafting the 1976 Act, Congress was
`well aware of the risks that removing formalities
`posed to the public record. By preserving and
`modifying the registration requirement into its
`modern form, Congress expressly sought not to
`erase, but to
`improve upon the 1909 Act’s
`mandatory registration system as a tool of public
`record keeping. Missing and tardy registrations
`were a well-documented problem by 1976, and the
`legislative record shows that Congress actively
`sought to ameliorate the problem by the provisions
`of the new Act.
`In light of these logical incentives, policy
`rationales, and the stated Congressional intent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`underlying § 411(a)’s registration requirement, the
`Court should uphold the decision below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`ARGUMENT
`Registration of a work with the United
`States Copyright Office,
`though no
`longer
`prerequisite for copyright protection, continues to
`serve an
`important
`function
`in the modern
`licensing market. When correctly implemented and
`maintained, registration provides a public record of
`ownership, tracking who owns what works, and
`thus providing potential licensees with information
`that is both practically and legally indispensable to
`making use of the work.
`The notion that the provisions of 17 USC §
`411 are nothing more than a vestigial remnant of
`the old system ignore both the public policy
`rationale underlying modern
`formalities, and
`Congress’s explicit
`intent
`in
`crafting
`those
`formalities. Not only are modern formalities more
`critical than ever, but they were explicitly designed
`to encourage greater and more comprehensive
`registration than occurred under the old system—
`an outcome that can only be meaningfully achieved
`by upholding the “registration approach” adopted
`by the court below.
`
`
`I.
`
`PERMITTING THE FILING OF REGISTRATION
`ON THE EVE OF SUIT WILL LEAVE THE
`REGISTER INCOMPLETE AND INCONSISTENT
`Petitioners’ view—that
`the benefits of
`registration are available
`immediately upon
`application to the Copyright Office—treats the
`registration requirement as little more than a
`strategic prelude to litigation, rather than a
`reflection of a Congressional policy to encourage a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`public record. A rational actor in this scenario
`would only seek to register their works once (1) an
`infringement has occurred, and (2) the rightsholder
`has decided to litigate. This skews incentives away
`from proactive
`registration;
`indeed, absent
`imminent litigation, a rational rightsholder has
`little incentive to invest the requisite time and
`money to register.
`Under this approach, the record created by
`registration is substantially diminished: Rather
`than being a substantially comprehensive list of
`ownership, the record reduces down to those works
`which have been, or will soon be, litigated. This is a
`far cry from the full public record that Congress
`sought to achieve by the incentives structure
`embodied in the 1976 Act.
`Respondents’ view, by contrast, incentivizes
`a wider range of rightsholders to register before the
`potential for litigation looms. As noted below,
`Congress explicitly designed the 1976 Act, with its
`penalties for non-registration and delay, with the
`intent “to produce a more effective deposit system
`than the present [mandatory] one.” H.R. Rep. No.
`94–1476, at 150. If
`infringement suits can
`commence only after the Register has examined the
`work and issued a certificate, then creators have
`greater incentive to submit their registration as
`close in time to the moment of fixation as
`possible—in other words, to create a near-
`contemporaneous entry in the public record of their
`ownership.
`This is a feature, not a bug. By encouraging
`copyright holders
`to preemptively
`file
`for
`registration
`rather
`than waiting until an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`encourages
`statute
`the
`lawsuit,
`impending
`registration by a wider swath of creators—all who
`might possibly want to file suit in the future, rather
`than only those who will actually sue. This most
`clearly effectuates a holistic, comprehensive public
`record of ownership.
`II.
`PUBLIC POLICY FAVORS A COMPLETE AND
`COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC RECORD OF
`OWNERSHIP
`
`A.
`
`The Registration Record Is Only
`Valuable To The Extent That It Is
`Complete
`As software, news reporting, and other
`copyright-protected works have grown more central
`to the American economy, the importance of a
`licensee’s ability to easily identify owners of these
`works, and to license these works, has also grown.
`As early as 1939, Justice Black noted:
`
`It is of far greater importance to the
`public today than it was in 1790, 1831,
`1870, or 1891, that public record be
`made of copyright monopolies granted
`to further the arts and sciences, since
`these privileges have been extended
`by statute to include almost every
`conceivable type of production of the
`human mind.
