Digital Millennium Copyright Act

src: crowddistrict.com

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA ) is a United States copyright law that implements two agreements in 1996 from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes the production and dissemination of technologies, devices, or services intended to avoid actions that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM). It also criminalizes acts to circumvent access control, whether there is copyright infringement itself or not. In addition, the DMCA increases penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, unanimously in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on 28 October 1998, the DMCA changed Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the responsibility of online service providers to copyright infringement by their users.

A major innovation of the DMCA in the field of copyright is the exclusion of the direct and indirect responsibility of Internet service providers and other intermediaries. This exclusion was adopted by the European Union in Electronic Trading Directive 2000. The Copyright Directive 2001 implements the 1996 WIPO Copyright Agreement in the European Union.

Video Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Terms

Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Implementation Agreement on Recording Agreement

DMCA Title I, WIPO Copyright and Performance and Act of Implementation of Recording Agreement, amending the U.S. copyright law to comply with the WIPO Copyright Agreement and the WIPO Agreement and the Record of Tone Agreement, adopted at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference in December 1996. it has two big parts. One section includes works covered by some treaties in U.S. copyright prevention laws. and named the name. For a further analysis of the passage of this Act and some of the cases below it, see the WIPO Implementation and Copyright Act and the Act of Tracts Act.

The second part (17 U.S.C. 1201) is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provision. These provisions alter solutions for the avoidance of copy-prevention systems (also called "technical protection measures") and require that all analogue video recorders have support for certain copy-prevention forms created by Macrovision (now Rovi Corporation) built in, providing Macrovision is an effective monopoly on the copy-prevention market of analog video recordings. This section contains a number of specific limitations and exceptions, for things like government research and reverse engineering in certain situations. Although, section 1201 (c) of the title states that sections do not alter the fundamental rights of underlying copyright infringement, remedies, or defenses, it does not make defense available in circumvention. This section excludes the fair use exceptions from criminal or scien- ing terms, so that criminal liability may be attached to even unintentional avoidance for legitimate purposes.

Title II: The Limitation of Copyright Copyright Copyright Act

DMCA Title II, the Copyright Restructuring Rights ("OCILLA") Copyright Act, creates safe ports for online service providers (OSP, including ISPs) against copyright infringement responsibilities, provided they meet specific requirements. OSP must comply with and qualify for the designated safe port guidelines and immediately block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their system) when they receive notice of infringement claims from the copyright holder or copyright holder. OCILLA also includes a provision of counternotification that offers OSPs a secure port of liability to their users when the user claims that the material in question does not, in fact, violate. OCILLA also facilitates the publishing of subpoenas against OSP to provide their user identities.

Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Guarantee Competition

The DMCA Title III modifies section 117 of the copyright title so those who fix the computer can make certain limited temporary copies while working on the computer. This reverses the precedent set at MAI Systems Corp v. Peak Computer, Inc. , 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).

Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions

The DMCA Title IV contains various provisions:

• Clarification and added to the Copyright Office task.
• Add ephemeral copies to broadcaster terms, including certain legal licenses.
• Added provisions to facilitate distance education.
• Add a condition to help library by saving fonorecord sound recordings.
• Added provisions related to collective bargaining and movie rights transfer.

Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act

DMCA Title V adds section 1301 to 1332 to add sui generis protection for boat hull design. The design of the hull is not considered to be covered by copyright laws because the ship is a useful article whose shape can not be separated cleanly from its function.

Maps Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Anti-circumvention exception

In addition to secure labeling and exceptions, the law explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201 (a) (1) requires the release of members of the Librarian Committee from a prohibition prohibiting access control technology. Exceptions are granted when it is demonstrated that access control technology has a substantial detrimental effect on people's ability to make use of non-infringing copyrighted works.

Rules of exemption are revised every three years. The Freedom Proposal is filed by the public to the Copyright Clerk, and after the process of public hearings and comments, the final rule is recommended by the Clerk and issued by the Librarian. Exceptions end after three years and must be resent for the next rule-making cycle. As a result, only the creation of a valid new rule, and the previous exclusion issued (in 2000, 2003, 2006, 2010, and 2013) are no longer valid. In 2017 (for regulatory 2018), the Copyright Office is considering re-authorizing the exclusion if no new evidence is submitted for otherwise.

