language: Deutsch   Français   italiano   Español   Português   日本語   russian   arabic   norwegian   swedish   danish   Nederlands   finland   ireland   English  

What is the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act? | Yahoo Answers how to remove us digital millennium copyright act

What is the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act? In English too please,
I was on a site and at the bottom of the page(google) it said something about the UDMCA... what does this mean?? what is it? Update: In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at Update 2: Am I gonna get in trouble?? Follow 3 answers 3 Report Abuse Are you sure that you want to delete this answer? Yes No Sorry, something has gone wrong. Trending Now Answers Relevance Rating Newest Oldest Best Answer:   When someone is streaming or displaying or in any way using something without the Copyright holder's expressed permission that person/entity is given a DMCA violation notice and they have so much time to remove the offending merchandise or full site. In the case of streaming sites then the host usually just pulls the plug on whomever received the DMCA.

Searching for torrents is digital theft. No matter how much you sugarcoat it and say EVERYBODY does it it is still stealing and places you in the same exact boat as a thief. Same morals and principals. I mean you as in the people that use torrents to illegally obtain digital merchandise. It shows the condition of the consumers. If they can get away with stealing/digital shoplifting then they will do it on a large scale. Doesn't matter how big or small the software maker is. They don't consider that end. It can be a single family that lives on the revenue from particular software. You steal from them and they get screwed. I really hope those people that do use torrents have someone steal from them. Putting life in prospective may help. Probably not. They would be too obtuse to connect the dots Source(s): Goerge · 6 years ago 1 Thumbs up 1 Thumbs down Report Abuse Comment Add a comment

Submit · just now Asker's rating Us Digital Millennium Copyright Act Source(s): kuka · 9 months ago 0 Thumbs up 0 Thumbs down Report Abuse Comment Add a comment

Submit · just now Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
Signed into law in 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes the discussion and dissemination of technology that could be used to cjhaknjz. read the DMCA complaintcircumvent copyright protection mechanisms and makes it easier to act against alleged copyright infringement on the Internet. The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is included as Title II of the DMCA and limits the liability of the on-line service providers for copyright infringement by their users.

this is copied form the page on "Internet censorship in the United States" Source(s): Alastair Swan · 6 years ago 1 Thumbs up 0 Thumbs down Report Abuse Comment Add a comment

Submit · just now Report Abuse I think that this question violates the Community Guidelines Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members, show more

I think that this question violates the Terms of Service Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, show more

Additional Details If you believe that your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy

Report Abuse Cancel Report Abuse I think that this answer violates the Community Guidelines Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members, show more

I think that this answer violates the Terms of Service Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, show more

Additional Details If you believe that your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy

Report Abuse Cancel Report Abuse I think this comment violates the Community Guidelines Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members, show more

I think that this comment violates the Terms of Service Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, show more

Additional Details If you believe that your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy

Report Abuse Cancel Perhaps you would like to learn more about one of these? Looking to cut the cord? Paying too much for broadband? Are you safe from viruses? Explore the Best Laptops
how to remove us digital millennium copyright act

outlet moncler milano via pisani
moncler mens sale
complaint letter generator
digital millennium copyright act us code
Complaint A service of Stephen W. Workman P.C

Home Areas of Practice Contracts & Licenses Advertising Law Internet Law Media Law Entertainment Law Domain Disputes Software Development Content Production Meet Steve Articles Resources & Links Testimonials Contact Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Disclaimer Main Menu Home Areas of Practice Meet Steve Articles Resources & Links Testimonials Contact Us Resources & Links U.S. Copyright Office World Intellectual Property Organization U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Federal Trade Commission National Advertising Division of the BBB Internet Corporation for Assigned Names Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Impact of the New Copyright Laws on Online Copyright Infringement By Steve Workman, Esq.

In another last article, also found on this web site, we took a look at the principles of copyright law and traditional notions of "third-party" liability for online copyright infringement. Hopefully, you are now armed with a good understanding of how those principles might apply to your Internet activities.

