The Copyright Office says it opposes any adjustment of Department of Justice existing consent decrees with the performing rights organizations (PROs) American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) that would allow any partial owner of a song to fully license that song, a departure from the music industry’s current fractionalized licensing framework. Justice is considering including “100 percent licensing requirements” in revised ASCAP and BMI consent decrees as part of its review of the existing decrees. ASCAP, BMI and major music publishers jointly requested the review in a bid to partially withdraw digital rights from compulsory licenses. A Justice “interpretation of the consent decrees that would require these PROs to engage in 100-percent licensing presents a host of legal and policy concerns,” the CO said in a report posted online Thursday. Congress “made clear” in its 1976 revision of the Copyright Act “its intent that copyright interests could be divided and separately owned,” the CO said. “The decrees must be interpreted to respect this fundamental principle, and indeed, as implemented, have accommodated the industry practice of fractional licensing for many decades.” The CO said it’s also “aware of no authority by which the antitrust consent decrees governing ASCAP and BMI could operate to supplant Congress’ constitutional prerogative to establish the nation’s copyright law, or to override exclusive rights granted under that law or by foreign law.” Forcing ASCAP and BMI to implement 100 percent licensing requirements “could also severely undermine the efficacy of ASCAP and BMI, which today are able to grant blanket licenses covering the vast majority of performances of musical works -- a practice that is considered highly efficient by copyright owners and users alike,” the CO said. Imposition of a 100 percent licensing rule might also violate foreign-based song owners’ rights, since U.S. “rules on joint authorship differ from those of many other countries that require the consent of all co-owners for any license, not only an exclusive license,” the CO said. House IP Subcommittee Vice Chairman Doug Collins, R-Ga., requested the CO report in January so the office could provide its “views regarding the licensing of jointly-owned works by the PROs, and, specifically, what issues lawmakers and regulators should consider to avoid further eroding the property interests of musical composition owners.”

It's “currently unnecessary” for Congress to amend existing U.S. copyright law “for purposes of implementing” the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Internet treaties' mandate for treaty signatories to explicitly recognize copyright owners' exclusive right for “making available” on-demand transmission of their works, the Copyright Office said in a report released late Tuesday. Congress implemented the 1996 WIPO treaties -- the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty -- through its 1998 adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but didn't include explicit references to the "making available" right. The CO had conducted a study of the issue in response to a 2013 request by then-House IP Subcommittee ranking member Mel Watt, D-N.C., now Federal Housing Finance Agency director. Existing exclusive rights protections included in Copyright Act Section 106 “collectively give copyright owners the exclusive right to offer access to their works online, including through individualized on-demand transmissions,” the CO said in its report. “To the extent that the statute is ambiguous with respect to particular aspects of that right,” U.S. treaty implementation legislation and other authorities “instruct that it should be interpreted in accordance” with the U.S.' “international obligations in this area.” Congress “may wish to consider various legislative clarifications” if U.S. courts “adopt a narrower construction in the future, such that certain international legal questions might arise,” the CO said. Any such legislative change “would need to be carefully drawn so as not to produce unintended consequences or upset settled expectations, and may require consideration of corresponding changes to maintain the copyright law's existing balance.” The CO's recommendation was in line with stakeholder feedback the office received in 2014 as part of its notice of inquiry on its study of the making available right. Copyright stakeholders had urged against amending Section 106, citing actions by both the executive branch and Congress extending Section 106's protections to include digital transmissions (see report in the April 8, 2014, issue).

A news release from Global Tel*Link touting a "capstone victory" in a Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) review of a patent issued to industry competitor Securus is "grossly inaccurate" and contains "clearly misleading" statements, Securus said in a news release Monday. The GTL news release, issued Friday, said Securus "tried to patent well known ideas ... [and] got caught with their hand in the cookie jar," after the PTAB issued a final decision finding Securus' claims in the patent to be "unpatentable." The GTL release also said that recent PTAB proceedings revealed "Securus misled patent examiners while seeking patents." Securus "corrected" 10 statements made in GTL's news release -- most refuting claims of misleading patent officials and that GTL is "winning" the patent battle. In the release, Securus said GTL "gives the carriers in our industry a black eye" because of its current and past behavior. GTL didn't comment.

