Partisan Politics Won’t Cure What Ails the Copyright Office
This Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to markup the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act (H.R. 1695). The legislation would change how the director of the Copyright Office is chosen, subjecting the Register of Copyrights to the presidential appointment and Senate confirmation process. In CDT’s view, it would politicize the important work of the Copyright Office while not doing enough to incorporate necessary reforms to modernize the Office.
Subjecting the Register of Copyrights to the presidential appointment and Senate confirmation process…would politicize the important work of the Copyright Office while not doing enough to incorporate necessary reforms to modernize the Office.
By requiring the Register to go through the appointment and confirmation process, this legislation will only serve to introduce partisan politics into a non-partisan position. Currently, the Register is selected by the Librarian of Congress, providing a layer of insulation from political interests and allowing the director of the Office to focus on the mission of promoting “the Progress of Science and useful Arts” without undue influence. But under the provisions of H.R. 1695, the Register would have to go through the same increasingly polarized process reserved for Supreme Court nominees and Cabinet appointees. Consequently, the nature of the position itself may be transformed, from one that requires devotion to the advancement of knowledge to one that demands loyalty to a party platform.
Moreover, it is not at all clear what problem this legislation is intended to solve. The proponents of H.R. 1695 argue that this measure will ensure that the Register is “dedicated to serving all stakeholders in the copyright ecosystem.” However, there is no evidence that suggests that this particular reform is necessary. In CDT’s view, the Office has tried to carefully balance the interests of rightholders with those of libraries and their patrons. At the very least, it is unlikely that injecting partisan interests into the decisionmaking of the Office will improve upon this balance.
Not All Guardrails Are Created Equal: Comparing Content Safety and Copyright Filtering
As courts and policymakers work through questions about chatbot liability, they should be wary of analogies that flatten meaningful technical differences. Copyright filtering and safety intervention share real challenges around ambiguity and evasion, but they diverge in what each control must assess, how each manifests over the course of a conversation, and how much can be verified from the outside.
Op-Ed: France’s Constitutional Council Ruling Tests the Limits of Social Media Bans
Read our analysis the legal and policy significance of the Constitutional Council’s decision on ongoing social media age restriction and age assurance debates ahead of the most-anticipated EU-wide approach on child online safety due by December 2026.
The brief explains that Section 230’s liability protections are essential to enable free expression online and they extend to the use of automated systems to engage to rank and order content as part of traditional publishing activities.