language: Deutsch   Français   italiano   Español   Português   日本語   russian   arabic   norwegian   swedish   danish   Nederlands   finland   ireland   English  

DCMA - Digital Millennium Copyright Act us digital millennium copyright act 1998

Information Technology and Telecommunications Services FSU Home → ITTS → DMCA

Home About ITTS ITTS Units Security Policies Services Support Smart Classrooms Training Forms Contact Us Residential Services

DCMA - Digital Millennium Copyright Act

In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed into law the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which implements two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties and addresses a number of significant copyright-related issues.

Title II of the DMCA establishes certain requirements for Online Service Providers (OSP) concerning copyright infringement violations including: 1) registration of an agent with the U.S. Copyright Office; 2) development and posting of updated copyright policies; 3) adoption of " notice and takedown " procedures for alleged copyright infringing materials; and 4) accommodation and non-interference with standard technical measures utilized by copyright owners to identify and protect their works. Title II, Section 512 addresses the issue of erroneous notifications from copyright holders by establishing certain safeguards. Individuals are given the opportunity to respond to a copyright infringement notice and takedown by filing a counter notification. The DMCA specifies that all notices of copyright infringement from copyright holders be in writing and be in the proper form of a DMCA notice.

Under DMCA, FSU is considered an OSP for its students, faculty and staff. DMCA requires the university to expeditiously respond to complaints it receives of copyright infringements. When notified, under penalty of perjury, by a copyright owner of infringing materials on a computer attached to the university network, FSU will take immediate action to block network access to the computer and notify the owner of the computer. Network access will be restored after the infringing material is removed from the computer or within 14 days after receiving a proper counter-notification, unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the computer owner. A second violation will result in loss of access to the University network for three years. Additionally, as an OSP, FSU may be served with a subpoena for the identity of the owner of a computer determined to contain infringing materials. FSU will comply with a lawfully issued subpoena that meets the requirements of the DMCA. Violation of the DMCA can result in severe civil or criminal penalties.

Action taken by the University to remedy and/or discipline an individual for a copyright violation does not preclude the copyright holder and/or the authorities from seeking civil legal remedies and/or criminal prosecution for copyright infringement. Federal law specifies that injunctions and orders to impound infringing materials may be entered by federal courts. Violators are subject to civil liability for litigation costs and attorney fees. Violators are also subject to liability for either the profits they earned from the infringement plus the actual damages suffered by the copyright owner, or statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 for each work infringed. Where the court finds that the infringement was willful, civil statutory damages may be increased to up to $150,000. Under certain circumstances, violators can also face criminal penalties up to $2,500, and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years (17 U.S.C. 501-511; 18 U.S.C. 2319). Additionally, anyone who helps or makes it possible for another person to infringe upon a copyright may also be held liable under a legal doctrine known as "contributory infringement ( Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 435, 104 S.Ct. 774, 785, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984))."

By far the greatest cause of copyright infringements is the use of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing services, such as Gnutella and BitTorrent, for sharing music and movies. Although the use of P2P file sharing is not illegal in and of itself, using it to share copyright protected files is, unless the person doing the sharing has express permission from the copyright owner. Generally, the P2P file sharing programs install the software and automatically share downloaded files with other Internet users. Copyright owners and their agents use automated methods to actively scan the Internet to detect computers that are illegally sharing copyrighted files.

A statutory limitation to the Copyright Act of importance to nonprofit educational institutions is Section 107, the doctrine of "fair use." Under this doctrine, limited use of copyrighted material is allowed without prior permission of the copyright owner if certain criteria are met. Section 107 lists purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," and presents factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

FSU has reviewed legal alternatives for downloading or otherwise acquiring copyrighted material and has determined that EDUCAUSE offers the best legal alternatives .

Pursuant to the requirements of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA), FSU monitors the efficacy of its plans to combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials on its network on an annual basis. Based on this analysis, FSU may modify this plan to improve effectiveness.

