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

Digital Millennium Copyright Act | PHD Thesis Writing Services | Writing College Term Papers | Dissertation Service Writing | Term Papers Custom us digital millennium copyright act definition

Follow @usaresearchwriters


Admission Services Case Study Coursework Dissertation services Essay Editing services Research paper Term paper Home Our Services About us Guarantees Prices Order Now Our Process Contact Us FAQ Testimonials Discounts Our Services Custom Writing Services

Essay Coursework Term Paper Research Paper Editing Services Thesis/Dissertation Case Study Free Features Title Page Bibliography Page Formating Order Traking Revisions E-Mail Delivery Eassy Writing Guide


Total Savings: $ 65

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Section 1 (definition) -What is it?

-Why and when did it come about?

Section 2 -What are some of the issues/problems see with this Act? (jeopardize fair use? hurt freedom of expression?) Place this order with us and get 18% discount now! to earn your discount enter this code: summer17 If you need assistance chat with us now by clicking the live chat button.

Customer Service Center

Forgot Password Order now


We Can Help You With

- Academic level - Accounting - Admission Papers - Agricultural Studies - American History - Anthropology - Application Essay - Art - Asian Studies - Aviation - Biology - Business - Case-Study - Chemistry Paper - Communication Strategies - Communications and Media - Company Analysis - Computer Science - Coursework - Creative writing - Criminology - Dissertation - E-Commerce - Economics - Editing - Education - Engineering - English - Environmental Issues - Essay - Ethics - Finance - Geography - Healthcare - History - Holocaust - HR Management - IT Management - Labor Studies - Law - Legal Issues - Life Sciences - Linguistics - Literature and Language - Logistics - Management - Marketing - Master's - Mathematics - Medicine and Health - Movies - Music - Nature - Nursing - Nutrition - Paintings - Pedagogy - Pharmacology - Philosophy - Physics - Political Science - Psychology - Public Relations - Re tnoodljq. moncler jacket mens iofferligion and Theology - Research Paper - Research Proposal - Sociology Paper - Sports - Statistics - Technology - Term Paper - Theater - Thesis - Tourism

Why Us

10+ years experience in writing. A wide range of services Satisfied and returning customers Money-back guarantee 100% privacy guaranteed Professional team of experienced paper writers Only custom-written papers Free amendments upon request Free extras by your request Testimonials Read more... 100% GUARANTEE

us digital millennium copyright act definition

moncler 'vancouver' shearling boot
moncler discount code uk
moncler shoes womens
moncler outlet italy online
us digital millennium copyright act yahoo A second new license applies to multiple “ephemeral” reproductions of sound recordings (stored in computer system “servers”) in order to facilitate performances. The original statutory license of the 1995 Act, in slightly modified form continues to apply to “old” subscription services in operation on July 31, 1998, provided the pre-existing service continues to use the same method of transmission. New digital audio transmission license. In essence, 17 U.S.C. 114 is revised to contain two separate statutory licenses relating to digital audio transmissions of sound recordings. The new digital audio transmission license applies to “webcasters” on the Internet and other new transmission services not in existence before July 31, 1998. Pre-existing subscription services are “grandfathered” under the original (but slightly modified) license of the 1995 Digital Audio Act.

47 Sectional Analysis of H.R. 2281, August 4, 1998, at 50. 48 DMCA Conference Report 105-796 at 80. 49 The details of this second 17 U.S.C. 114 statutory license are beyond the scope of this summary of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Most of the amendments to section 114 take effect upon enactment, but an obligation in Clause (ix) of section 114(d)(2)(C) relating to identification of the sound recording during transmission does not take effect until 1 year after enactment. A major distinction between the “old” and the “new” digital audio license is that the rates under the new license must be fixed at marketplace value. “In establishing rates and terms for transmissions by eligible nonsubscription services and new subscription services, the copyright arbitration royalty panel shall establish rates and terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller.” 50 Rates for pre- existing subscription services and preexisting satellite digital radio services are fixed under different criteria that basically permit comparison of rates for comparable services but do not require marketplace fees. 51 The amendments to 17 U.S.C. 114, and the statutory licenses created by the amendments, “are all fully subject to the safeguards for copyright owners of sound recordings and musical works contained in sections 114(c), 114(d)(4) and 114(i), ...[and] the conferees do not intend to affect any of the rights in section 115 that were 52 clarified and confirmed” in the 1995 Digital Audio Act. Ephemeral recording license. Section 112, 17 U.S.C. is amended by adding a new paragraph (e), which creates a new statutory license for making multiple reproductions of sound recordings embodied in an “ephemeral recording.” This new license is intended primarily for entities that transmit “sound recordings to business establishments pursuant to the limitation on exclusive rights set forth in section 114(d)(1)(C)(iv).” 53 The new “112(e)” license is also available to Section 114(f)