`Washingtonian Publ’g Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S. 30,
`54 (1939)) (Black, J., dissenting). That importance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`has grown not only due to the increased scope of
`copyright-protectable works, but also due to their
`economic impact.
`The copyright-dependent segments of the
`economy are large, and fast-moving. According to
`one industry study, industries that depend on
`copyright licensing accounted for over $1.9 trillion
`of U.S. GDP in 2013—an economic impact orders of
`magnitude greater than the total GDP at the time
`of the 1790 Act. STEPHEN E. SIWEK, Copyright
`Industries in the U.S. Economy 2 (International
`Intellectual Property Alliance 2014); Louis
`Johnston & Samuel H. Williamson, What Was the
`U.S. GDP Then?, MeasuringWorth (2018), https://
`www. measuringworth. com/ datasets/ usgdp/
`result. php. The recording industry alone contracts
`with over 2,500 domestic streaming services in the
`United States, and licenses over 4 million tracks
`globally. See RECORDING INDUS. ASS'N OF AM.,
`Labels At Work: The Music Business in the Digital
`Age 7 (2018); INT'L FED'N OF THE PHONOGRAPHIC
`INDUS., Investing in Music: The Value of Record
`Companies (2016).
`To comply with the licensing requirements of
`copyright
`law,
`potential
`users—including
`businesses, filmmakers, educational and cultural
`institutions, to name only a few—need robust,
`reliable, and usable information. That in turn
`requires the existence of a comprehensive public
`ledger of protectable works. “The maintenance of a
`complete public record is vital to a functioning
`marketplace
`for
`the
`transfer of
`rights
`in
`copyrighted works and,
`concomitantly,
`their
`exploitation in both original and derivative forms.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Arthur J. Levine & Jeffrey L. Squires, Notice,
`Deposit and Registration: The Importance of Being
`Formal, 24 UCLA L. REV. 1232, 1253 (1977).
`To be useful, the public record must be
`comprehensive; to be comprehensive, it must be
`promptly and regularly updated. Because copyright
`protection inheres at the moment of fixation, the
`onus for maintaining the record’s timeliness falls
`on copyright holders, who hold all the necessary
`information to keep the record up-to-date. “It goes
`without saying that we cannot build a robust and
`accurate database of
`copyright
`title unless
`copyright owners provide the necessary data.”
`Maria A. Pallante, The Curious Case of Copyright
`Formalities, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 1415, 1421
`(2013). A licensee cannot reasonably trust an out-
`of-date record any more than a policy advocate can
`rely on a seven-month-old newspaper.
`
`B.
`
`Toward
`Aimed
`Incentives
`Comprehensive
`Registration
`Ameliorate
`the Problem
`of
`Orphan Works and Generate
`Scientifically and Socially Useful
`Data
`When a potential licensee cannot identify the
`owner of a copyright, they face what is known as an
`“orphan work” problem. An orphan work is one
`where “the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be
`identified and located by someone who wishes to
`make use of the work in a manner that requires
`permission of the copyright owner.” MARYBETH
`PETERS, U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, Report on Orphan
`Works 1 (2006). In these scenarios, “the user cannot
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`identify and/or locate the owner and therefore
`cannot determine whether, or under what
`conditions, he or she may make use of the work.”
`MARIA A. PALLANTE, U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE,
`Orphan Works and Mass Digitization: A Report of
`the Register of Copyrights 35 (2015).
` A potential licensee is faced with a choice:
`find a substitute work (which may not serve their
`needs), or use the orphan work, with a risk that
`“the copyright owner could emerge after the use
`has commenced and seek substantial remedies,
`including
`“substantial
`infringement damages,
`injunctions, and attorneys’ fees.” Id. at 38.
`Orphan works are a known, and much-
`debated problem in copyright: They have been the
`subject of two multi-year Copyright Office studies,
`which referred to their proliferation as a “major
`source of gridlock in the digital marketplace.” Id. at
`35. They have been called “the starkest failure of
`the copyright framework to adapt,” id. at 28, and
`also a “by-product of the United States’ modern
`copyright system [that] has been with us since the
`day the 1976 Act went into effect.” PETERS, supra at
`43.
