Um this would go against two cases which have actually been decided
One forbid a state ( or city I forget) college from broadcasting videos on
their CC system. They lost big time
Likewise the State on MN lost BIG time arguing a version of this in claimin=
that they did not have to pay
For using videos on their in house prison system. I believe both occurred
prior to 1990 but I have heard of
No attempts to relitigate them.
I find this might be silliest argument yet on the listserve
But I also find it very bizarre that the =B3original=B2 idea and follow up
Both came from PRIVATE institutions. So basically Loyola & Northwestern
would be OK if
Univ of Illinois could claim they didn=B9t have to abide by copyright but all
non state institutions did ?
However fascinating that we have gone through concepts of =B3eminent domain=B2
and state immunity.
Pretty much grasping at straws to overcome the frustrations of copyright.
Again there is ZERO chance any state EVER supports the concept.
Could we get back to something a little more realistic like trying to get a
bit more co-operation between
Educators & rights holders and how to work out some things.
On 10/16/06 12:44 PM, "Cameron Cox" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Some more thoughts on sovereign immunity and copyright law. =A0
> Cameron Cox
> COPYRIGHT CORNER
> ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY
> March 2004=20
> Suppose that a library in a state-supported institution or organization
> infringes copyright. Is there a reason to bar copyright owners from suin=
> damages because of the status of the library? Traditionally state governm=
> and entities enjoyed sovereign immunity from some types of suits under th=
> Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1990 the Copyright Act w=
> amended by section 511(a), in response to infringement claims by software
> producers against state-supported universities that had reproduced copies=
> software for computer labs on their campuses. The statute eliminated
> sovereign immunity for States, instrumentalities of a State and State
> officials and employees and stated that they were no longer immune from s=
> for copyright infringement. The Patent Act was similarly amended in 1992=
> eliminate sovereign immunity from patent suits.
> <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftn1> Municipal and co=
> entities traditionally do not enjoy sovereign immunity, so they were not
> mentioned in either statute.
> Through a series of decisions since 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court has rest=
> the vitality of Eleventh Amendment immunity for intellectual property cla=
> Sovereign immunity may appear to be an esoteric legal issue for copyright=
> to some extent it is, however, it may have significant impact on copyrigh=
> owners as well as many of the special subject libraries that are a part o=
> state-supported educational institutions, museums and archives. The rece=
> revitalization of Eleventh Amendment immunity relates to states=B9 rights. =
> Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Expense Board v. College Savings Bank,
> <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftn2> the Supreme Court =
> that the 1992 amendment to the Patent Act which permitted state entities =
> sued for damages in patent infringement was barred by Eleventh Amendment
> immunity. <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftn3> One=
> the grounds for this holding was that Congress had no evidence that such
> entities had been infringing patents when it amended the statute.
> The same is not true for copyrights. In fact, quite the opposite: sect=
> 511 was enacted in response to claims of copyright infringement by state
> universities. So, does Eleventh Amendment immunity cover copyright? It
> appears that it does. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had addressed the
> issue in Chavez v. Artes Publico Press
> <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftn4> four years before
> Florida Prepaid, and a long series of appeals and vacated judgments follo=
> The 5th Circuit ultimately dismissed the case on the basis of Florida Pre=
> because the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act was an improper exercise o=
> Congressional legislative power in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. =
> it appears that state entities are immune from suits for copyright damage=
> Thus, privately supported institutions are likely at greater risk for
> copyright infringement suits since copyright holders are less likely to c=
> the resources to sue a state entity and risk dismissal of the suit becaus=
> sovereign immunity than to sue a private institution or corporation. Stat=
> agencies are not totally immune from copyright or patent suits, however; =
> still may be sued for an injunction. Also, individual employees are not
> immune from suits for damages, even when they are acting in an official
> capacity when the infringement occurred.
> Then there is the bad publicity factor. Even if state agencies enjoy
> sovereign immunity from suits for copyright damages, it would still be ve=
> embarrassing to the agency or institution to be named as a defendant in a=
> for an injunction. In fact, it would be a public relations nightmare for=
> institution. =20
> For the past few years, Congress has tried to find a way to mend this pro=
> so that for state agencies and institutions that infringe copyrights are
> treated the same as other infringing entities and may be sued for damages=
> copyright. For example, it might be possible to require a state agency, =
> as a university, to agree to a quid pro quo concerning intellectual prope=
> rights. If the University of North Carolina wanted to hold patent rights=
> inventions by its faculty members, which it definitely does, and be able =
> sue infringers for infringement of its intellectual property, the exchang=
> would require UNC to submit itself to suits and thus opt out of Eleventh
> Amendment immunity.