Section 1201 Study

After much criticism (see below), on December 29, 2015, the Copyright Office began research to assess the operations of section 1201 and the three-year regulatory process. This is different from the general public comment on the liberation proposal. This includes the role of anti-trafficking provisions and permanent exemptions, and the requirements of the rule-making itself. The Office has issued an Inquiry Notice requesting a public comment.

Some comments are posted by individuals and organizations. An individual remembers that the Copyright Clause has limitations. American Publishing Association et al. continues to not need to change the law or significantly change the rule-making. They are happy with the protection afforded to them, including anti-trafficking provisions, and talks about the placement of trains in front of horses, when they argue about requiring proof of the mindset that consumers will have when using circumvention before the actual violation takes place. happen. According to them, the meaning of Section 1201 is to extend , not just duplicates, rights of copyright holders. The Society of American Archivists says they are unaware that the anti-trafficking provisions of sections 1201 (a) (2) and 1201 (b) have any effect in preventing copyright infringement. However, they know that the provision has created an unreasonable Catch-22 situation for archives that try to comply with legal letters. iFixit also talks about Catch-22 which emphasizes that because its proponents want to show that exceptions are relevant, they need to point out that there is tremendous market demand if it is legal . Rapid7 Notice that DMCAs influence security research in good faith by prohibiting researchers from avoiding technological protection measures (TPM) for analyzing software for vulnerabilities. The Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School shows that the rulemaking is complex, ad hoc, and the process too burdensome.

The Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) commented that avoiding DRM restrictions to meet accessibility needs deserves a permanent exception. The Entertainment Software Association provides a clear and detailed description of emerging markets that are only possible due to the DMCA. They are very concerned about PwDs, but the attention is already protected by the copyright holder, so no permanent exemption is required.

Comments have also been submitted by, among others, R Street Institute of the American Association of Law Libraries, Business Software Alliance, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of American Universities et al. , Copyright Alliance, Association for Computing Machine US Public Policy Council, Association of Software Industry and Information, DVD Copy Control Association ("DVD CCA") et al. , Microsoft Corporation, Competitive Technology Association, Public Knowledge, American Car Association.

In June 2017, the Copyright Office published a report in which "shared concern" that Section 1201 may affect activities not related to copyright infringement, but does not suggest changing it because it could "severely weaken copyright owners' rights to meaningful exercise. on the terms of access to their work online ", which they believe is" essential for the development of the digital market for creative content ".

Previous exclusion

The Copyright Office approved two exceptions in 2000; four year 2003; six of 2006; six of 2010; five of 2012; and nine years 2015.

2000 rulemaking

In 2000, the first legislation, the Office was released:

• "Compilation of list of blocked websites by filtering software applications" (updated in 2003 but not updated in 2006); and
• "Literary works, including computer programs and databases, are protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access due to damage, damage, or obscurity." (revised and limited in 2003 and again in 2006).

2003 rule-making

In 2003, the Office made the following rules:

• Exemption Filter 2000 was revised and updated.
• The literary works of 2000 include computer programs "restricted exceptions to" dongle-protected computer programs that prevent access due to malfunctions or damage and are outdated "and these exceptions were updated in 2006 and 2010.
• The new exceptions apply to electronic books where tech protection measures prevent the use of screen reader or read-aloud software. This exception was updated in 2006, 2010, 2012, and 2015.
• New exceptions are made for "Computer programs and video games that are distributed in a format that has become obsolete and that requires native media or hardware as a condition of access." This exception was updated in 2006 but not in 2010.