 

Additional information concerning copyrights may be obtained at the following sources: FSU Policies and Procedures to Meet Digital Millennium and Higher Education Opportunity Act Requirements [PDF] FSU Copyright Ownership and Use Policy [PDF] FSU Notice and Takedown Procedures FSU DMCA Frequently Aske tdqkfywg. mens moncler hat and scarfd Questions UNC Primer on Copyright Ownership and Use Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials (U.S. Copyright Office) Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (U.S. Copyright Office Summary) [PDF] Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (U.S. Copyright Office) [PDF] U.S. Copyright Office

Copyright © Fayetteville State University 1200 Murchison Road Fayetteville, NC 28301 910.672.1111 A Constituent Institution of The University of North Carolina Contact Us Quick Links myBronco Portal A to Z Academic Advisement Banner Login Banner ID Lookup Canvas Campus Directory Catalogs FSU Virtual Office - RDS Lynda.com Majors Departments Webmail (Office 365) Student Webmail
us digital millennium copyright act 1998

complaint definition civics
outlet moncler milano lombardia
moncler 'vancouver' shearling boot
moncler outlet store locations uk
complainant Copyright How To Copyright Copyright Symbol Copyright Registration Copyright Infringment Copyright Law Copyright Office Copyright Copyright Attorney Copyright Free Image Copyright Free Music Copyright Infringement Copyright Law Copyright Offices Copyright Search Copyright Registration Patent How To Patent an Idea Patent Application Patent Law Patent Search Trademark Registered Trademark Trademark Search Trademark Symbols

Digital Millennium Copyright Act From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core Jump to: navigation , search Digital Millennium Copyright Act Long title To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes. Acronyms (colloquial) DMCA Enacted by the 105th United States Congress Effective October 28, 1998 Citations Public law Pub. L. 105-304 Statutes at Large 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) Codification Acts amended Copyright Act of 1976 Titles amended 5 (Government Organization and Employees); 17 (Copyrights); 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure); 35 (Patents) U.S.C. sections created 17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201–1205, 1301–1332; 28 U.S.C. § 4001 U.S.C. sections amended 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 104, 104A, 108, 112, 114, 117, 701 Legislative history Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Rep. Howard Coble ( R - NC ) on July 29, 1997 Committee consideration by House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property); House Commerce Committee (Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection) Passed the House on August 4, 1998 ( voice vote ) Passed the Senate on September 17, 1998 (unanimous consent) Reported by the joint conference committee on October 8, 1998; agreed to by the Senate on October 8, 1998 (consent) and by the House on October 12, 1998 (voice vote) Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998 Major amendments None

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet . [1] [2] Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of Internet service providers and other intermediaries. This exemption was adopted by the European Union in the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000. The Copyright Directive 2001 implemented the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU.

Contents 1 Provisions 1.1 Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act 1.2 Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act 1.3 Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act 1.4 Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions 1.5 Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act 2 Anti-circumvention exemptions 2.1 Previous exemptions 3 Linking to infringing content 4 Notable court cases 4.1 Edelman v. N2H2 4.2 RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. 4.3 Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc. 4.4 IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. 4.5 Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. 4.6 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. 4.7 Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter 4.8 Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. 4.9 Sony v. George Hotz 4.10 Automattic, Inc. and Oliver Hotham v. Nick Steiner 5 Criticisms 5.1 Abuse of takedown notice 5.2 Abuse of the anti-circumvention provision 5.3 Effect on analog video equipment 5.4 Effect on research 5.5 Effect on innovation and competition 5.6 Reform and opposition 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

Provisions Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act

DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act , amends U.S. copyright law to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty , adopted at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference in December 1996. The treaties have two major portions. One portion includes works covered by several treaties in U.S. copy prevention laws and gave the title its name. For further analysis of this portion of the Act and of cases under it, see WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act .

The second portion (17 U.S.C. 1201) is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions changed the remedies for the circumvention of copy-prevention systems (also called "technical protection measures") and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention created by Macrovision (now Rovi Corporation ) built in, giving Macrovision an effective monopoly on the analog video-recording copy-prevention market. The section contains a number of specific limitations and exemptions, for such things as government research and reverse engineering in specified situations. Although, section 1201(c) of the title stated that the section does not change the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, or defenses, it did not make those defenses available in circumvention actions. The section does not include a fair use exemption from criminality nor a scienter requirement, so criminal liability could attach to even unintended circumvention for legitimate purposes. [3]

Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs ) against copyright infringement liability, provided they meet specific requirements. [4] OSPs must adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users' identity.

Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act

DMCA Title III modified section 117 of the copyright title so that those repairing computers could make certain temporary, limited copies while working on a computer. It reversed the precedent set in MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. , 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).

Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions

DMCA Title IV contains an assortment of provisions:

Clarified and added to the duties of the Copyright Office . Added ephemeral copy for broadcasters provisions, including certain statutory licenses . Added provisions to facilitate distance education . Added provisions to assist libraries with keeping phonorecords of sound recordings. Added provisions relating to collective bargaining and the transfer of movie rights. Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act

DMCA Title V added sections 1301 through 1332 to add a sui generis protection for boat hull designs. Boat hull designs were not considered covered under copyright law because they are useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function. [5] [6]

Anti-circumvention exemptions This section's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (May 2013)

In addition to the safe harbors and exemptions the statute explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) requires that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology. Exemptions are granted when it is shown that access-control technology has had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of people to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works.