> The latest bill was Senate bill 107-1611 and its companion House bill
> 107-3204, the Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act (IPPRA). =
> would condition a state=B9s own ability to recover damages in intellectual
> property suits on its waiver of immunity from private suits against it. T=
> would put states on equal footing with private parties with respect to su=
> for damages since a state would be entitled to no damages for infringemen=
> its own intellectual property rights unless it waived its Eleventh Amendm=
> immunity. States would have only two years to waive their immunity.
> Non-waiving states that sued private parties for infringement would be
> ineligible for monetary damages that would otherwise be available under
> federal law.
> This bill was totally unacceptable to states, because the waiver applied =
> the entire state and not just to the institution that wished to enforce i=
> own intellectual property rights. So, if the University of North Carolin=
> wanted to waive its sovereign immunity in order to be able to sue for
> infringement of its intellectual property, the waiver would apply to all =
> Carolina state agencies and not just to the University. This is an impos=
> standard since the North Carolina Department of Corrections, Department o=
> Transportation, etc., could care less whether the University holds patent=
> copyrights. The agencies do care if their Eleventh Amendment immunity is
> waived across the board, however. A more acceptable bill would allow th=
> University of North Carolina to waive only its rights.
> It is likely that Congress will continue to try to find a solution to wha=
> copyright holders see as a significant problem. Basic fairness dictates =
> states be treated the same as other entities and be responsible for
> compensating copyright holders when they infringe the copyright rights of=
> private entity.
>  <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftnref1> 3=
> U.S.C. =A7 296(a) (2000).
>  <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftnref2> 5=
> U.S. 666 (1999).
>  <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftnref3> T=
> case also covered trademarks.
>  <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftnref4> 5=
> F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 1995).
> Cameron Cox
> Senior Director, Sales and Marketing
> INTELECOM Intelligent Telecommunications
> 150 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 300
> Pasadena, CA 91105-1937
> Toll free: (800) 576-2988
> Outside the United States: (626) 796-7300
> Fax: (626) 577-4282
> Extension 112
> 2006/2007 General Catalog
> Core Curriculum Content
> DVD =9F VHS =9F Digital Media =9F ITV
Proud Resident of a BLUE STATE
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018
Some more thoughts on sovereign immunity and copyright law. = =A0
= COPYRIGHT CORNER
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY
Suppose that a library in a state-supported institution or organization inf= ringes copyright. Is there a reason to bar copyright owners from suing= for damages because of the status of the library? Traditionally state gover= nments and entities enjoyed sovereign immunity from some types of suits unde= r the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1990 the Copyrig= ht Act was amended by section 511(a), in response to infringement claims by = software producers against state-supported universities that had reproduced = copies of software for computer labs on their campuses. The statute el= iminated sovereign immunity for States, instrumentalities of a State and Sta= te officials and employees and stated that they were no longer immune from s= uit for copyright infringement. The Patent Act was similarly amended i= n 1992 to eliminate sovereign immunity from patent suits. <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-co= rner65.htm#_ftn1> Municipal and county entities tradition= ally do not enjoy sovereign immunity, so they were not mentioned in either s= tatute.
Through a series of decisions since 199= 9, the U.S. Supreme Court has restored the vitality of Eleventh Amendment im= munity for intellectual property claims. Sovereign immunity may appear= to be an esoteric legal issue for copyright, and to some extent it is, howe= ver, it may have significant impact on copyright owners as well as many of t= he special subject libraries that are a part of state-supported educational = institutions, museums and archives. The recent revitalization of Eleve= nth Amendment immunity relates to states’ rights. In Florida = Prepaid Postsecondary Expense Board v. College Savings Bank,
 <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftn2><= /a>the Supreme Court held that the 1992 amend= ment to the Patent Act which permitted state entities to be sued for damages= in patent infringement was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. <http://www.unc.= edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftn3> One of the grounds= for this holding was that Congress had no evidence that such entities had b= een infringing patents when it amended the statute.