`
`While the stymieing of one potential licensee
`is a nuisance, the aggregate impact of these
`obstacles is substantial. The burden of orphan
`works is, at present, a “major cause of gridlock in
`the digital marketplace”:
`
`The consequences of this uncertainty
`reverberate through all types of uses
`and users, all types and ages of works,
`and across all creative sectors. By
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`to use a work without
`electing
`permission, users run the risk of an
`infringement
`suit
`resulting
`in
`litigation costs and possible damages.
`By foregoing use of these works, a
`significant part of the world’s cultural
`heritage
`embodied
`in
`copyright-
`protected works may not be exploited
`and may therefore fall into a so-called
`“20th century digital black hole.” This
`outcome is difficult to reconcile with
`the objectives of the copyright system
`and may unduly restrict access to
`millions of works that might otherwise
`be available to the public.
`Pallante, Orphan Works and Mass Digitization,
`supra at 35.
`Not only does spotty registration damage
`search and licensing efforts by users, but it also
`deprives researchers and scientists of useful data.
`The Patent and Trademark Office releases and
`updates comprehensive datasets on its patent and
`trademark filings. These have proven to be fertile
`ground for researchers studying the demographics
`of market participation and innovation. The Office’s
`Patent Claim, Examination, and Assignment
`Datasets have provided a wealth of valuable
`insight. Using these datasets, researchers have
`learned
`that patenting rates among women
`applicants have climbed substantially in the past
`decades. Cassidy R. Sugimoto, The Academic
`Advantage: Gender Disparities in Patenting, 10
`PLoSONE 5 (2015), However, researchers also
`discovered that the gender gap—with women
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`comprising only 10% of patent holders—is strongly
`tied to several structural problems, including
`higher rejections for traditionally female-sounding
`names, as well as systematic disparities in rejection
`rates, limiting language, and appeals outcomes.
`Kyle Jensen et al., Gender Differences in Obtaining
`and Maintaining Patent Rights, 36 NATURE
`BIOTECHNOLOGY 307 (2018).
`Copyright, despite
`its centrality to the
`modern economy, generates no comparable wealth
`of data. What little information is available is
`provided largely by corporate players, who have a
`vested interest in portraying their investments and
`market conditions in the most favorable possible
`light. Moreover, complex private ordering of
`licensing, ownership transfers, and work-for-hire
`provisions—compounded by a pervasive use, in
`some sectors, of non-disclosure agreements—makes
`gleaning a real picture of these markets a
`Herculean task. See, e.g., Joseph F. Aceto,
`Intellectual Property Licensing and Confidentiality
`Agreements, an Overview, Am. Mgmt. Ass’n (last
`visited Oct. 17, 2018), https:// www. amanet. org/
`training/ articles/ intellectual- property- licensing-
`and- confidentiality- agreements- an- overview. aspx
`(describing confidentiality provisions as “[a]rguably
`one of the most critical aspects in any agreement”
`over intellectual property).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`III. CONGRESS HAS CONSISTENTLY SOUGHT TO
`PROMOTE THE COMPLETENESS OF THE
`PUBLIC RECORD AND DISCOURAGE DELAYED
`REGISTRATION
`the copyright
`Prior
`to
`the 1976 Act,
`registration system faced a problem: Courts took an
`increasingly
`lax stance on
`the
`registration
`requirement, allowing suits over works that had
`been published years—and,
`in some cases,
`decades—before the owner filed for registration.
`The legal and legislative history of the 1976 Act
`shows that Congress was abundantly aware of this
`trend, and sought to correct it. In constructing the
`1976 Act, Congress went to great lengths to both
`address
`the
`growing problem
`of delayed
`registration, and preserve
`the benefits
`that
`registration provided.
`
`A.
`
`Congress Explicitly Sought To
`Prevent Delayed Registration
`Delayed registration was a known problem
`by 1976. The structure of the 1976 Act indicates
`that Congress intended to cure the problem by
`incentivizing creators to register their works as
`soon as possible to the point of fixation.
`In the decades leading up to the 1976 Act,
`courts had repeatedly given broad leeway to
`rightsholders who waited to register their work. In
`many cases, the requirement for timeliness in
`deposit was rendered practically null; courts held
`that delays from 14 months, Washingtonian Publ’g
`Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S. 30, to thirteen years,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Silvers v. Russell, 113 F. Supp. 119 (1953), were all
`acceptably “timely.”