licensees who want to make more than the one recording permitted by the 112(a) exemption. Webcasters might wish to reproduce multiple recordings for use on different computer servers “or to make transmissions at different transmission rates 54 or using different transmission software.” As was true under the law before enactment of the DMCA, to avail itself of the ephemeral recording provisions, the transmitting organization must have voluntary licenses to perform any music embodied in the transmission. Contractual Obligations Related to Transfers of Motion Picture Rights SEC. 406 of Title IV of the DMCA amends Part VI of title 28 U.S.C., by adding a new Chapter 180 regulating the assumption of contractual obligations in collective bargaining agreements between motion picture producers and the craft guilds and unions representing contributors to motion pictures, when rights in the motion picture are transferred. The guilds expressed concern “about their inability to obtain residual payments that are due to their members in situations where the producer of the motion picture

50 Section 114(f)(2)(B), 17 U.S.C. 51 Section 114(f)(1)(B), 17 U.S.C. 52 DMCA Conference Report 105-796 at 89. 53 DMCA Conference Report 105-796 at 89. 54 Id. at 90. fails to make these payments, for example, where the producer/company no longer exists or is bankrupt.... Although the collective bargaining agreements generally require the production company to obtain assumption agreements from distributors that would effectively create ...privity, some production companies apparently do not 55 always do so.” SEC. 406 of the DMCA requires that transfers of motion picture rights negotiated after enactment, shall be deemed to incorporate the collective bargaining agreements, if the transferee knew or had reason to know about the collective bargaining agreements, or, if there is an existing court order against the transferor and the transferor does not have the financial ability to satisfy the obligation within 90 days after the order is issued.

Transfers relating to the public performance right alone are, however, excluded from the assumption of contractual obligations. Also excluded are transfers related to security interests. Banks and other financial institutions are not subject to the statutory assumption of obligations in collective bargaining agreements merely 56 because they obtain a security interest in the motion picture. Report by Comptroller General. SEC. 406(h) directs the Comptroller General, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, to study and report to the Congress within 2 years of enactment on the conditions in the motion picture industry that gave rise to the amendment concerning assumption of contractual obligations, and on the impact of the amendment on the industry. Exemption for Libraries and Archives SEC. 404 of the DMCA amends the library reproduction exemption of 17 U.S.C. 108 to allow libraries and archives to take advantage of digital technologies when engaging in certain permitted activities. Under the law in effect before enactment of the DMCA, Section 108(b) permitted the reproduction and distribution of one copy or phonorecord of an unpublished work solely for preservation, security, or deposit for research use in another library or archives. With respect to published works, Section 108(c) permitted reproduction of an entire copy or phonorecord for the purpose of replacing a damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen copy if an unused replacement could not be obtained at a fair price. The amendments in the DMCA permit the reproduction of 3 copies or phonorecords rather than the one copy of the former law and delete the limiting reference to reproduction only in “facsimile” form. Any reproduction in a digital format of an unpublished work must not be distributed in that format to the public outside the premises of the library or archive. Also, in the case of published works, storage in an obsolete format is added as another justification for reproduction, if a replacement copy is unavailable at a fair price. Any digital reproduction of a