The exemption rules are revised every three years. Exemption proposals are submitted by the public to the Registrar of Copyrights, and after a process of hearings and public comments, the final rule is recommended by the Registrar and issued by the Librarian. Exemptions expire after three years and must be resubmitted for the next rulemaking cycle. Consequently, the exemptions issued in the prior rulemakings, in 2000, 2003 and 2006, and 2010 are no longer valid.

Previous exemptions

The Copyright Office approved two exemptions in 2000; four in 2003; six in 2006 and 2010.

2000, 2003, 2006 rulemakings

In 2000, the first rulemaking, the Office exempted (a) "Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications" (renewed in 2003 but not renewed in 2006); and (b) "Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage, or obsoleteness." (revised and limited in 2003 and again in 2006). In 2003, the 2000 "literary works including computer programs" exemption was limited to "Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete" and this exemption was renewed in both 2006 and 2010. The 2003 exemption for text readers of ebooks was renewed in both 2006 and 2010. The 2003 exemption for obsolete software and video game formats was renewed in 2006 and in 2010. The 2000 filtering exemption was revised and renewed in 2003, but was not renewed in 2006. The 2006 exemption for sound recordings allowed after security flaws were found in a copy protection system on some Sony CDs was not renewed in 2010. An exemption covering the audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university's film or media studies department was not renewed in 2010. This exemption was replaced with an exemption on DVDs protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is for the purpose of criticism or comment using short sections, for educational, documentary or non-profit use. The 2006 exemption for wireless handsets connecting to wireless networks was revised in 2010 to specify used handsets and require authorization from the wireless network operator. Another exemption for wireless handsets was introduced in 2010 specific to interoperability software on the phone itself. [7]

2010 rulemaking

The 2010 exemptions, issued in July 2010, are:

Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances: Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students; Documentary filmmaking; Obsolete software and video game formats. Noncommercial videos. (A new exemption in 2010, similar to a previous educational exemption.) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset. (A new exemption in 2010.) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2006.) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if: The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law. (A new exemption in 2010.) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.) Literary works distributed in e-book format when all existing e-book editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.) 2012 rulemaking

The 2012 exemptions, issued in November 2012, [8] are for:

Literary works, distributed electronically, that are protected by technological measures that either prevent the enabling of read-aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other applications or assistive technologies Computer programs that enable smartphones and portable all-purpose mobile computing devices to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smartphone or device, or to permit removal of software from the smartphone or device Computer programs that enable certain types of wireless devices to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is undertaken solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and such connection is authorized by the operator of such network Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where circumvention is undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures for the purpose of criticism or comment in limited instances Motion pictures and other audiovisual works on DVDs that are protected by the Content Scrambling System, or that are distributed by an online service and protected by technological measures that control access to such works, where circumvention is related to developing captioning and descriptive audio technologies 2015 rulemaking

The 2015 exemptions, issued in October 2015, [9] are for:

Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where circumvention is undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures for the purpose of criticism or comment in limited instances, Literary works, distributed electronically, that are protected by technological measures that either prevent the enabling of read-aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other applications or assistive technologies, Computer programs that enable the following types of wireless devices to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is undertaken solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and such connection is authorized by the operator of such network, Computer programs that enable smartphones and portable all-purpose mobile computing devices to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smartphone or device, or to permit removal of software from the smartphone or device, Computer programs that enable smart televisions to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smart television, Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial motor vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for computer programs primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle, when circumvention is a necessary step undertaken by the authorized owner of the vehicle to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function, Computer programs, where the circumvention is undertaken on a lawfully acquired device or machine on which the computer program operates solely for the purpose of good-faith security research and does not violate any applicable law, Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable local gameplay, Computer programs that operate 3D printers that employ microchip-reliant technological measures to limit the use of feedstock, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of using alternative feedstock and not for the purpose of accessing design software, design files or proprietary data, and Literary works consisting of compilations of data generated by medical devices that are wholly or partially implanted in the body or by their corresponding personal monitoring systems, where such circumvention is undertaken by a patient for the sole purpose of lawfully accessing the data generated by his or her own device or monitoring system. Linking to infringing content

The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent ( digital rights management ) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material. [10]

Notable court cases This section requires expansion . (November 2008) Edelman v. N2H2

In July 2002, American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Benjamin Edelman, a computer researcher at Berkman Center for Internet and Society, seeking a declaratory judgment to affirm his first amendment rights when reverse engineering the censorware product of defendant N2H2 in case he intended to publish the finding. N2H2 filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted. [ citation needed ]

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. Main article: RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc.

