PennTags Feed for /tag/dmca

The Future of the Pirate Party

This project is about the future of the Pirate Party, whether their recent attainment of an EU Parliament seat launches them into a promising future or if their strength is simply the tenuous reaction of young file sharers to the Pirate Bay trial. I would also like to address the party's focus on the retention of privacy and what the party could be capable of should they prove a tenable force in influencing internet policy.

The iPhone and the DMCA: Locking the Hands of Consumers

Haubenrich, John. "The iPhone and the DMCA: Locking the Hands of Consumers." Vanderbilt Law Review. Vol. 61.5 (2008) 1507-1553.

Haubenrich delves into the role that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) plays in the debate regarding the unlocking of iPhones and the resulting user experience. The article first provides a background into the DMCA regulations and the effect that it has on the wireless phone industry. It offers that, on one hand, iPhone users expect complete ownership of their devices as well as their choice of network. However, wireless providers and product designers like Apple want to protect their copyright and maintain their successful business in the wireless industry. The note comes out on the side of the consumer when it argues that the question of cell phone unlocking should not be addressed by copyright policy. In conclusion, the author calls upon Congress and scholars to examine telecommunication law to resolve the rights relating to locks on mobile phones. The argument is that without these barriers from wireless providers, there will be a better network, more innovation and more competition, which will benefit all mobile phone users.

The DMCA is one of the most important pieces of copyright legislation and its implementation plays an important role in technology policy. By acknowledging the iPhone locks are not an appropriate use of this policy, this legal expert urges consumers to have greater control over their wireless device. Many iPhone applications are accessible only through the unlocking or jailbreaking of one's iPhone. Because all apps need to be officially sanctioned by Apple to be in the app store, anything not sanctioned must be downloaded illegally. For instance, the iPhone has a camera but no available video camera app. By jailbreaking one's phone, a user can download this kind of app and proceed to use their phone for this new purpose. This note relates to Wu's idea of the Wireless Carterfone because the separation of the iPhone from the DMCA regulations parallels Wu's frustration with network attachments.

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

IO is a company that holds and owns a number of registered copyrighted for a variety of adult entertainment products. IO alleged that it found its own copyrighted clips from IO films on the Veoh website. None of the alleged clips contained copyright notices except one. Veoh is a site that relies on content contributed by users. Veoh is similar to a site like YouTube. IO made the case that Veoh had to break protection codes to upload videos into the Flash format that the site uses. By doing this, IO argued that Veoh became a direct infringer.

The judge determined that Veoh was still protected by the safe harbor provisions. Veoh does not actively oversee the uploading of content. Veoh has an established system where the software reformats user content automatically once uploaded. The system makes the content accessible immediately to other users. Veoh has default parameters for the submission of content by a third party. The automated system is started with the Veoh user. Everything is put into motion with the user. Veoh does not preview videos before they are uploaded. The uploading is due completely to the users. The court gave a summary judgment for Veoh. Based on the DMCA, the judge said that Veoh was in fact protected by the Safe Harbor Provision, and the site complied with the statutes.

The key detail about this case is that IO did not send any takedown notices. This is critical to my thesis that there is a severe violation and abuse of power. IO did not even follow proper procedures. There was no take down notice sent. Instead, IO went straight to court. The notice and take down course of action was completely skipped. Instead of stopping piracy, the DMCA in this case ended up limited consumer choices for a period of time. The videos were taken down and content made unavailable.

10 Years of the DMCA | Public Knowledge

Rashmi Rangnath serves as a Staff Attorney at Public Knowledge. Her topics of interest and expertise are in patent law and copyright. She discusses where we are now after 10 years of the DMCA. The two main provisions of the DMCA are the anti-circumvention measures and ISP (Internet Service Provider) liability provisions.

The anti-circumvention provisions ban circumventing locks on digital material. It also makes it illegal to market and/or sell technology that would help people get around the locks on digital content. The ISP liability provisions give a “safe harbor” to ISPs as long as they fulfill certain requirements. They must “maintain a policy of terminating the internet access of repeat infringers.”

Rangnath points out that although the aim of the DMCA was make content available digitally while protecting the owners of this digital content. It has actually had the opposite effect. The effectiveness of preventing “piracy” is not questionable after 10 years of the DMCA. Many of the fears that were being voiced by opponents to the DMCA, like museums and libraries, are now actualized. Take down notices are being sent without just cause. Fair use content is being removed unjustly. With a lack of education about the DMCA, fair use is being violated.

The design of anti-circumvention has created more problems then it has solved. Anti-circumvention provisions are applied blindly most of the time. Take down notices are sent regardless of it something is fair use or not. Rangnath cites RealNetworks vs. Streambox. Basically the Streambox technology permitted people to record music and movies that were being streamed over the Internet.

Rangath brings up a key point that I will discuss in my paper. She says that “The provisions vest too much control in copyright owners over the design of devices.” After 10 years of the DMCA, it is apparent that there are certain abuses going on. There is no system of checks and balances. As a result, the rights of fair use are being violated.

Stanford Copyright

Fair use is a term that originated in the United States. It allows limited use of material that is copyrighted. With fair use, permission is not required depending with appropriate circumstances. Fair use is defined and regulated with a four-factor test. Using this test, one can tell if it violates copyright. A work must satisfy all four factors to pass the test. Fair use is a tricky subject because it really does vary in every case.

The first factor says that a work is fair use depending on “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.”

The second factor concerns, “ The nature of the copyrighted work.”

“The amount and substantiality of the potion used in relation,” is the third critical factor

The final factor says that a work is fair use depending on “ The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

IT would be ridiculous if you had to ask for permission everytime you were going to use a copyrighted work. This is the purpose of fair use. Fair use was created in tune with the goal of copyright: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This information lays the foundation for my paper. It provides the background information for me. My claim is that the DMCA violates fair use and copyright. By outlining the purpose of copyright and the factors of fair use, I can then tell how DMCA violates.

Circumventing Competition: The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

This paper discusses different perverse consequences of the DMCA. Lee says that when Congress was trying to prepare for new digital technology, it made a mistake. When the DMCA was passed, the courts were cut out of its role. The universal band on technology and devices that “circumvent” digital rights management technologies (DRM) leave no role for the courts. This lack of balance has created a system for consumers with limited options. The copyright owners now completely control things like Internet streaming and playback devices. There is even evidence of certain firms utilizing the DMCA as a means of stopping research and reverse engineering.

The DMCA also eliminates competition. The copyright owners and companies that issue their content have the power the lock out competitors. Also, digital rights management technologies tend to be ineffective and do little to stop pirates. Instead DRM technologies make it harder for people making fair use out of the copyrighted work.

The paper says that there were in fact legal happenings in play before the DMCA enactment. These legal processes were leading to a balanced body of law that would involve the courts. Consumer choice, fair use, and competition would not be decreased as they are with the DMCA. The budding body of law would give rights back to the people instead of depending on the technology design. Really, without the DMCA we would be okay.

Lee says that people should not have to worry about coming out with a new technology and getting sued because it is illegal according to the DMCA. That undermines the goals of copyright. This is a key point of my paper. This article is extremely helpful in arguing my case. The effects of the DMCA decrease consumer rights and options. It also stifles creativity. No one wants to come up with new technology wondering if they’re going to get sued for it.

DMCA summary

The DMCA is an amendment to title 17 (Copyright Act). Bill Clinton signed it into law on October 28th, 1998. The DMCA actually implemented treatises from the World Intellectual Property Treaty (WIPO). The goal of the act was to give copyright owners protection with the oncoming digital advances. It enforced the treatises in the international treaty.

The DMCA is split up into five different titles. They are

Title Io