2006 rulemaking

In 2006, the Office made the following rules:

• The 2003 release on obsolete computer programs and video games is updated.
• The 2003 exceptions on computer programs protected by the dongle are updated.
• The 2003 release on the e-book was updated.
• A new exceptions are made for the sound recordings that are allowed after security flaws are found in the copy protection system on some Sony CD's; this was not updated in 2010.
• The new exceptions implemented include audiovisual works included in the education library of a university or university or department of media studies; this was not updated in 2010.
• New exceptions are enforced that allow avoidance to allow wireless phones to connect to wireless networks. This exception was revised in 2010 to determine which handset to use and require authorization from wireless network operators. Another exception for wireless handsets was introduced in 2010 specifically for the interoperability software on the phone itself.

2010 rule-making

Rulemaking is scheduled to occur in 2009, but the final rule is not issued until the following year. The 2010 exceptions, issued in July 2010, are:

• Motion pictures on DVDs that are legally created and obtained and protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is made solely to achieve the incorporation of short sections of the film into new works for criticism or commentary purposes, and where the person involved in the circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds to believe that avoidance is necessary to meet the intended use in the following example:
  • Use of education by university and university professors and by film and media students and media and university studies;
  • Documentary film making;
  • Outdated software and video game formats.
  • Non-commercial videos. (The new exceptions in 2010 are similar to previous educational releases.)
• A computer program that enables wireless phone handsets to execute software applications, where avoidance is performed solely for the purpose of enabling the interoperability of such applications, when obtained legally, by computer programs on the phone's handset. (New exceptions in 2010.)
• Computer programs, in firmware or software formats, allow wireless phone phones to be used to connect to wireless telecommunications networks, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of a copy of a computer program solely for connecting to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network authorized by the operator network. (Revised from a similar exclusion approved in 2006.)
• Video games are accessible on a personal computer and are protected by technological protection measures that control access to legally-obtained work, when circumvention is conducted solely for testing purposes in good faith to investigate or correct security vulnerabilities or vulnerabilities , if:
  • Information obtained from security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
  • Information obtained from security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or violation of applicable law. (New exceptions in 2010.)
• Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to damage or damage and unused ones. Dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if replacement or repair is no longer available adequately in the commercial market. (New exceptions from 2006, based on a similar exception approved in 2003.)
• Literary works are distributed in e-book format when all existing e-book editions of the work (including digital text editions provided by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the activation of any of the read-hard book functions or reader screens that create text into a special format. (New exceptions from 2006, based on a similar exception approved in 2003.)

2012 rule-making

The exceptions of 2012, issued in November 2012, are to:

• Literary works, distributed electronically, are protected by technological measures that prevent non-voice-reading functionality or interfere with screen readers or other applications or support technologies
• A computer program that allows smartphones and portable versatile mobile computing devices to run legally-obtained software applications where discontinuation takes place only for the purpose of enabling the interoperability of such applications with computer programs on smartphones or devices, or to permit device deletion software from your smartphone or device
• A computer program that allows certain types of wireless devices to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is made solely for connecting to a wireless telecommunication network and the connection is authorized by the network operator
• Moving pictures (including television and video shows), as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, in which avoidance is exercised solely to exploit short sections of the film for the purpose of criticism or comment in limited instances
• Moving pictures and other audiovisual works on DVDs protected by the Content Scrambling System, or those distributed by online services and protected by technological measures that control access to such work, where circumvention is related to the development of descriptive text and audio technologies

2015 rulemaking

The exclusion 2015, issued in October 2015, is to:

• Moving pictures (including television and video shows), as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, in which avoidance is exercised solely to exploit short sections of the film for the purpose of criticism or comment in limited instances,
• Literary works, distributed electronically, are protected by technological measures that prevent read-non-voice functionality or disrupt screen readers or other applications or support technologies,
• A computer program that allows the following types of wireless devices to connect to a wireless telecommunication network, when circumvention is made solely for connecting to a wireless telecommunication network and such connections are authorized by the network operator,
• A computer program that enables portable, versatile, mobile and portable mobile computing devices and smartphones to run legitimately acquired software applications where discontinuation is made only for the purpose of enabling the interoperability of such applications with computer programs on smartphones or devices, or to allow removal of software from a smartphone or device,
• Computer programs contained in and controlling the functionality of motor vehicles such as private cars, commercial motor vehicles or agricultural agricultural vehicles, except for computer programs primarily designed for telematic control or entertainment systems for such vehicles, when circumvention is an important step undertaken by the owner of the authorized vehicle to enable the diagnosis, repair or modification of a valid vehicle function,
• Computer programs, where avoidance is performed on a legally obtained device or machine where the computer program operates solely for the purpose of security research in good faith and does not violate any applicable law,
• A video game in the form of a computer program embodied in a physically or downloaded format that has been obtained legally as a complete game, when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has stopped providing access to the external computer server necessary to facilitate the authentication process to enable local games ,
• Computer programs that operate 3D printers that use microchip-dependent technology measurements to limit the use of raw materials, when circumvention is made solely for the purpose of using alternative feedstocks and not for the purpose of accessing design software, design files or proprietary data, and
• Literary works composed of data compilations produced by medical devices wholly or partially implanted in the body or by appropriate personal monitoring systems, where such avoidance is performed by the patient solely for the legitimate purpose of accessing data generated by the device or system his own monitoring.

src: media.wired.com

Connecting to infringing content

Current law does not correspond to websites containing links to infringing material; however, there are some lower court decisions that decide not to link in some narrowly defined circumstances. One is when website owners have issued an order to post infringing material on their website and then link to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the order. Other areas involve linking to software or devices designed to circumvent (digital rights management tools), or links from websites whose primary purpose is to avoid copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material.

Edelman v. N2H2

In July 2002, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Benjamin Edelman, a computer researcher at the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society, seeking a declaration decision to assert his first amendment right when reversing the censorware engineering of defendant N2H2 if he intended to publish the find. N2H2 filed a motion to dismiss, provided by the court.

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc.

In August 2009, the DVD Copy Control Association won a lawsuit against RealNetworks for violating copyright laws in selling its RealDVD software, allowing users to copy DVDs and store them on hard disks. Control Association DVD copies claim that Real violates the DMCA by avoiding anti-piracy actions of ARccOS and RipGuard Protection, as well as violating Real's license agreement with Content Scrambling System.

Violet Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc.

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

Viacom claims the popular video-sharing site was involved in a "massive deliberate copyright infringement" because it provides 160,000 Viacom entertainment entertainment clips that are not legitimate. Google relies on the 1998 Millennium Digital Millennium Act's "safe harbor" provisions to protect them from liability.

On June 23, 2010, US District Judge Louis Stanton gave a YouTube-backed summary review. The court ruled that YouTube is protected by the DMCA safe port. Viacom appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On April 5, 2012, the second Federal Circuit Court of Appeal emptied Judge Louis Stanton's verdict, and instead decided that Viacom had provided sufficient evidence against YouTube to secure the trial, and the case should not be disposed of in the summary. The court upholds the verdict that YouTube can not be held responsible under "general knowledge" that users on its site have infringed copyright. The case was sent back to the District Court in New York, and on April 18, 2013, Judge Stanton issued another order to provide a summary rating in support of YouTube. The case is over; no money changed hands.

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

On June 23, 2006, IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

IO Group states that Veoh is responsible for copyright infringement by allowing videos owned by IO Group to be accessed through Veoh's online service without permission more than 40,000 times between June 1 and June 22.

Veoh is a Flash video site that relies on user-contributed content. IO Group believes that because Veoh transcodes uploaded videos uploaded by users to Flash format, it becomes a direct violation and the material is under their direct control, thus disqualifying them for the safeguards of the DMCA safe port.

The powerful judge disagrees with the argument, declaring it

Veoh has just set up a system where the software automatically processes user-submitted content and generates it in a format accessible to its users. Veoh selects software parameters to process from various default values ​​set by third-party software... But Veoh himself does not actively participate or monitor file uploads. Also does not preview or select the file before the upload is complete. Instead, video files are uploaded via an automated process that starts entirely on the Veoh user's will.

The Court has granted Veoh's motion to the summary decision, on the basis of the DMCA, stating that the video-sharing website of the defendant fulfills and is entitled to the protection of the provision of "secure protection" of the law. Although Veoh won the court case, it blamed litigation as one of the causes of preparing to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and its subsequent sale to Qlipso.

