There is a lot of focus on the harms of the CASE Act today. But one thing that’s not receiving much scrutiny is the dubious set of benefits it supposedly affords artists. 1/ https://twitter.com/zvisrosen/status/1341396255361150979

There’s not much of a coherent problem diagnosis at the bottom of case, other than that federal court litigation is prohibitive for lots of legitimate litigants. But If that quality of a plaintiff can be easily identified, any reasonably sophisticated defendant will opt out. 2/

Because the proponents of the bill couldn’t agree on what particular set of cases it was trying to create a remedy for, it throws in a kitchen sink of copyright doctrine and procedure that will make the rare case that proceeds to adjudication at the tribunal a complete mess. 3/

Adjudication imports pretty much the full array of copyrightability, infringement, and defense questions from regular copyright litigation, as well as adding a whole new layer of process questions that will be the subject of new Copyright Office regulations. 4/

It’s wishful thinking to hope that litigants on either side are going to be able to meaningfully work their way through these issues without counsel. Federal court copyright litigation is expensive because copyright law is complicated. 5/

The CASE Act is just another manifestation of poorly conceived policy from people who won’t consider the welfare of artists through any lens other than copyright and for whom turning the dials to 11 is not just the means, but the end. 6/

Unfortunately, I suspect it will do precious little to actually help artists. The only real question, IMO, is how much harm it will allow trolls to cause. /fin