55 Sectional Analysis of H.R. 2281, August 4, 1998, at 62. 56 DMCA Conference Report 105-796 at 92. published work cannot be made available to the public in the digital format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of the copy from which the reproduction is made. References to the “premises” of the library or archive mean only physical premises, and do not include online websites, bulletin boards, or 57 homepages. Another amendment eases the burden of reproducing a copyright notice as a condition of the Section 108 exemptions. A notice already appearing on the copy that is being reproduced should be maintained and not deleted. If the copy being reproduced lacks a copyright notice, the library or archive simply places a legend or notation on the copy that “this work may be protected by copyright.” Distance Education Report Section 110(2) of title 17 U.S.C. exempts qualifying instructional broadcasts from copyright liability for the public performance of copyrighted works embodied in the broadcast transmissions. Nonprofit libraries and educational institutions urged the Congress to adapt the instructional broadcasting exemption to the Internet environment when enacting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Congress deferred this issue for further consideration after receiving a report from the Register of Copyrights. SEC. 403 of the DMCA directs the Register of Copyrights, after consultation with representatives of copyright owners and nonprofit libraries and educational institutions, to submit a report to Congress on distance education, no later than 6 months after enactment. The report shall include recommendations “on how to promote distance education through digital technologies, including interactive digital networks, while maintaining an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of users of copyrighted works.” 58 Paragraph (b) of SEC. 403 lists 8 factors that the Register shall consider in formulating recommendations. Rank and Authority of Register of Copyrights; Rank of the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks SEC. 401(a) of the DMCA amends Section 3(d) of title 35, Section 701(e) of title 17, and Section 5314 of title 5, to create parity in the compensation paid to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and the Register of Copyrights. Both officials will be paid at the pay fixed for level III of the Executive Schedule under Section 5314 of title 5 of the U.S. Code. SEC. 401(b) clarifies the duties and functions of the Register of Copyrights by adding a new paragraph to Section 701 of title 17 U.S.C. “The new subsection... sets forth in express statutory language the functions presently performed by the Register of Copyrights .... Existing subsection 701(a) addresses some of the [legislative and

57 Sectional Analysis of H.R. 2281, August 4, 1998, at 49. 58 SEC. 403(a) of the DMCA. executive or administrative] ... functions. New subsection 701(b) is intended to codify the other traditional roles of the Copyright Office and to confirm the Register’s existing areas of jurisdiction.” 59 The amendment confirms the following areas of authority and jurisdiction of the Register of Copyrights and the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress: 1) the longstanding role as advisor to Congress on copyright matters and all matters within the scope of title 17; 2) the longstanding role in advising other federal agencies (such as the State Department and U.S. Trade Representative) on the adequacy of foreign copyright laws and as a technical consultant in bilateral, regional, and multilateral negotiations with other countries on copyright-related issues; 3) the longstanding role as a key participant in international meetings of various kinds, including as part of U.S. delegations as authorized by the executive branch; and 4) the preparation and submission to the Congress of studies and reports on various copyright policy issues. These statutory functions and duties are illustrative and not exhaustive. 60 Vessel Hull Design Protection — Title V Title V of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act creates a new form of intellectual property protection for the design of boat hulls. The “Vessel Hull Design Protection Act” adds a new Chapter 13 to title 17 U.S.C. that protects the design of the hull of boats larger than a rowboat and smaller than 201 feet in length against copying. Protection extends both to the artistic and the utilitarian features. The Vessel Hull Design Act is, however, subject to sunset 2 years after enactment. Background. The boat design title enacts a design protection proposal that had been considered and rejected in the form of broad design legislation for at least 20 years. The boat hull design proposal responds to a decision of the Supreme Court in 61 Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, in which the Court held that state law protection of boat hulls was an unconstitutional interference with the federal patent and copyright laws. The boat hull design proposal first passed the House of Representatives as a separate bill, H.R. 2696, and was added as a separate title to H.R. 2281 as passed by the House on August 4, 1998. The House-Senate conferees compromised by allowing the boat design Act to remain in H.R. 2281 as enacted, but subjected the Act to termination after 2 years. The Register of Copyrights and the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks shall submit a joint report to the Congress not later than 1 year after enactment, evaluating the effect of the Vessel Hull Design Act.