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

After many DMCA takedown notices in response to his eBay listing, Timothy S. Vernor sued Autodesk in August 2007, alleging that Autodesk abused the DMCA and disrupted his right to sell the used software he bought in garage sales. In May 2008, a federal district judge in the Washington State rejected Autodesk's argument that the software license agreement preceded the seller from his rights under the first sales doctrine. In September 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, stating that "the software user is a licensee rather than the owner of the copy in which the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is licensed; (2) significantly limits the user's ability to transfer the device software, and (3) imposes important usage restrictions. "

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

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

Lenz immediately informed YouTube that the video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that the video be restored. YouTube meets after six weeks - not two weeks, as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - to see if Universal is planning to sue Lenz for violations. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for his legal costs, claiming that the music company acted in bad faith by ordering the removal of videos that represent the fair use of the song.

In August 2008, US District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders can not order file deletion online without specifying whether it reflects "fair use" of copyrighted material.

On February 25, 2010, Judge Fogel issued a ruling that rejected some of Universal's affirmative affirmations, including the defense that Lenz was not damaged.

By 2015, the court finally upholds the finding that Universal is responsible under 17 USC 512 (f) (DMCA's unfaithful notification and notice of takedown) for failing to consider fair use before sending an initial takedown notice.

Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter

In the case of Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter court denied the safeguarding of defendants under the DMCA 17 U.S.C.Ã, Â ± 512 . The district court found that the defendant had knowledge of user infringement activities and also failed to prevent future infringement activities. Thus, the plaintiff's movement for an initial court order is given. On appeal, Seventh Circuit clears the command, citing the standards set out on eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., which states that the court should not rely on categorical rules as the standard for court orders.

Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.

In the case of Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.., the court rejected the plaintiff's attempts to seek responsibility for the removal of homemade videos by YouTube and Myspace. Despite the potential for fair use claims, the courts find it impossible to use the DMCA takedown provisions as the basis for liability. The court found that safe harbor provisions functioned "to limit the responsibility of Internet service providers, not to create non-enforceable responsibilities under existing laws independent of the DMCA."

Sony v. George Hotz

In January 2011, Sony Computer Entertainment sued George Hotz for violating Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Federal Fraud and Abuse Act for facilitating consumers to jailbreak their PlayStation 3 console. Hotz argues that since he has purchased the product, he has the right to do so as he pleases. After three months, Sony and Hotz decided to get out of court. It also includes orders against George Hotz, forbidding him to hack again Sony products.

Automattic, Inc. and Oliver Hotham v. Nick Steiner

In 2013, Oliver Hotham wrote an article about WordPress (critically owned by Automattic, Inc.) against Straight Pride UK which included material from a press release sent to him by Straight Pride UK press officer Nick Steiner. Steiner sends WordPress notice of DMCA removal claiming that Hotham article infringes their copyright. WordPress and Hotham sued in federal District Court in California, under Ã, §512 (f) of the DMCA, claimed that the takedown notice was false, and that the removal of the plaintiff's fees time, job loss and attorney's fees. In 2015, the court issued a default decision in favor of WordPress and Hotham in the amount of $ 25,084.

src: www.industrytap.com

Criticism

Abuse takedown notices

Music companies have urged Google to prevent searching for material that infringes copyright by sending them many takedown notices, but regardless of this effort, many of the top search results on Google are still questionable materials. The DMCA also includes a safe harbor provision that protects websites from being blamed when it comes to copyright removal. Some websites benefit from copyright infringement but because of this loophole they are not responsible.

Google affirms abuse of the DMCA in archiving of New Zealand copyright acts, citing results from a 2005 study by California academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse. A takedown notice targeting a competitor's business accounted for more than half (57%) of the notices Google received, the company said, and more than a third (37%), "no valid copyright claims."