`Congress was keenly aware of these cases;
`the committee report notes that “[t]here have been
`cases under the present
`law
`in which the
`mandatory
`deposit
`provisions
`have
`been
`deliberately and repeatedly ignored, presumably on
`the assumption that the Library is unlikely to
`enforce them.” H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 152
`(1976). In an attempt to correct this frustrating
`trend, the new law included fines and “increased
`inducements” for registration and deposit. Id. at
`150. This included a $2,500 fine—a number that,
`adjusted for inflation, represents nearly $11,000 in
`2018 dollars. CPI Inflation Calculator, U.S.
`BUREAU OF LABOR STAT., https://data.bls.gov/cgi-
`bin/cpicalc.pl (last visited Sep. 21, 2018). Congress
`explicitly viewed these provisions as a way “to
`produce a more effective deposit system than the
`present [mandatory] one,” H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476,
`at 150—that is, one that would effectuate a greater
`number of registrations and deposits, with less
`delay on the part of rightsholders.
`
`
`Congress Deliberately Preserved
`Registration To Promote A Public
`Record
`the
`of
`awareness
`Given Congress’s
`importance of a comprehensive registration record,
`the 1976 Act is consistently designed to encourage
`early registration, even while removing other
`formalities such as mandatory deposit and printed
`notice.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Prior to the 1976 Act, copyright was issued—
`and revoked—by government action. In order to
`obtain protection, authors had to submit their
`works to the government for examination and
`deposit. “The requirement that an author must, as
`a precondition to the full benefits of copyright,
`register his claim and deposit his work with a
`designated public official antedates American
`copyright law and has been a part of every
`copyright law enacted in this country.” Arthur J.
`Levine & Jeffrey L. Squires, Notice, Deposit and
`Registration: The Importance of Being Formal, 24
`UCLA L. REV. 1232, 1253 (1977). Under the 1909
`Act, a work had to go through a number of
`formalities to obtain copyright protection, including
`registration with the Copyright Office; deposit at
`the Library of Congress; and the inclusion of a
`conforming notice printed on the work itself. An Act
`to Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting
`Copyright, ch. 320, 35 Stat. 1075 (1909).
`The 1976 Act sought to weaken the harsh
`consequence of failure to comply with formalities—
`invalidation of
`the copyright2—but even so,
`Congress still maintained the importance of a
`comprehensive
`registration
`record. As
`one
`
`
`2 These changes were largely made to implement
`the Berne Convention, which called for nations to
`remove formalities precedent to copyright. Even so,
`Congress did not fully implement Berne: The
`treaty’s moral rights schema was not implemented,
`and the encouragements toward registration are
`another deviation from the Convention.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Congressional study on copyright registration
`noted,
`
`In the absence of a basic copyright
`registry system, identifying the work,
`the first owner of the copyright, the
`date from which the term is computed,
`and other pertinent information, the
`recording of transfers would often fail
`to identify the work covered by the
`transfer, the term of the copyright,
`and especially the derivation of the
`transferee’s claim to ownership.
`Alan Latman, Study 19: The Recordation of
`Copyright Assignments and Licenses, in COPYRIGHT
`LAW REVISION: STUDIES PREPARED FOR THE
`SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND
`COPYRIGHTS 111, 124 (1956). In other words,
`Congress not only saw ex ante the potential dangers
`posed by removing
`formalities, but—as
`the
`legislative record shows—sought explicitly
`to
`mitigate them through the structure of the new
`Act.
`
`Thus, Congress took deliberate steps to
`preserve the registration and deposit requirements
`by attaching them to a complex web of benefits and
`penalties. This is a testament to the unique and
`ultimately irreplaceable role that registration plays
`in the market for creative works; namely, its value
`in creating and maintaining a comprehensive
`public record of ownership rights.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the above reasons, the Court should
`uphold the decision of the Eleventh Circuit.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`HAROLD FELD
`
`Counsel of Record
`MEREDITH F. ROSE
`PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
`1818 N Street Northwest
`Suite 410
`Washington, DC 20036
`202-861-0020
`hfeld@publicknowledge.org
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