59 DMCA Conference Report 105-796 at 77. 60 DMCA Conference Report 105-796 at 77-78. 61 489 U.S. 141 (1989). Boat design protection is intended to fill a gap that some perceive exists between the current design patent and copyright laws. The same argument has been made for legislation to enact a design right for useful articles in general. When general design legislation was considered by earlier Congresses, objections from the insurance industry, consumers, retailers, and others concerned about possible anti- competitive effects, were sufficient to prevent enactment. Basic boat design right. New Chapter 13 of title 17 U.S.C. is headed “Protection of Original Designs,” although the definition of “useful article” is intended to make clear the protection is limited to designs of boat hulls. Section 1301 creates new legal protection for the original design of a useful article, which makes the design “attractive or distinctive in appearance.” A design is “original” if it is the result of the designer’s own creative endeavor, and represents a “distinguishable variation” compared to other designs. The distinguishable variation must be more than trivial and not copied from another person. The overall shape of a boat larger than a rowboat and smaller than 201 feet in length can be protected against copying of its artistic or utilitarian features. The fact that protection can extend to solely utilitarian design features is a departure from gearlier design proposals, which would have excluded designs dictated solely by utilitarian function. In order to obtain boat hull design protection, an application for design registration must be made to the Administrator (the Register of Copyrights) within 2 years after the design is made public.

The boat design right is enforced through civil remedies only. These remedies include an injunction; actual damages or up to $50,000 or $1 a copy, as the court 62 considers just; the infringer’s profits; destruction of infringing articles; and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Exclusions from protection. The biggest “exclusion” from protection is achieved by defining a useful article to mean only a “vessel hull, including a plug or mold....” Also excluded from protection by Section 1302 are designs that are: 1) not original; 2) staple or commonplace; 3) different from staple designs only in insignificant details or elements that are common variants; or 4) embodied in a useful article made public by the designer/owner more than 1 year before an application for 63 registration is made to the Copyright Office.

62 Damages of $1 a copy would seem to have significance primarily for designs of useful articles other than vessel hulls. This damages provision is another example of the way Title V of the DMCA may lay the foundation for protection of the design of useful articles in general. 63 Section 1302 actually lists a fifth exclusion — for designs “dictated solely by utilitarian function.” Another clause of the Vessel Hull Design Act, however, specifies that this exclusion does not apply in the case of vessel hull designs. Conclusion The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, P.L. 105-304, amends the Copyright Act, title 17 of the U.S. Code, to legislate new rights in copyrighted works — and limitations on those rights — when those works are used on the Internet and in other digital, electronic environments. The Act is the outcome of at least 5 years of intensive congressional consideration of Internet copyright policy issues. Initially, these policy issues were considered in the context of the development of a national “information superhighway” or a national information infrastructure. The focus shifted somewhat to international copyright policy issues and the worldwide Internet with the creation of two new intellectual property treaties in December 1996 under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The WIPO Copyright Treaty covers copyright protection for computer programs, those databases that qualify as intellectual works, digital communications over the Internet, and use of copyrighted works in digital, electronic environments. The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty extends protection to performers and producers of sound recordings that essentially is equivalent to the protection afforded copyright subject matter by the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Initially, the Clinton Administration and copyright owners proposed implementation of the WIPO Treaties through a “minimalist” approach. They advocated copyright law amendments to protect against circumvention of anti- copying technologies and protection assuring the integrity of copyright management information (CMI) systems. Other Internet copyright policy issues, under this approach, would have been addressed in separate legislation at some future time or left for resolution by the courts in copyright infringement cases. Based on the arguments of online service providers, other telecommunications entities, the electronics industry, libraries, and educational institutions, Congress confronted most of the Internet copyright policy issues, and made policy choices, in enacting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Act, which generally took effect October 28, 1998, in addition to implementing anticircumvention and CMI protection, generally exempts online service providers from copyright liability; exempts computer repair service companies; broadens the ephemeral recording exemption to apply in digital contexts; creates new statutory licenses for multiple ephemeral recordings, and transmissions, of digital sound recordings; and broadens the application of the library reproduction exemption in digital contexts. The Act also creates new federal design protection for vessel hulls, which sunsets after 2 years. The Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification by the United States of the two WIPO Treaties on October 21, 1998. The Treaties will not come into force, however, until 30 States deposit their instruments of ratification or accession with the Director General of WIPO.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation , search Digital Millennium Copyright Act Full title To amend title 18, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes. Acronym / colloquial name DMCA Enacted by the 105th United States Congress Effective October 28, 1998 Citations Public Law Pub. L. 105-304 Stat. 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) Codification Act(s) amended 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. sections substantially 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, 1999 (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 (unanimous consent) and by the House on October 12, 1998 (voice vote) Signed into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998 Major amendments None

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 . 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.