Currently, there are three major abuse of DMCA. First, fair use has become a legal gray area, and is subject to opposite interpretations. This has led to injustice in the handling of individual cases. Second, the DMCA is often summoned arrogantly, preferring the copyright holders greater than the smaller ones. This results in the unauthorized deletion of legitimate content, such as record companies that accidentally deleted music videos from their own artists. Third, the lack of consequences for perjury in claims encourages censorship. This results in the temporary removal of legitimate content that may be financially damaging to legitimate copyright holders, who have no choice for reimbursement. It has been used by businesses to censor competition.

Misuse of anti-circumvention provisions

In 2015 Volkswagen abuses the DMCA to hide their vehicle emission fraud. It has been suggested that the DMCA does not preclude access to software ".. a researcher with legal access to the Volkswagen software can find code that changes the way cars behave in testing.."

Effects on analog video equipment

Analog Copy Protection (ACP), an encryption technology made by Rovi Corporation (formerly Macrovision), is designed to thwart user attempts to reproduce content over analog cables. When a DVD is played through an analog video cable and recorded using a VCR, ACR Rovi technology will distort the partial or full copy.

This technology works by adding an additional line to the video signal. In the NTSC video standard, blank lines (vertical blankout intervals) that are not visible to the user are used for functions such as closed captions. Rovi Corporation uses this blank track to apply its ACP technology.

The implementation of ACP has been considered bad by some video fans. Many claim that technology has caused signal problems with VCRs and analog video equipment. Some VCRs misread the encryption used to prevent copying, distorting the video image regardless of whether the recording was original or a copy.

The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all analog video equipment manufacturers to support copyright protection technology of Rovi Corporation, a commercial company. Video equipment manufacturers are forced by law to support and implement proprietary technologies. This benefits Rovi Corporation financially, while those who are forced to implement it do not benefit or compensate.

In addition, some criticized the adoption of the ACP as a violation of their fair use rights. A recently-developed TV-streaming product called Slingbox uses analog signals to deliver videos from television to mobile devices. However, the encryption used by the analog transmission ACP block, Slingbox rendering can not be used. In addition ACP blocked the use of recording for educational purposes. On one or more accounts, students have not been able to properly cite and record the source of the cable due to ACP restrictions.

Effects on research

The DMCA has influenced the world's cryptographic research community, since arguments can be made that any cryptanalytic research violates, or may violate, the DMCA. The arrest of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov in 2001, due to alleged violations of the DMCA, is a highly publicized example of legal use to prevent or punish the development of anti-DRM measures. While working for ElcomSoft in Russia, he developed Advanced eBook Process , a software application that allows users to remove restrictions on the use of restricted e-books, legal activities in Russia and the United States. The paradox, under the DMCA, is not legal in the United States to provide such a tool. Sklyarov was arrested in the United States after delivering a speech at DEF CON and then spending nearly a month in jail. The DMCA has also been mentioned as cold for legitimate users, such as cryptanalysis students (including, in the famous example, Professor Edward Felten and students at Princeton), and security consultants like Niels Ferguson, who have refused to publish information about the vulnerabilities he found in Intel's secure computing scheme because of its concern about being captured under the DMCA when he traveled to the US

Effects on innovation and competition

At least in one court case, the DMCA has been used by open source software projects to defend against software conversion (i.e., licensing violations) involving the removal of copyright notices. This defense can be used even without timely copyright registration, and can result in award attorney fees, which together make it a useful strategy for open source organizations.

Reform and conflict

There have been several attempts by Congress to modify the Act. The Unlocking Technology Act 2013 was introduced to try to exclude non-infringing use of the anti-evasion clause. However, the bill was not passed by Congress. In 2014, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act are authorized, providing a special exception to unlock the phone, without affecting any other provisions of the DMCA.

Bills by 2015 include the Unlocking Technology Act of 2015, and the Breaking Down Barriers to the Innovation Act of 2015. The Republican Party also considers the law, as it becomes clear that Section 1201 precludes state security. In the face of an increasing number of cyber-creators, cybersecurity researchers petitioned for research to offset the increased risk and vulnerability of cybersecurity, stating: "Without such exceptions, security risks will not be addressed and the public will be far less secure." Billing is meant to address the fact that section 1201 prevents circumvention even when doing so is not a copyright infringement. In addition, this section requires proxy supporters to bear the burden of proof whenever their exceptions appear for a three-year review, rather than a presumption of an update to an exception whose interests were previously proven.