Now, let's turn out attention to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA is not an example of legislative clarity -- it's a terribly cumbersome statute. Nevertheless, it's my purpose here to try to relate its meaning and intent. As far as web site owner/operators and service providers are concerned, the main import of the DMCA is found at Title II: the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation." Title II adds a new section to the Copyright Act, Section 512, which limits liability for online service providers for acts of copyright infringement committed by their clients.

The liability limitations in Section 512 relate to four, distinct categories of conduct by a service provider: (1) transitory communications; (2) system caching; (3) storage of information on systems or networks at the direction of clients; and (4) information location tools. Each limitation affords a total bar on monetary damages against the service provider, and restricts the availability of injunctive relief. Moreover, a finding that a service provider qualifies for one of the limitations has no relevance to a determination of whether the provider qualifies for any of the other three -- they are distinct and separate inquiries.

The fundamental question in this entire new regime is, of course, who is eligible as a "service provider"? For purposes of the first limitation concerning transitory communications, a "service provider" is defined as "an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between and among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received." For purposes of the other three limitations, "service provider" is more broadly defined as "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor."

Now this is important, so take note of this next condition: Section 512 also requires that, in order for a service provider to be eligible for liability limitations, it must do two things: first, it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of clients who are repeat infringers and, second, it must accommodate and not interfere with "standard technical measures" regarding copyright identification and protection.

Limitations for Transitory Communications

Section 512(a) protects providers when they serve merely as a pipeline for data, transmitting digital information from one point on a network to another at someone else's request (initiation). The liability limitation here includes acts of transmission, routing or providing connections for the information, as well as intermediate and transient copies of the information that are made automatically in the operation of the network. To be eligible for this limitation, the service provider must meet the following conditions:

the transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider; the transmission, routing, provisions of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material; the provider must not determine who receives the material; any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients and not retained for longer than reasonably necessary; and the material must be transmitted without modification to its content. Limitation for System Caching

Section 512(b) of the new law limits the liability of service providers for retaining copies of material that has been made available online by someone other than the provider, and then transmitted to a subscriber at his request. The provider retains the material so that later requests for the same material can be fulfilled by transmitting the retained copy, rather than retrieving the material from the original source. This practice reducers the service provider's bandwidth requirements and reduces waiting time on subsequent requests for that material. A drawback of this "caching" practice is that it can result in outdated material being provided to a subscriber and can deprive webmasters of accurate "hit" information.

The liability limitation of Section 512(b) applies to intermediate and temporary storage carried out through an automatic process for the purpose of making the material available to subscribers who subsequently request it. The following conditions apply:

the content of the retained material cannot be modified; the provider must comply with rules about "refreshing" material when specified in accordance with generally accepted industry protocol; the provider cannot interfere with "hit" information technology; the provider must limit access to the material in accordance with the terms imposed for access by the person who posted the information (e.g., the webmaster); and any material posted in violation of copyright, and which has been removed or blocked on the originating site, must be removed or blocked by the provider. Limitation for Information Residing on Systems at the Direction of Users.

The next limitation is set forth at Section 512(c), and concerns liability of service providers for infringing material appearing on web sites hosted by their systems. In order to be eligible for this limitation on liability, the provider must meet the following conditions:

the provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge of the infringing activity; if the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, it must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; if the provider receives a notice in proper form concerning alleged copyright infringement relating to material appearing in a client web site, the provider must expeditiously remove or block the material, unless a proper counter-notice is received by the provider. the provider must have filed with the U.S. Copyright Office a designated agent for receipt of notices of claimed infringement.

Of course, the knowledge standard is of critical importance here. A service provider will only be eligible for this limitation on liability if (i) it does not have actual knowledge of the infringing activity; (ii) it is not aware of facts from which infringing activity by the web site is apparent; or (iii) upon learning such facts, it responds expeditiously to remove or block access to the infringing activity.