On May 22, 2001, the European Union passed the Copyright Directive or EUCD, which addresses some of the same issues as the DMCA. But the DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries (Title II of the DMCA), was separately addressed, and largely followed, in Europe by means of the separate Electronic Commerce Directive . (Unlike U.S. federal laws and regulations, the execution of European Union directives usually requires separate legislation by or within each of the Union's member states.)

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 MPAA vs. RealNetworks Inc. 4.3 Viacom Inc. vs. YouTube, Google Inc. 4.4 IO Group Inc. vs. Veoh Networks Inc. 4.5 Vernor v. AutoDesk 4.6 Kazaa v. Google 5 Criticisms 5.1 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 Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act

DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act , has two major portions. One portion includes works covered by several treaties in US 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

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs ) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement 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, if the material upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also provides for subpoenas to OSPs to provide their users' identity.

Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act

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.

Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions

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 copies of sound recordings. Added provisions relating to collective bargaining and the transfer of movie rights. Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act

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

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 and 2003, are no longer valid.

The current administratively-created exemptions , issued in November 2006, are:

Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors. (A new exemption in 2006.) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption, first approved in 2003.) 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. (Revised from 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. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2003.) Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. (A new exemption in 2006.) Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in Compact Disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities. (A new exemption created in 2006, after a faulty copy protection system installed on Sony 's compact discs had caused technical problems for many users.)

The Copyright Office approved two exemptions in 2000; four in 2003; and six in 2006. 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." 2003 also added an ebook exemption for text readers and an obsolete software and video game format exemptions, both of which were renewed in 2006. The 2000 filtering exemption was revised and renewed in 2003, but was not renewed in 2006. [ 3 ]

Linking to infringing content

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 DRM ( digital rights management ) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material. [ 4 ]

There have been no cases in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances.

Notable court cases This section requires expansion with: more cases. look: EFF , DMCA 1201 . Edelman v. N2H2

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, sought a Declaratory judgment to affirm his first amendment rights when reverse engineering the censorware product of defendent N2H2 in case he intended to publish the finding. N2H2 filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted.

MPAA vs. RealNetworks Inc.

In August 2009, the Motion Picture Association of America 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 MPAA 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. vs. YouTube, Google 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 lawyers say they are relying on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to shield them from liability. [ 6 ] On March 11, 2008 the judge ruled that Viacom cannot seek punitive damages against YouTube. Massive statutory damages , however, remain on the table. [ 7 ] Viacom's case against Google, which is being run in conjunction with a separate class action filed by the Premier League and several music publishers, is unlikely to go to trial until 2009 or 2010. [ 8 ]

IO Group Inc. vs. 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. [ 9 ] 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. [ 10 ] 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. [ 11 ]

Vernor v. AutoDesk

After numerous stifling DMCA takedown notices on his eBay listings Timothy S. Vernor sued AutoDesk in August 2007 for abusing the DMCA and disrupting his right to sell used software he bought at a garage sale. [ 12 ] 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 . [ 13 ]

Kazaa v. Google

Kazaa used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to demand that Google remove references to allegedly copyrighted material on their sites. [ 14 ]

Criticisms Takedown Notice

The DMCA has been criticized for making it too easy for copyright owners to encourage website owners to take down allegedly infringing content and links which may in fact not be infringing. When website owners receive a takedown notice it is in their interest not to challenge it, even if it is not clear if infringement is taking place, because if the potentially infringing content is taken down the website will not be held liable. The Electronic Frontier Foundation senior IP attorney Fred von Lohmann has said this is one of the problems with the DMCA. [ 15 ]

Google asserted misuse of the DMCA in a filing concerning New Zealand's copyright act, [ 16 ] quoting results from a 2005 study by Californian academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse. [ 17 ] 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." [ 18 ]

Effect on Analog Video Equipment

The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all producers of analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of Macrovision , a commercial firm. [ citation needed ] The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support the Macrovision technology to the financial benefit of Macrovision whereas those who build the video equipment get nothing in compensation.