In August 2009, the DVD Copy Control Association won a lawsuit against RealNetworks for violating copyright law in selling its RealDVD software, allowing users to copy DVDs and store them on a harddrive. The DVD Copy Control Association claimed that Real violated the DMCA by circumventing anti-piracy measures ARccOS Protection and RipGuard , as well as breaking Real's licensing agreement with the MPAA's Content Scrambling System. [11]

Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc. Main article: Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

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

Viacom claims the popular video-sharing site was engaging in "massive intentional copyright infringement" for making available a contended 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's entertainment programming. Google relied on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision to shield them from liability. [12]

On June 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton granted summary judgment in favor of YouTube. [13] The court held that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the DMCA. Viacom appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [14]

On April 5, 2012, the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Louis Stanton's ruling, and instead ruled that Viacom had presented enough evidence against YouTube to warrant a trial, and the case should not have been thrown out in summary judgement. The court did uphold the ruling that YouTube could not be held liable based on "general knowledge" that users on its site were infringing copyright. The case was sent back to the District Court in New York, [15] and on April 18, 2013, Judge Stanton issued another order granting summary judgment in favor of YouTube. The case is over; no money changed hands.

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. Main article: IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

On June 23, 2006, IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District. [16]

IO Group alleged that Veoh was responsible for copyright infringement by allowing videos owned by IO Group to be accessed through Veoh's online service without permission over 40,000 times between the dates June 1 and June 22. [17]

Veoh is a Flash video site relying on user contributed content. IO Group argued that since Veoh transcoded user uploaded videos to Flash format it became a direct infringer and the materials were under their direct control, thereby disqualifying them for DMCA safe harbor protection.

The ruling judge disagreed with the argument, stating that

"Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users. Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the thirdparty software... But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh's users."

The Court has granted the Veoh's motion for summary judgment , on the basis of the DMCA, holding that the defendant's video-sharing web site complied and was entitled to the protection of the statute's "safe harbor" provision. [18] Even though Veoh won the court case, it blamed the litigation as one of the causes of its preparing to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and its subsequent sale to Qlipso. [19] [20]

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. Main article: Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

After numerous DMCA takedown notices in response to his eBay listings, Timothy S. Vernor sued Autodesk in August 2007 alleging that Autodesk abused the DMCA and disrupted his right to sell used software he bought at a garage sale. [21] In May 2008, a federal district judge in Washington State dismissed Autodesk's argument that the software's license agreement preempted the seller from his rights under the first-sale doctrine . [22] In September 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions." [23]

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. Main article: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

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

Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks—not two weeks, as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—to see whether Universal planned to sue Lenz for infringement. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song. [24]

In August 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

On February 25, 2010, Judge Fogel issued a ruling rejecting several of Universal's affirmative defenses, including the defense that Lenz suffered no damages. [25]

Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter Main article: Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter

In the case of Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter the court denied the defendant safe harbour protection under DMCA 17 U.S.C.   § 512 . The district court found that the defendant had knowledge of its users' infringing activity and also failed to prevent future infringing activity. As such the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction was granted. [26] On appeal, however, the Seventh Circuit vacated the injunction, citing the standard set in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , which states that courts should not rely on categorical rules as a standard for injunction. [27]

Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. Main article: Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.

In this case of Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc., the court denied plaintiff's attempt to find liability for YouTube and Myspace's takedowns of the plaintiff's homemade videos. Despite potential fair use claims, the court found it impossible to use the DMCA takedown provisions as a foundation for liability. The court found that the safe harbor provision serves "to limit the liability of internet service providers, not to create liability that could not otherwise be imposed under existing law independent of the DMCA." [28]

Sony v. George Hotz Main article: Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz

In January 2011, Sony Computer Entertainment sued George Hotz over violating the Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well as the Federal Fraud and Abuse Act due to facilitating consumers to jailbreak their PlayStation 3 consoles. [29] Hotz argued that because he had purchased the product, he had the right to do with it as he pleased. After three months, Sony and Hotz decided to settle out of court. This also included an injunction against George Hotz, barring him from hacking any more Sony products. [30] [31]

Automattic, Inc. and Oliver Hotham v. Nick Steiner

In 2013, Oliver Hotham wrote an article on WordPress (owned by Automattic, Inc.



\n