The notice provision is also important because the copyright owner, or other person claiming rights under copyright, must comply with the notice specifications set forth in the statute. A simple letter which demands the allegedly infringing material be removed is not enough. The notice must contain the following: (i) a signature or equivalent of the copyright claimant or authorized representative; (ii) a complete or representative list identifying the copyrighted works allegedly infringed by the user; (iii) information about the location of the allegedly infringing material such that the provider can locate and remove or block the material; (iv) adequate contact information to enable the provider to contact the complaining party; (v) a statement from the copyright claimant or his representative stating in good faith that the complained of material is infringing copyright; and (vi) a statement signed under penalty of perjury by the complaining party that he is authorized to be asserting the complaint.

Once such a notice has been received by the service provider's designated agent (whose identity and address must be listed on the provider's web site), the provider must take reasonable steps to forward the notice to the alleged infringing user, e.g., the webmaster. This is because the statute wants to afford users an adequate time to respond, in order to prevent removal of material based on inaccurate or fraudulent notices. After receiving the notice, the user may submit a counter-notice, in essentially the same form as the notice, to the provider's agent, then the provider must pass the counter-notice on to the complaining party. If this occurs, the provider must restore access to the material removed or blocked as a result of the original notice within 10-14 business days after receipt of the counter-notice.

Limitation for Information Location Tools

The fourth category of activity covered by Section 512 concerns online directories, search engines and hyperlinks. Section 512(d) limits liability for the acts of referring or linking users to a site that contains infringing material, if the following conditions are met:

the provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge that the material is infringing (same "scienter" standard as used in Section 512(c)); if the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; and upon receiving notification of claimed infringement, in the form of a proper notice, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the allegedly infringing material.

The conditions described above are essentially the same as those for Section 512(c), but with some differences to the notification requirements. There are also safeguards here against erroneous or fraudulent notifications. As with section c, this section also includes protections for the provider against claims which may be asserted as a result of the material having been removed or blocked.

*   *   *

The DMCA could be interpreted to concede that a service provider has the requisite level of participation for potential liability under a contribution theory. But the second prong of the equation, i.e., knowledge, must also be present to support a finding of contributory infringement. If a service provider is reasonably unaware of copyright infringement occurring on a client site, liability cannot properly follow. Of course, a party complaining of copyright infringement on a client sites could attempt to impose knowledge a provider by making a phone call, or sending a brief, cryptic e-mail, informing it of the alleged infringement. This is where the "safe harbor" provisions of Section 512 become so helpful. Unless such notice conforms to the requirements set forth in that statute, a service provider cannot be deemed to have "knowledge" of the infringement!

On the other hand, when might a service provider be held vicariously liable for copyright infringements occurring on a client site? The answer to this question, obviously, depends on the extent of control exercised over client sites, together with the basis of the financial participation in the client sites' revenues. In my opinion, vicarious liability cannot follow from the mere fact that a host reserves the right to terminate or refuse service if it determines that client site content may be unlawful or otherwise objectionable. I believe such a contractual provision does not rise to the level of "control" or "supervision" necessary to create a situation analogous to "respondeat superior." Even if it did, vicarious liability still requires the additional finding of "financial benefit" from the infringing activities. This test could be met, in theory, in circumstances where a provider receives a percentage of revenues generated by the client site. However, a mere flat rate, or fee based on bandwidth is not, in my opinion, enough to establish the requisite "financial benefit" to impose liability. This conclusion is supported by the safe harbor rules of new Section 512. If fees charged by service providers constituted "financial benefit," then no provider could ever obtain the benefits of this statute. (Extending this logic, neither should a transaction processing fee charged by a credit card processor give rise to vicarious liability; card processors have been dragged into court on this theory, but I am unaware of one ever having been found liable).

In short, new Section 512 serves to insulate service providers from the risk of being hauled into court, and thereafter being held liable, under the theories of vicarious liability and contributory infringement, so long as the provider complies with its obligations under the statute. If a service provider does not conform to the conditions set forth in the statute, whether it be sections (a), (b) (c) or (d), traditional principles of third-party liability for copyright infringement, discussed at the outset of this article, would then apply.