Effect on research 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. [ 19 ] 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. [ 20 ] 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. [ 21 ] 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 [ 22 ] ), 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 US. [ 23 ]

Effect on Innovation and Competition Reform and opposition

There are efforts in Congress to modify the Act. Rick Boucher , a Democratic congressman from Virginia, is leading 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. They document that the DMCA 1) stifles free expression, such as in its use against Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov , Princeton Professor Edward Felten , and journalists; 2) jeopardizes fair use ; 3) impedes competition, such as blocking aftermarket competition in toner cartridges, garage door openers, and enforcing walled gardens around the iPod [ 24 ] ; and 4) interferes with computer intrusion laws. [ 25 ]

See also Internet portal Related US laws The "No Electronic Theft" ( NET ) Act Copyright Term Extension Act (1998) Proposed US legislation Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations ( BALANCE ) Act of 2003 The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (INDUCE) (introduced 2004) Pirate Act (introduced 2004) Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (introduced 2003 & 2005) Digital Transition Content Security Act (introduced 2005) Related international law EU Copyright Directive ( European Union ) DADVSI ( France — Loi sur le Droit d'Auteur et les Droits Voisins dans la Société de l'Information ) Bill C-60 ( Canada — proposed ) Bill C-61 (Canada — proposed ) Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations Treaty ( proposed ) Proposed international law Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement DMCA anti-circumvention cases Chamberlain v. Skylink Universal v. Reimerdes Dmitry Sklyarov in United States v. ElcomSoft and Sklyarov Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components DMCA damages cases Stockwire Research Group, Inc., et al. v. Lebed, et al. DMCA notice-and-takedown issues Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) (more information about the DMCA 512 takedown provisions) Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. References ^ 17 U.S.C. 101 (defining "Pictorial, graphic and sculptural works" as "Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.") ^ "Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1997 (H.R. 2696)" , Statement of MaryBeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights, before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, Oct. 23, 1997 ("It is a long-held view of the Office that a gap exists in legal protection for the designs of useful articles. Existing bodies of federal intellectual property law do not provide appropriate and practical coverage for such designs, while state law is largely preempted in this area. Consequently, while considerable investment and creativity may go into the creation of innovative designs, they often can be copied with impunity."). ^ See U.S. Copyright Office, Oct. 27, 2000, Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works, at  ; U.S. Copyright Office, Oct. 28, 2003, Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works, at . ^ "Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US" . WebTVWire. 2006-09-12 . . Retrieved 2006-10-12 .   ^ <a href=";title ">RealNetworks loses critical ruling in RealDVD case</a> ^ Viacom sues Google over YouTube clips ^ Judge to Viacom: No punitive damages in YouTube case ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Technology News: News: Google Pulls P2P Links Over Kazaa Copyright Claims ^ "Fox commits copyright fraud (See comment from EFF)" . BoingBoing. 2006-01-12 . . Retrieved 2006-10-12 .   ^ Carolyn Dalton and Antoine Aubert (6 March 2009). "Google submission on TCF Draft ISP Copyright Code of Practice" (PDF) . . Retrieved 2009-10-14 .   ^ Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban (2005). "Efficient Process or 「Chilling Effects」? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Summary Report" . . Retrieved 2009-10-14 .   ^ "Google submission hammers section 92A" . New Zealand PCWorld. 2009-03-16 . . Retrieved 2009-03-19 .   ^ First Indictment Under Digital Millennium Copyright Act Returned Against Russian National ^ Adobe FAQ: ElcomSoft legal background ^ Sklyarov: A Huge Sigh of Release ^ RIAA challenges SDMI attack 2002-01-07, Retrieved on 2007-02-26 ^ Video crypto standard cracked? ^ e.g. OdioWorks v. Apple [1] ^ "Unintended Consequences: Ten Years under the DMCA" . Electronic Frontier Foundation . 2008-10 . .   Litman, Jessica (2000). Digital Copyright . Berlin: Prometheus Books . pp. 208. ISBN 1-57392-889-5.   External links Works related to Digital Millennium Copyright Act at Wikisource H.R. 2281 , DMCA U.S. Copyright Office summary of the DMCA ( PDF format) Title 17 of the U.S. Code , Cornell Law School Cybertelecom's DMCA information and background material A citizen's guide to the DMCA , a clearinghouse of DMCA 512 notices and cease and desist letters Info on Dealing with Digital Copyrights Infringement including filing DMCA Notices Interview of Marcia Hoffman from the EFF on Lenz v. Universal DMCA lawsuit Seth Finkelstein, How To Win (DMCA) Exemptions And Influence Policy . The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) page on the DMCA Unintended Consequences: Ten Years under the DMCA - EFF