The Copyright Royalty Board said that it tightened the requirement for parties wishing to participate in a CRB royalty distribution proceeding to receive a waiver of the normal $150 filing fee. The CRB said in a Federal Register Monday notice that it’s adjusting the requirement to allow waivers only for petitioners seeking a royalty distribution of no more than $1,000. The previous requirement allowed waivers for petitioners seeking no more than a $10,000 royalty distribution. The CRB said it's tightening the waiver requirement to comply with the Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act. The waiver requirement change doesn’t require a public comment period because it qualifies as a technical amendment, the CRB said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and five other industry groups jointly urged Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to work with President Barack Obama’s administration to “safeguard innovation” by preventing IP issues from being mentioned in high-level policy documents at multilateral institutions like the U.N. The other groups signing onto a joint letter to Hatch were the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the U.S. Council for International Business. Technical and IP experts within the office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the departments of Commerce and State coordinated to prevent the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted in December, from including IP, the industry groups said in the letter. The Obama administration's work to prevent IP from becoming part of the UNFCCC “thus removes uncertainty that could have discouraged continued investments by U.S. companies in clean technology,” the groups said. Similar challenges to IP protection “are proliferating throughout the UN system, and the approach adopted by the U.S. delegation” during the UNFCCC “could be applied to other UN initiatives,” including the U.N. Technology Facilitation Mechanism, the U.N. High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines and the World Health Organization’s ongoing work on the Framework for Engagement with Non-State Actors, the industry groups said. “Inter-governmental organizations that are discriminatory towards business, or that focus on a limited range of factors potentially inhibiting innovation deployment, undermine evidence-based policy-making and hobble the delivery of solutions to healthcare and other sustainability challenges.”

The Copyright Office extended comment deadlines for its study of Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 1201’s implementation. Initial comments are now due March 3 instead of Feb. 25, the CO said a notice in Friday's Federal Register. Replies are now due April 1 rather than March 25, the CO said. The study will include a review of the current triennial rulemaking process for granting exemptions to Section 1201's ban on circumvention of technological copy protection measures. The study also will examine existing permanent exemptions to the section, the law's anti-trafficking provisions and other Section 1201-related consumer issues (see 1512280030 and 1601050055).

With 15 complaints filed against Vizio in seven different U.S. District Courts over privacy implications of the company’s “smart interactivity” viewer-tracking feature (see 1512060005), Vizio joined with plaintiffs to ask the courts to temporarily stay the complaints until a federal panel can rule whether to consolidate the cases into a single class action. An interim stay would promote the chances of multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidation or coordination of the cases “by conserving judicial resources, preventing inconsistent pretrial rulings, and promoting the interest of justice,” Vizio and the plaintiffs said in a stipulation filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California, one of the seven venues where the cases are being heard. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is expected to rule on the pending MDL applications “within a reasonable amount of time,” it said. While Vizio and most of the plaintiffs agree the cases should be transferred to the Santa Ana court, two plaintiffs have asked for the complaints to be transferred to federal courts in Indiana or Arkansas, the stipulation said. All lawyers on both sides agree the complaints “concern the same subject matter and should be transferred to a single district” but disagree on “the ultimate location and judge” to which they should be assigned, the stipulation said.

