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.

Author Fred von Lohmann discusses the role of the 'gatekepers' (such as exhibitors, insurers, distributors, and broadcasters) when filmmakers may have to clear copyright uses in their own works. While fair use is supposed to protect the transformative uses of copyrighted materials, many gatekeepers and large broadcasters and studios are failing to honor the principles of fair use. Instead, we are seeing more of what von Lohmann calls a 'clearance culture' in which full expression is stifled at the hands of media gatekeepers. The content controllers are requiring clearances for every instance of copyrighted material in films, even if it falls under fair use. This is causing many films either to be abondoned during production or distribution or for filmmakers budgets to be severely drained by obtaining clearances. In terms of relevance to my own project, the role of the gatekeepers helps to explain why the full potential of online film distribution has not yet been explored. Although this article focuses mostly on fair use and copyright clearance, when I read this article it made perfect sense why some directors (such as the more established Edward Burns or the newcomer Madonna) reject the traditional distribution system for many different reasons, and choose to distribute through online platforms such as iTunes.

The rise of internet distribution offers new outlets for filmmakers who can not afford the traditional methods of distribution. von Lohmann identifies two distribution options: video hosting sites such as YouTube or Yahoo Video that can get your film to an audience for free and immediately, as well as by purchasing bandwidth from an ISP and running your film online via a filmmakers' own server.

Internet gatekeepers such as a YouTube or an ISP are more lax than traditional ones due to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. In the case of online video content sites, they use a 'notice and takedown' policy to enforce copyright infringement violations. In order for a video hosting site to be free from monetary damages incurred through a copyright infringing video posted by a site user, the host must issue notice to the user that the content requires them to takedown their video, followed by a 'counternotice' option for the user's benefit in the event that a user wants to challenge the takedown. So long as the site removes the copyrighted content in a timely manner and follows this procedure, they will remain exempt from prosecution.

If a filmmaker decides to host his own video by buying a service from an ISP, a similar safe harbor under the DMCA protects the ISP's from any possibly copyright lawsuit. Under this provision, ISP's are not required to follow the 'notice and takedown, counternotice' steps as outlined above. They are viewed as only the 'pipe' in providing access, not an entity that can enforce the content present on computers owned by others and therefore out of its control. As in video content sites, ISP's do not act as middlemen in any copyright lawsuits, therefore leaving the filmmakers or other users to work out their own disputes with copyright owners directly. 

This article is important to my research as it identifies the adverse effects the DMCA has had on technology industries, consumers, and scientific and academic research. My thesis aims to discuss how the Motion Picture Association labels piracy as the biggest threat to the motion picture industry and how that thinking can be seen as short-sighted and incorrect. Lack of innovation caused by technology protection measures under the DMCA is the biggest threat. This article really spells out what the DMCA has unintentionally done and will help me make my point in regards to illustrating how anti-piracy or anticircumvention measures are only fairly effective, and don't address the real problems that the MPA faces.

Author Timothy B. Lee opens the article with a quote from Robert Frost: "good fences make good neighbors" (2). It's pretty safe to say that fences are effective in establishing and maintaining private property rights. In this scenario, digital rights management, the technical measures placed on digital media such as CD's and DVD's, are the fences of intellectual property and copyright. DRM provides content owners a strict level of control not previously available under copyright law - control that hinders the creativity and free thinking that tech firms employ in order to revolutionize and expand their products. The article discusses how plenty of new technologies have allowed customers to purchase and view media in brand new ways, ways that the film studios don't always immediately condone. In the past, Hollywood has been very hesitant towards new technologies, from cable, to the VCR, to DVD's and now the internet.

In discussing the fight against piracy, the author identifies three significant actions that Hollywood and the recording industry take (or have taken) to deter and reduce the act: lawsuits, PR campaigns, and digital rights managment technology. These actions may keep someone who is not technologically informed from committing piracy, but for the most part these solutions have done little to help in the fight.

The DMCA's anticircumvention provisions have created many problems, including the unhealthy corporate misuse of the DMCA in trying to destroy competition.  Not only are competitive tech firms brushed aside under this act, but academic research has been stymied (again, by corporate bullies who don't want product flaws and misrepresentations to go public).  Under the DMCA, too much power is put in the wrong hands, hands that want only to protect their 'property' and possible financial revenues.

Fisher proposes three ways in which the recording and film industries can be reshaped, two of which involve changes to the current copyright system. Proposal number one asks that studios and recording companies stop looking at copyright as property. Fisher believes that a limiting of copyright protections would offer more selection and decrease piracy. The second idea is to treat entertainment industries as public utilities, placing a large amount of governmental control over them. Again, more selection and competitive pricing would lead to less piracy. The third proposal suggests a complete overhaul of the current copyright system - content owners will be given a unique identifier for each piece of protected material. A government agency will be set up to track each ID and see how often it is downloaded, watched, remixed, etc. A copyright tax would be implemented to pay for said agency and monies from this tax would be distributed to content owners based on a scale determined by the agency when analyzing the 'performance' of content.

The latter two of Fisher's suggestions call for heavy governmental controls over creative industries. The intersection of business and art has frequently encountered issues. This book is worth looking at for my project in that I am also proposing at least one alternative for the film industry in order to accomodate customers and at least deter piracy. Although I do not advocate Fisher's ideas of bringing the government into it, his thinking out of the box is quite innovative and interesting to think about when thinking about my own research.