The same is not true for copyrights. &n= bsp; In fact, quite the opposite: section 511 was enacted in resp= onse to claims of copyright infringement by state universities. So, do= es Eleventh Amendment immunity cover copyright? It appears that it doe= s. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had addressed the issue in Chav= ez v. Artes Publico Press <http://www.unc.edu/%7Euncl= ng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftn4> four years before Florida Prepai= d, and a long series of appeals and vacated judgments followed. Th= e 5th Circuit ultimately dismissed the case on the basis of Florida Prepa= id because the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act was an improper exerci= se of Congressional legislative power in violation of the Eleventh Amendment= . So, it appears that state entities are immune from suits for copyrig= ht damages. Thus, privately supported institutions are likely at great= er risk for copyright infringement suits since copyright holders are less li= kely to commit the resources to sue a state entity and risk dismissal of the= suit because of sovereign immunity than to sue a private institution or cor= poration. State agencies are not totally immune from copyright or patent sui= ts, however; they still may be sued for an injunction. Also, ind= ividual employees are not immune from suits for damages, even when they are = acting in an official capacity when the infringement occurred.
Then there is the bad publicity factor= . Even if state agencies enjoy sovereign immunity from suits for copyr= ight damages, it would still be very embarrassing to the agency or instituti= on to be named as a defendant in a suit for an injunction. In fact, it= would be a public relations nightmare for the institution.
For the past few years, Congress has tried to find a way to mend this probl= em so that for state agencies and institutions that infringe copyrights are = treated the same as other infringing entities and may be sued for damages in= copyright. For example, it might be possible to require a state agenc= y, such as a university, to agree to a quid pro quo concerning intell= ectual property rights. If the University of North Carolina wanted to = hold patent rights in inventions by its faculty members, which it definitely= does, and be able to sue infringers for infringement of its intellectual pr= operty, the exchange would require UNC to submit itself to suits and thus op= t out of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The latest bill was Senate bill 107-1611 and its companion House bill 107-3= 204, the Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act (IPPRA). It = would condition a state’s own ability to recover damages in intellectu= al property suits on its waiver of immunity from private suits against it. T= his would put states on equal footing with private parties with respect to s= uits for damages since a state would be entitled to no damages for infringem= ent of its own intellectual property rights unless it waived its Eleventh Am= endment immunity. States would have only two years to waive their immu= nity. Non-waiving states that sued private parties for infringement wo= uld be ineligible for monetary damages that would otherwise be available und= er federal law.
This bill was totally unacceptable to states, because the waiver applied to= the entire state and not just to the institution that wished to enforce its= own intellectual property rights. So, if the University of North Caro= lina wanted to waive its sovereign immunity in order to be able to sue for i= nfringement of its intellectual property, the waiver would apply to all Nort= h Carolina state agencies and not just to the University. This is an i= mpossible standard since the North Carolina Department of Corrections, Depar= tment of Transportation, etc., could care less whether the University holds = patents and copyrights. The agencies do care if their Eleventh Amendme= nt immunity is waived across the board, however. A more acceptab= le bill would allow the University of North Carolina to waive only its right= s.
It is likely that Congress will continue to try to find a solution to what = copyright holders see as a significant problem. Basic fairness dictate= s that states be treated the same as other entities and be responsible for c= ompensating copyright holders when they infringe the copyright rights of a p= rivate entity.
<http://www.unc.e= du/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftnref1> &nbs= p; 35 U.S.C. § 296(a) (2000).
 <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftnref2>= 527 U.S. 66= 6 (1999).
 <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftnref3>= The case al= so covered trademarks.
 <http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/copy-corner65.htm#_ftnref4>= 59 F.3d 539= (5th Cir. 1995).
Senior Director, Sales and Marketing
INTELECOM Intelligent Telecommunications
150 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 300
Pasadena, CA 91105-1937
Toll free: (800) 576-2988
Outside the United States: (626) 796-7300
Fax: (626) 577-4282
2006/2007 General Catalog
Core Curriculum Content
DVD ƒ VHS ƒ= ; Digital Media (= 2; ITV
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image.jpg"
VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.