Presentation on theme: "DMCA: An Introduction Digital Millennium Copyright Act."— Presentation transcript:
DMCA: An Introduction Digital Millennium Copyright Act
DMCA: Background Information Title 17 of US code Passed on October 28, 1998 Bans production and dissemination of technology that can circumvent security measures to protect copyright. Heightens penalties on copyright infringement.
DMCA: The Law No person shall circumvent a technological measure that … controls access to a work… No person shall manufacture, import, or traffic a component that: –Is primarily designed to circumvent a security measure that protects a copyrighted work. –Has only limited commercial use other than to break copyright protections. –Is used, with the knowledge of the creator, that it will be used to circumvent copyright protections.
DMCA: The Law (2) Exceptions to the above laws (Government): –Law enforcement –Government intelligence agencies –Other government activities & agencies; Federal, State, or any political subdivision of a State.
DMCA: The Law (3) Exceptions to the above laws (Civilian): –Reverse Engineering Must lawfully obtain copyrighted work. May circumvent the laws to: –Identify and Analyze elements of a program to make it work with another independent program(s). –Circumvented material must not be already available to the person engaging in the reverse engineering.
DMCA: The Law (4) Copyright Management: name or identifying information about a work, name of the author, terms and conditions of the work, etc. –No person shall remove the above items from a copyrighted work. Movie, music, software, etc. –No person shall distribute a work knowing that the copyright management information has been altered or deleted.
DMCA: The Law (5) Copyright infringement liability and limitation (Introduction). –ISPs cannot be held liable for copyright violations on their network if they do not know about it. –ISPs cannot be held liable for copyright violations in their system cache, as long as It is committed by someone other than the ISP. The storage is carried out automatically and not by employees.
DMCA: Why is it controversial? DeCSS case. Even if you link to material regarded as a violation of copyright, you may be held liable. –2600.com case and injunction. Seen as restrictive for innovation. –Dmitry Sklyarov
Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief. Injunctive for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network.
User does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material is infringing. Upon obtaining knowledge user should remove, or disable access to the material. User does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.
Elements of Notification A notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider. A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right.
A statement that the complaining party has good faith. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate. Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party.
Limitation on Liability of Nonprofit and Educational Institutions When a public or other nonprofit institution of higher education is a service provider, and when a faculty member or graduate student who is an employee of such institution is performing a teaching or research function.
Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability No liability for taking down generally Exception Contents of counter notification
Note on the DeCSS Case Decode Content Scramble System
Notes on the DeCSS Case Digital Versatile Disks (DVDs) can hold full length motion pictures Market standard use the Content Scramble System (CSS) for encoding Decoder was Windows/Mac compliant only Jan Johansen, a Linux user, wrote the DeCSS object code for personal use and published the code on the Web
The Lawsuit Suit brought against the “hacker” website 2600.com who published security flaws and links to the object code Industry afraid movies will be downloaded on Napster-like programs Plaintiffs portrayed DeCSS as a “piracy tool” and a “digital crowbar” Defendants made First Amendment argument Court ruled that DeCSS was similar to “publishing a bank vault combination” Links were seen as giving the code to the users directly
The Appeal Second Circuit of Appeals noted that computer code has both a speech and a functional component Court ruled that as a strict writing, it has First Amendment protections The functional component can allow an individual to violate the law Court upheld the injunction
Considerations and More Info Will this have an effect on the advancement of Computer Science? Should coders be able to advance code that can be used for illegal purposes Can find more details at http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/
Digital Music and Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Richard A. Sapinello
Client Server Architecture Model Internet content (books, movies, music, documents, web pages) are typically disseminated by means of the client server model -information is “served” on a request from a central system to a personal computer -with the expansion of internet the burden on servers has increased dramatically -with the server down, information becomes unavailable, and thus it is easy to control the unlawful distribution of copyrighted material
P2P Architecture Model In P2P architecture any computer in the network can function as a distribution point Enable direct communications among individual personal computers relying on the internet infrastructure The request for a piece of information is passed along from computer to computer until the file is located and a copy is sent along to the requester’s system Unloads heavy traffic from servers Benefits to people being able to have access to information quickly, easily, and cheaply
P2P Architecture Model (2) It is difficult to enforce copyright laws with a P2P –difficult to trace the movements of files in the network –no central server to shut down P2P treats all nodes in the network as equals and disabling one node will have minimal impact on the network
MP3 File Format MP3 is the shortened name for MPEG-1 Layer III (or MPEG Audio Layer III) and is an audio subset of the MPEG industry standard developed by ISO ( Industry Standards Organization ) and became an official standard in 1992 as part of the MPEG-1 standard. Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (FhG), a German company holds key patents regarding the technology. Music has always been stored on physical media, but digitization and MP3 format permit proliferation of “containerless” music The compressed files are as much as 20 times smaller than the originals, making music candidate number one of file sharing based on P2P architecture
Music Sharing Applications The most famous program was Napster, but it was not a true P2P application Morpheus, Grokster, KaZaA, eDonkey, iMesh, Shareaza are among the numerous P2P applications KaZaA is the most popular software with over 275 million users and about 3 million added each week For the music industry the lethal combination of easily reproducible digital music files, MP3 format enabling storage, and the P2P architecture is a recipe for disaster
The Music Industry Fights Back In the fall of 2003 the RIAA ( Recording Industry Association of America ) filed a lawsuit against 261 individuals accused of illegally distributing music over the internet Being unable prosecute the creators of the P2P programs, RIAA shifted focus to the users of the software The lawsuits targeted the heaviest users, hoping to achieve pedagogical effect
The Movie Industry Fights Back (2) The music industry’s campaign was met with widespread criticism Only 36% of the US population believe that file sharing is stealing Many software developers are rushing to create new systems to share music more covertly