| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

View
 

Overview of the legal provisions

This version was saved 14 years, 9 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by PBworks
on December 17, 2006 at 12:30:28 pm
 

Enacted in 1998, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) responded to the exigency of increasing copyright infractions, particularly due to the growing ease of information sharing. In essence, it functions as an extension of copyright law and was incorporated into Title 17 of the U.S. Code. The legislation is divided into five titles, the first of which implements two treaties from the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and includes the infamous provisions that proscribe circumvention. The second title addresses the liability of internet service providers, while the third exempts copies of computer programs for computer maintenance. Title IV covers a number of miscellaneous copyright issues, including those related to education; and finally, Title V establishes the “Vessel Hull Design Protection Act”, creating new standards for the design of vessel hulls1. Hotly contested by groups claiming that sharing restrictions hinder advancements, the DMCA was implemented with the intention of protecting the rights of copyright owners. The DMCA has played a large role in the prosecution of piracy cases, as the internet has spawned numerous websites illegally distributing films, television shows, music and software; even vidding, which involves an individual publishing a set of selected clips to a soundtrack, has come under scrutiny.


 

Provision I-WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998

 

The DMCA’s first provision, entitled the “WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998” contains two parts, the second of which is considered the most controversial component of the DMCA. The first section modified U.S. copyright law to include works produced in the countries that participated in the WIPO Copyright Treaty caucus held in December 1996. WIPO is a specialized agency of the United Nations and according to its mission statement is "dedicated to developing a balanced and accessible international intellectual property system, which rewards creativity, stimulates innovation and contributes to economic development while safeguarding the public interest." These additions merely added technical definitions and references to the treaties within the text.

 

The second section contains the so-called “anti-circumvention” provisions. According to the text of the legislation, circumvention is defined as descrambling a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.” There are two types of security measures that copyright owners may employ, both of which are addressed under this provision, and are illegal to circumvent. The first of which is an ****access control****, which is defined as something that must be bypassed to obtain access to a work, like a password or encryption. Not only is it a violation to circumvent access controls, but also to provide tools to others that would help them do this (like linking to a site, bypassing a log-in screen, or distributing passwords). The second is a ****copy control****, which involves whether a protected material can be copied, how many copies can be made, and how long you can have possession of the work. The DMCA prohibits the manufacture and distribution of programs that can circumvent copy control securities; however, it is oddly not a direct violation of the DMCA to engage in the act of circumventing copy controls, but that falls under traditional copyright law. These provisions thus attempt to protect copyright owners and prevent the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material. According to an August 2004 paper published by the Congressional Budget Office that addressed copyright issues in digital media, “Like the purchaser of a movie ticket, an Internet consumer would have to obtain the copyright owner’s authorization to view the movie by paying for the decryption key needed to view the digitized video file.” The DMCA also forbids the manufacturing or trafficking of products that are designed to elude technologies designed to protect copyrighted material.

 

Provision II-Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA)

 

This section benefits online service providers (OSPs), freeing them from paying monetary damages if they are compliant with the removal of content (made available through them) alleged to be a copyright infringement. In addition to granting them immunity from the innocuous transmission of copyrighted material, an OSP cannot be held legally responsible for the storage or linkage to such material, unless they refuse to remove it. In order to obtain this “safe harbor”, an OSP must follow a set of outlined procedures, involving an immediate removal (dubbed a “take down”) of the alleged copyright-infringing materials, notifying the responsible of its removal and disclosing the identity of the offenders to the copyright owner (if issued a subpoena). An example of how the takedown procedures would work follows (source: wikipedia.org):

 

  1. Alice puts a copy of Bob's song on her AOL-hosted website.
  2. two Bob, searching the Internet, finds Alice's copy.
  3. three Bob, searching the Internet, finds Alice's copy.
  4. four Charlie, Bob's lawyer, sends a letter to AOL's designated agent (registered with the Copyright Office) including:

 

  • contact information
  • second the name of the song that was copied
  • third the address of the copied song
  • fourth a statement that he has a good faith belief that the material is not legal
  • fifth a statement that, under penalty of perjury, Charlie is authorized to act for the copyright holder
  • sixth his signature

 

  1. five AOL takes the song down.
  2. six AOL tells Alice that they have taken the song down.
  3. seven Alice now has the option of sending a counter-notice to AOL, if she feels the song was taken down unfairly. The notice includes

 

  • contact information
  • second identification of the removed song
  • third a statement under penalty of perjury that Alice has a good faith belief the material was mistakenly taken down
  • fourth a statement consenting to the jurisdiction of Alice's local US Federal District Court, or, if outside the US, to a US Federal District Court in any jurisdiction in which AOL is found.
  • fifth her signature
  • sixth AOL then waits 10-14 business days for a lawsuit to be filed by Bob.
  • seventh If Bob does not file a lawsuit, then AOL puts the material back up.

 

 

**

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.