Rick Boucher, a congressman from Virginia, led the previous effort by introducing the Digital Media Consumer Rights Act (DMCRA).

A prominent bill related to the DMCA is the Broadband and Digital TV Consumer Promotion Act (CBDTPA), known in the initial draft as the System Security and Standards Certification Act (SSSCA). This charge, if it has passed, will deal with the device used to access digital content and will be even tighter than the DMCA.

On the fifth anniversary of the DMCA, and several times thereafter, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documents the harmful consequences of anti-circumvention provisions. They are documenting the DMCA:

1. Stopping free expression, as in its use against Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov, Princeton Professor Edward Felten, and journalist;
2. Threatening fair use;
3. Undermine competition, such as blocking aftermarket competition in toner cartridges, garage door openers, and enforcing walled gardens around the iPod; and
4. Disrupts computer intrusion laws.

In July 2016, the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the US government stating that Section 1201 violated the First Amendment.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation strongly dislikes the effects of Sonny Bono's Copyright Renewal Act, especially the extension of time for creative protection. They cite Rufus Pollock's study of the optimal duration of copyright. He found that copyright works best when the amount of time protected is fourteen years. The EFF also makes an argument that all the side effects of Sonny Bono's Copyright Term Extension Act are negative for all but the media company. Therefore, it only helps big media companies.

src: i.ytimg.com

See also

International law proposed

• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

the DMCA anti-circumvention case

DMCA damages case

• Stockwire Research Group, Inc., et al. v. Lebed, et al.

DMCA notification-and-takedown issues

• Copyright Restrictions on Online Copyright Infringement (OCILLA) (more information about DMCA 512 deletion requirements)
• Lumen (clearinghouse for DMCA takedowns)
• Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

Economic concept

• Protectionism

Related US law

• Copyright Term Extension Act (1998)
• Exact Digital Performance in Sound Recording Act (1995)
• The fishing rod
• NET Act, "No Electronic Theft"

Proposed U.S.

• The BALANCE Act, Author Benefits without Limit Progress or Net Consumer Expectations Act of 2003
• Indicates Breach of the Copyright Act (INDUCE) (introduced 2004)
• Pirate Act (introduced 2004)
• Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (introduced in 2003 & amp; 2005)
• the Digital Transition Content Safety Act (introduced 2005)
• The FAIR USE Act (introduced in 2007)

US Legislation

• The PROTECT IP Act (introduced in 2011, stored indefinitely)
• Stop the Online Piracy Law (SOPA) (introduced in 2011, suspended indefinitely)

Related international law

• Bill C-60 (Canada - proposed )
• Bill C-61 (Canada - proposed )
• Bill C-32 (Canada - proposed )
• DADVSI (French - Loi sur le Droit d'Auteur and les Droits Voisins dans la SociÃÆ' © tÃÆ' Â © de l'Information )
• Digital Economy Act 2010 (United Kingdom)
• EU copyright directive (EU)
• Broadcasting Agreement Protection and Broadcasting Organization ( proposed )

src: www.gamingrebellion.com

References

Further reading

src: www.crazyaffiliatemarketing.com

External links

Working with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act on Wikisource

• H.R. 2281, DMCA
• US. Summary of Copyright Office of DMCA (PDF format)
• Wikimediafoundation.org
• Title 17 of the US Code, Cornell Law School
• DMCA information and Cybertelecom background material
• Citizens guide to DMCA
• Info on Encountering Digital Copyright Infringement includes filling out DMCA Notice
• Marcia Hoffman's Interview of the EFF on Lenz v. Universal DMCA Demands
• Seth Finkelstein, How To Win (DMCA) Liberation And Influence Policy .
• Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) page on DMCA
• Unintended Consequences: Ten Years under DMCA - EFF
• Media Copyright Act
• In Your Pocket - DMCA
• One Decade of DMCA
• Web-based tools to identify owners and operators of websites with infringing content

Source of the article : Wikipedia