Does DMCA affect the liability of webmasters and web site owners for copyright infringement? The answer depends on the nature of the site. Remember, the limitations of liability contained in Section 512 are directed to "service providers." However, certain passive web site operations, such as a site which serves merely as a passive conduit for the posting of material, arguably could qualify as "service providers." In any case, I believe the DMCA will have the salutary effect of giving owners and operators of web sites more thorough notice of any alleged copyright violations. This is because, insofar as persons who seek to make claims of copyright infringement against a web site typically desire to retain the option of including that site's service providers in any subsequent lawsuit, claimants will have a strong motive to comply with the strict notice provisions of Section 512 to preserve that option. But it is important to remember that formal notice is not required as a prerequisite to filing suit against webmasters and site owners for copyright infringement, whether as a direct, vicarious or contributory infringer. For this reason, to the extent a webmaster receives complaints of copyright infringement, those complaints should be handled in a professional fashion and related to your legal counsel, or a designated staff person, for further investigation.

Steven Workman, is an intellectual property, entertainment law and new media attorney, secializing in e-commerce and the Internet industry. Mr. Workman is a memberof the bars of the States of California and Illinois and is a pending member of the Florida bar. Mr. Workman received his J.D. with highest honors from the University of Illinois in 1986.

Breadcrums Homepage Articles Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Privacy Policy -

Digital Millennium Copyright Act From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation , search Digital Millennium Copyright Act Enacted by the 105th United States Congress Effective October 28, 1998 Citations Public Law Pub. L. 105-304 Stat. 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) Copyright Act of 1976 Title(s) amended 5 (Government Organization and Employees); 17 (Copyrights); 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure); 35 (Patents) U.S.C. sections created 17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201–1205, 1301–1332; 28 U.S.C. § 4001 U.S.C. section(s) amended 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 104, 104A, 108, 112, 114, 117, 701 Legislative history Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Rep. Howard Coble ( R - NC ) on July 29, 1997 Committee consideration by: House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property); House Commerce Committee (Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection) Passed the House on August 4, 1998 ( voice vote ) Passed the Senate on September 17, 1998 (unanimous consent) Reported by the joint conference committee on October 8, 1998; agreed to by the Senate on October 8, 1998 (consent) and by the House on October 12, 1998 (voice vote) Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998 Major amendments Codification v t e

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet . [ citation needed ] Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users.

The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries, was adopted by the European Union in the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000. The Copyright Directive 2001 implemented the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU.

Contents 1 Provisions 1.1 Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act 1.2 Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act 1.3 Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act 1.4 Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions 1.5 Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act 2 Anti-circumvention exemptions 3 Linking to infringing content 4 Notable court cases 4.1 Edelman v. N2H2 4.2 RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. 4.3 Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc. 4.4 IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. 4.5 Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. 4.6 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. 4.7 Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter 4.8 Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. 4.9 Sony v. George Hotz 5 Criticisms 5.1 Abuse of Takedown notice 5.2 Effect on analog video equipment 5.3 Effect on research 5.4 Effect on innovation and competition 5.5 Reform and opposition 6 See also 7 References 8 External links Provisions [ edit ] Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act [ edit ]

DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act , amends U.S. copyright law to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty , adopted at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference in December 1996. The treaties have two major portions. One portion includes works covered by several treaties in U.S. copy prevention laws and gave the title its name. For further analysis of this portion of the Act and of cases under it, see WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act .

The second portion is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions changed the remedies for the circumvention of copy-prevention systems (also called "technical protection measures") and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention created by Macrovision (now Rovi Corporation ) built in, giving Macrovision an effective monopoly on the analog video-recording copy-prevention market. However, section 1201(c) of the title clarified that the title does not change the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, or defenses. The title contains other limitations and exemptions, including for research and reverse engineering in specified situations.

Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act [ edit ]

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs ) against copyright infringement liability, provided they meet specific requirements. OSPs must adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users' identity.

Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act [ edit ]

DMCA Title III modified section 117 of the copyright title so that those repairing computers could make certain temporary, limited copies while working on a computer. It reversed the precedent set in MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. , 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).

Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions [ edit ]

DMCA Title IV contains an assortment of provisions:

Clarified and added to the duties of the Copyright Office . Added ephemeral copy for broadcasters provisions, including certain statutory licenses . Added provisions to facilitate distance education . Added provisions to assist libraries with keeping phonorecords of sound recordings. Added provisions relating to collective bargaining and the transfer of movie rights. Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act [ edit ]

DMCA Title V added sections 1301 through 1332 to add a sui generis protection for boat hull designs. Boat hull designs were not considered covered under copyright law because they are useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function. [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Anti-circumvention exemptions [ edit ] This section's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (May 2013)

In addition to the safe harbors and exemptions the statute explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) requires that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology. Exemptions are granted when it is shown that access-control technology has had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of people to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works.

The exemption rules are revised every three years. Exemption proposals are submitted by the public to the Registrar of Copyrights, and after a process of hearings and public comments, the final rule is recommended by the Registrar and issued by the Librarian. Exemptions expire after three years and must be resubmitted for the next rulemaking cycle. Consequently, the exemptions issued in the prior rulemakings, in 2000, 2003 and 2006 are no longer valid.

The current administratively-created exemptions , issued in July 2010, are:

Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances: Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students; Documentary filmmaking; Noncommercial videos. (A new exemption in 2010, similar to a previous educational exemption.) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset. (A new exemption in 2010.) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2006.) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if: The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law. (A new exemption in 2010.) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.) Literary works distributed in e-book format when all existing e-book editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.)

The Copyright Office approved two exemptions in 2000; four in 2003; six in 2006 and 2010. In 2000, the Office exempted (a) "Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications" (renewed in 2003 but not renewed in 2006); and (b) "Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage, or obsoleteness." (revised and limited in 2003 and again in 2006). In 2003, the 2000 "literary works including computer programs" exemption was limited to "Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete" and this exemption was renewed in both 2006 and 2010. The 2003 exemption for text readers of ebooks was renewed in both 2006 and 2010. The 2003 exemption for obsolete software and video game formats was renewed in 2006 but was not renewed in 2010. The 2000 filtering exemption was revised and renewed in 2003, but was not renewed in 2006. The 2006 exemption for sound recordings allowed after security flaws were found in a copy protection system on some Sony CDs was not renewed in 2010. An exemption covering the audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department was not renewed in 2010. This exemption was replaced with an exemption on DVDs protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is for the purpose of criticism or comment using short sections, for educational, documentary or non-profit use. The 2006 exemption for wireless handsets connecting to wireless networks was revised in 2010 to specify used handsets and require authorization from the wireless network operator. Another exemption for wireless handsets was introduced in 2010 specific to interoperability software on the phone itself. [ 3 ]

Linking to infringing content [ edit ]

The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent op( digital rights management ) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material. [ 4 ]

There has been only one case in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances. [ citation needed ]

Notable court cases [ edit ] This section requires expansion . (November 2008) Edelman v. N2H2 [ edit ]

In July 2002, American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Benjamin Edelman, a computer researcher at Berkman Center for Internet and Society, seeking a declaratory judgment to affirm his first amendment rights when reverse engineering the censorware product of defendant N2H2 in case he intended to publish the finding. N2H2 filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted.

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. [ edit ] Main article: RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc.

In August 2009, the DVD Copy Control Association won a lawsuit against RealNetworks for violating copyright law in selling its RealDVD software, allowing users to copy DVDs and store them on a harddrive. The DVD Copy Control Association claimed that Real violated the DMCA by circumventing anti-piracy measures ARccOS Protection and RipGuard , as well as breaking Real's licensing agreement with the MPAA's Content Scrambling System. [ 5 ]

Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc. [ edit ] Main article: Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its corporate parent Google for copyright infringement seeking more than $1 billion in damages. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York .