The three patents that haptics technology supplier Immersion is citing in International Trade Commission and federal court infringement complaints are “foundational” in nature and “vital to the use of haptics on a mobile device in particular,” Immersion CEO Victor Viegas said on a Thursday conference call with analysts about the complaints. Immersion said Thursday it filed against Apple and AT&T on six models of iPhones and the Apple Watch. “We felt they were the appropriate patents to bring to case in this particular action.” The three patents were never previously “litigated” in earlier Immersion patent lawsuits against other carriers and manufacturers, Viegas said. The complaints in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, and at the ITC allege violations of U.S. patents 8,619,051, 8,773,356 and 8,659,571. The ITC complaint also seeks a Section 337 import investigation and an exclusion order barring import of the infringing Apple products. “Immersion’s inventions have literally shaped haptics as we know it today,” said Viegas. “Years of foresight, tenacity, passion have led us to the spot we find ourselves today. Haptics exists because the world needs it. Immersion has made it a reality. We’re the undisputed leader in haptics. We’ve carefully crafted a valuable set of solutions, knowhow, IP, even an ecosystem of partners to bring these rich experiences to consumers through over 3 billion devices. My hope is that those of you who really care about Immersion see the stunning success we’ve had in achieving this broad and meaningful adoption.” The complaints against Apple and AT&T are “an important step in our efforts to be fairly compensated for our achievements and our continuing efforts to bring touch to the markets we serve,” he said. Apple and AT&T representatives didn’t comment.

Dish Network is modifying its AutoHop commercial-skipping service as part of an out-of-court settlement with Fox. In a stipulated dismissal filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, plaintiffs Fox, Twentieth Century Fox Film and Fox Television Holdings and defendants Dish and EchoStar said they agreed to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Fox's 2012 complaint about Dish's PrimeTime Anytime VOD service. Dish and Fox last month indicated they were discussing a possible settlement (see 1601270015). In a joint statement Thursday, they said as part of the settlement "Dish's AutoHop commercial-skipping functionality will not be available for owned and affiliated Fox stations until seven days after a program first airs." Fox argued in its 2012 lawsuit that PrimeTime Anytime and its AutoHop service, which strips out commercials from network programming, was an "attempt to camouflage" copyright infringement (see report in the Aug. 28, 2012, issue). Dish still is fighting a 2012 suit brought by NBC Studios (see 1208280067), while AutoHop's legal fights with ABC, CBS and Disney Studios were settled in 2014 (see 1412100057).

The HEVC Advance patent pool recently began to allow licensors in the rival MPEG LA H.265 pool to hold membership in both pools, HEVC Advance CEO Pete Moller said in an interview. “We do allow existing MPEG LA licensors to join our pool. We have a provision, a procedure, that allows somebody in that pool, if they want to join our pool, they can do so,” he said. “We’re just starting to make people aware of that. There are some conditions.” Licensors could hold dual membership, provided they meet an HEVC Advance-imposed “condition or two, so that we don’t have a situation where people are getting paid twice,” Moller said. HEVC Advance hasn’t gotten any takers, he said. “We’re just now making it known. We’re not going out of our way on it.” It's not a repudiation of the two-pool structure on H.265 licensing, he said. “A lot of people felt that the MPEG LA pool met their needs.” When HEVC Advance launched its initial rate structure in July, it met with industry pushback over high prices and the imposition of content royalties (see 1507220043), “It was a little bit of a setback that we had to retrench and go back and rethink it,” Moller said when asked to assess the pool’s first year as a startup. “In the last two or three months, we’ve regrouped, we pivoted, we’re listening better, and frankly I’m very pleased.” HEVC Advance soon will be 500 patents strong, up from 370 now, he said. There was “no doubt, a little bit of a headwind when we initially launched, but I think we’ve fully recovered,” he said. One common area of query has been HEVC Advance’s revised policy of licensing content for free to services that charge no fee to end users, he said. Though HEVC Advance now licenses content royalty-free to public broadcasters and over-the-air services, confusion over new TV Everywhere “complex business models” has raised unforeseen questions among prospective licensors that often require time-consuming answers, he said. Another area of confusion has been the issue of yearly royalty caps, Moller said. “We initially didn’t have a cap,” he said, “and the marketplace pretty loudly told us, ‘Look you need a cap, you can’t not have caps.’” Having launched formal licensing activities in mid-January, HEVC Advance hasn’t signed its first licensee, and doesn’t expect to before the end of Q2, Moller said. “It simply takes that long to get these documents done,” he said of the documentation process for patent users. Once signed, “they’re long-term agreements -- 10 years plus,” he said.