For those of us creators out in the wild, copyright protection is essential to our livelihoods. If we create an original work, we should own it outright and any potential future monetization of the work. It is really our own “intellectual property.” However, I always cringe when government gets involved in re-writing laws that seem to have worked fine for the last 50+ years. I also suspect corporate interests behind the scenes that are using the optics of helping us “independent creators” as a way to run roughshod over our true copyright protections. As always with government intervention (aka meddling)–caveat emptor!

Let’s take a look at the bones of the CASE act (officially titled the ‘Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement’ Act). Basically, one of the major provisions is to cap copyright infringement damages between $15-$30k, which is ultimately decided on by an internal copyright tribunal of “subject matter experts” inside the copyright office. The supposed benefit of this is to make it easier and less expensive for independent creators to fight copyright infringement. A copyright claimant would not have to even hire an attorney. The three-judge panel would only hear “straightforward” cases (what does that mean?) and the damages are already known. Right off the bat, I feel that creators should be suspicious.

First, any major record label or financier can easily handle even a $30k fine. On the other hand, a $15-$30k hit would be quite damaging to most independent creators, and could put smaller record labels out of business. In this way, the act seems to sequester us regular folk from the corporate entities by using the power of money. This is similar to how big business works with government to stifle competition. A large label could certainly justify the small $30k loss if the stolen work was expected to earn millions of dollars–which brings me to the second point.

The CASE Act diminishes the real amount of damages that might be possible, if there is true copyright infringement. For example, the hit song “Every Breath You Take” (Sting) was plagiarized by P. Diddy, quite obviously in his tribute song to Notorious B.I.G. called “I’ll Be Missing You.” This song alone is responsible for 25% of Sting’s total music royalty income. P. Diddy didn’t even ask for permission–he just stole it. Both songs made millions of dollars. Now imagine Sting having to settle for $30,000! The thought is ludicrous.

Third, this act removes the ability for any artist to use the power of our current legal system and instead cedes it to three people inside the copyright office. It’s kind of like a star chamber. Who are these “subject matter experts” really and how do we know they are not connected to major labels and corporate interests? Are these three people really superior to our Plebeian peers that would reside on a jury? Who’s interest are they really representing? And btw–why is this a problem that needs to be addressed now? Have you ever heard of a copyright owner not having a fair case in the current legal system? Current copyright law is already extremely strong and has a lengthy precedent.

So let’s get to the real reason this act is being passed: Censorship. “Huh?” says the average musician, “I thought this helps us?” Here’s the deal. Many small independent websites, news aggregators, content creators, etc. share ideas, memes, phrases and soundbites constantly. I mean, it’s a “web” after all, isn’t it? The web is connected via links that take the user from one place to the next. Is someone liable for re-posting a link to someone else’s work? Or using their picture, phrase or meme to address a particular issue in a blog? If this Act passes, the answer could be yes.

Take memes for example. A photographer takes a picture. A comic, creator or writer uses the photo, adds a phrase and the new work becomes a meme. Then the meme takes on its own life with new modifications to both the photo and the phrase, perhaps hundreds of iterations. A recent example is Nike’s “Just Do It” (ruh-roh, do I have to pay copyright fines for using their slogan in this blog?) The meme world has blown up with all kinds of photo alterations containing these three words, lambasting Colin Kapernick and Tay-Tay (among others) in the process. The thing is though, these memes aren’t making any money and thus shouldn’t be liable for damages, or even infringement. They are simply parody.

There is a current copyright exception called Fair Use: “In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.” PARODY is legal. Parody done really well is subliminal criticism of TPTB, a really intelligent way to poke fun at some of society’s more prevalent and pretentious ass-clowns. Certainly Colin “pig socks” Kapersmack and “alphabet soup bully” Tay-Tay fall into this category. However, they feel that because they have money, they should be able to subdue the court jesters who dare to critique their actions. They are not the only ones.

Many “scholars” and censorship advocates claim that memes had a hand in influencing the 2016 U.S. election, and many other elections around the globe. Believe it or not, our own military has a division of “mematic warfare,” so there is some truth as to its effectiveness. However, it seems super hypocritical for the elite to all of the sudden get unnerved by memes, especially when they consistently employ psychological operations and programming on us Plebeian folk all the time! The difference is that our original, often hilarious memes are right over the target and effectively, succinctly call out bad behavior by this same “elite.” I guess funny and pertinent memes are only okay to be used by those in power?

Make no mistake, there exists a steadfast and powerful organization of self-appointed “elite” folks that seek to limit free speech, suppress conflicting ideologies, and censor our thoughts. Many of these folks run some of the larger tech firms such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. and have already been caught blatantly censoring content that does not fit into the preconceived media paradigm. Others exist in government that consistently operate with a “Do as I say, not as I do” manifest that are afraid of being exposed for who they really are. In every case, they suppress speech because their ideas are bullshit and the only way that we will accept them is by being force fed, silenced and disallowed to dissent. This cannot stand unchecked.

I doubt we will have much to say about this new copyright act. It is already in the Senate and looks to pass easily. It is supported by a bunch of shill organizations and major industry players that already earn millions of dollars annually; they do not have the slightest care to the rest of us independent creators. It is up to you, the independent creator to carry the torch of righteousness. Take care to be cognizant of your creations; spread them far and wide when possible and fight censorship at every step. We are more powerful than they can ever imagine!