Viacom claims the popular video-sharing site was engaging in "massive intentional copyright infringement" for making available a contended 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's entertainment programming. Google relied on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision to shield them from liability. [ 6 ]

On June 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton granted summary judgment in favor of YouTube. [ 7 ] The court held that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the DMCA. Viacom has said that it will appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible. [ 8 ]

On April 5, 2012, the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Louis Stanton's ruling, and instead ruled that Viacom had presented enough evidence against YouTube to warrant a trial, and the case should not have been thrown out in summary judgement. The court did uphold the ruling that YouTube could not be held liable based on "general knowledge" that users on its site were infringing copyright. The case will be sent back to the District Court in New York to be tried. [ 9 ]

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. [ edit ] Main article: IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

On June 23, 2006 IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District. [ 10 ]

IO Group alleged that Veoh was responsible for copyright infringement by allowing videos owned by IO Group to be accessed through Veoh's online service without permission over 40,000 times between the dates June 1 and June 22. [ 11 ]

Veoh is a Flash video site relying on user contributed content. IO Group argued that since Veoh transcoded user uploaded videos to Flash format it became a direct infringer and the materials were under their direct control, thereby disqualifying them for DMCA safe harbor protection.

The ruling judge disagreed with the argument, stating that "Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users. Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the thirdparty software... But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh's users."

The Court has granted the Veoh's motion for summary judgment , on the basis of the DMCA, holding that the defendant's video-sharing web site complied and was entitled to the protection of the statute's "safe harbor" provision. [ 12 ] Even though Veoh won the court case, it blamed the litigation as one of the causes of its preparing to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and its subsequent sale to Qlipso. [ 13 ]

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. [ edit ] Main article: Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

After numerous DMCA takedown notices in response to his eBay listings, Timothy S. Vernor sued Autodesk in August 2007 alleging that Autodesk abused the DMCA and disrupted his right to sell used software he bought at a garage sale. [ 14 ] In May 2008, a federal district judge in Washington State dismissed Autodesk's argument that the software's license agreement preempted the seller from his rights under the first-sale doctrine . [ 15 ] In September 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions." [ 16 ]

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. [ edit ] Main article: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

In 2007, Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" and posted a 29-second video on the video-sharing site YouTube . Four months after the video was originally uploaded, Universal Music Group , which owned the copyrights to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks—not two weeks, as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—to see whether Universal planned to sue Lenz for infringement. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song. [ 17 ]

In August 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

On February 25, 2010, Judge Fogel issued a ruling rejecting several of Universal's affirmative defenses, including the defense that Lenz suffered no damages. [ 18 ]

Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter [ edit ] Main article: Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter

In the case of Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter the court denied the defendant safe harbour protection under DMCA 17 U.S.C.   § 512 . The district court found that the defendant had knowledge of its users' infringing activity and also failed to prevent future infringing activity. As such the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction was granted. [ 19 ] On appeal, however, the Seventh Circuit vacated the injunction, citing the standard set in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , which states that courts should not rely on categorical rules as a standard for injunction. [ 20 ]

Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. [ edit ] Main article: Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.

In this case of Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc., the court denied plaintiff's attempt to find liability for YouTube and Myspace's takedowns of the plaintiff's homemade videos. Despite potential fair use claims, the court found it impossible to use the DMCA takedown provisions as a foundation for liability. The court found that the safe harbor provision serves "to limit the liability of internet service providers, not to create liability that could not otherwise be imposed under existing law independent of the DMCA." [ 21 ]

Sony v. George Hotz [ edit ] Main article: Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz

In January 2011, Sony Computer Entertainment sued George Hotz over violating the Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well as the Federal Fraud and Abuse Act due to facilitating consumers to jailbreak their PlayStation 3 consoles. [ 22 ] Hotz argued that because he had purchased the product, he had the right to do with it as he pleased. After three months, Sony and Hotz decided to settle out of court. This also included an injunction against George Hotz, barring him from hacking any more Sony products. [ 23 ] [ 24 ]

Criticisms [ edit ] Abuse of Takedown notice [ edit ]

Google asserted misuse of the DMCA in a filing concerning New Zealand's copyright act, [ 25 ] quoting results from a 2005 study by Californian academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse. [ 26 ] Takedown notices targeting a competing business made up over half (57%) of the notices Google has received, the company said, and more than one-third (37%), "were not valid copyright claims." [ 27 ]

Effect on analog video equipment [ edit ]

Analog Copy Protection (ACP) , the encryption technology created by Rovi Corporation (formerly Macrovision), is designed to thwart users' attempts to reproduce content via analog cables. When a DVD is played through an analog video cable and recorded using a VCR , Rovi's ACP technology will distort the copy partially or completely. [ 28 ]

The technology works by adding additional lines to the video signal. In the NTSC video standard, blank lines ( vertical blanking intervals ) that the user cannot see are used for functions like closed captioning. Rovi Corporation uses these blank lines to implement its ACP technology. [ 29 ]

The implementation of ACP has been ill-regarded by some video enthusiasts. Many claim that the technology has led to signal issues with VCRs and analog video equipment. Some VCRs misread the encryption used to prevent copying, distorting the video image regardless of whether the recording is original or a copy.

The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all producers of analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of Rovi Corporation, a commercial firm. [ citation needed ] The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support and implement the corporation's proprietary technology. [ citation needed ] This benefits Rovi Corporation financially, whereas those forced to implement it receive neither profit nor compensation. [ 30 ]

Additionally, some criticize the implementation of ACP as a violation of their fair use rights. A recently developed TV-streaming product called the Slingbox uses analog signals to convey video from television to a mobile device. However, the encryption used by ACP blocks analog transmission, rendering the Slingbox unusable. Additionally ACP blocks the use of recording for educational purposes. On one or more accounts, students have not been able to cite and record cable sources properly due to ACP restrictions. [ 31 ]

Effect on research [ edit ] Main article: Digital rights management

The DMCA has had an impact on the worldwide cryptography research community, since an argument can be made that any cryptanalytic research violates, or might violate, the DMCA. The arrest of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov in 2001, for alleged infringement of the DMCA, was a highly publicized example of the law's use to prevent or penalize development of anti-DRM measures. [ 32 ] [ dead link ] While working for ElcomSoft in Russia, he developed The Advanced eBook Processor , a software application allowing users to strip usage restriction information from restricted e-books , an activity legal in both Russia and the United States. [ 33 ] Paradoxically, under the DMCA, it is not legal in the United States to provide such a tool. Sklyarov was arrested in the United States after presenting a speech at DEF CON and subsequently spent nearly a month in jail. [ 34 ] The DMCA has also been cited as chilling to legitimate users, such as students of cryptanalysis (including, in a well-known instance, Professor Edward Felten and students at Princeton ), [ 35 ] and security consultants such as Niels Ferguson , who has declined to publish information about vulnerabilities he discovered in an Intel secure-computing scheme because of his concern about being arrested under the DMCA when he travels to the U.S. [ 36 ]

Effect on innovation and competition [ edit ]

In at least one court case, the DMCA has been used by Open Source software projects to defend against conversion of software (i.e., license violations) that involved removal of copyright notices. [ 37 ] This defense can be used even without timely copyright registration , and can generate attorney fee awards, which together make it a useful strategy for Open Source organizations.

Reform and opposition [ edit ]

There have been several Congressional efforts to modify the Act. Rick Boucher , a Democratic congressman from Virginia, led one of these efforts by introducing the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA).

A prominent bill related to the DMCA is the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), known in early drafts as the Security Systems and Standards Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill, if it had passed, would have dealt with the devices used to access digital content and would have been even more restrictive than the DMCA.

On the tenth anniversary of the DMCA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documented harmful consequences of the anti-circumvention provisions. [ 38 ] They document that the DMCA:

Stifles free expression, such as in its use against Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov , Princeton Professor Edward Felten , and journalists; Jeopardizes fair use ; Impedes competition, such as blocking aftermarket competition in toner cartridges, garage door openers, and enforcing walled gardens around the iPod ; [ 39 ] and Interferes with computer intrusion laws.