The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) represents a copyright law in the United States that was passed in 1998 by the Senate. This Act criminalizes dissemination and production of services, devices, or technology that interferes with measures that regulate the access to copyrighted works. DMCA made key changes to the US Copyright Act that were necessary to bring the US copyright law into compliance with the intellectual property of the world copyright agreement. Moreover, the DMCA promoted the lawful security of intellectual property civil liberties in the wake of emerging new information communication technologies like the internet (Nimmer 673).
The DMCA is divided into five sections or titles which address some important copyright issues. Title one is the WIPO Treaty Implementation that makes some practical amendments to U.S regulation. This provides suitable links and references to the agreements. Besides, title one also creates two new injunctions in Title 17 of the United States Code. The initial injunction is on the circumvention of technological procedures applied by copyright holders to safeguard their work. The second prohibition is that title one adds criminal penalties and civil remedies for violating prohibitions. Also, title one obliges the U.S Copyright Office to perform two mutual studies with the Information Administration Department of Commerce (NTIA) and the National Telecommunications (Nimmer 681).
Title two is the online copyright infringement liability restriction. It adds section 512 to the U.S Copyright Act to form four restrictions on legal responsibility for copyright infringement by online service suppliers. The restrictions are concerned with four groups of behavior by service providers. The four limitations include short communications, system caching, storage of information on structures, and information location tools. Title three is computer maintenance or repair and inflates the real exception associated with computer programs in section 117 of the U.S Copyright Act. This title permits holders of copies of certain programs to create adaptations or reproductions when required to use the program in combination with a computer. Furthermore, the adjustment allows the owner of a computer to create a duplicate of a computer program in the period of repairing or maintaining that computer. Also, the exception only allows a duplicate made automatically when the computer is activated and only when it comprises an authorized duplicate of the program. However, the new copy must be damaged after the repair or maintenance of the computer is completed because it cannot be used in any other way.
The fourth title is the miscellaneous provisions that entail the interpretation of the expert witness of the copyright office. This title comprises of six miscellaneous provisions that relate to the tasks of making ephemeral recordings, the exemptions in the Copyright Act for libraries, distance education, and the Copyright Office. Finally, the fifth title is the “Vessel Hull Scheme Protection Act” that forms a novel type of security for the design of vessel hulls. The title crafts a new system of shielding innovative designs of some useful articles which make the article distinctive in appearance or attractive (Cobia 387).
Criticism of the DMCA
The U.S Copyright Office was flooded with critics of the DMCA with thousands of comments complaining about the process that usually forces websites to destroy user-generated content in the face of a copyright complaint. DMCA was not without opponents although it was welcomed by software giants and record companies. The open source software community and the scientists were the main opponents and critics who believed the Act was an attempt to inhibit the free flow of information.
The chief criticism of DMCA was that it allowed over-zealous copyright holders to petition the removal of information from websites which might not even infringe their intellectual property rights. The possible demoralizing implication of a refusal to remove the content, and the expense of challenging the claim as well as the successive loss in a lawsuit, means that most webmasters will surrender to the irrational requests of copyright owners. Occasionally, good webmasters have resigned since the owner of a similar website claims that the new website is an infringement on their rights. Thus, the new owner will be forced to change the domain name to avoid legal repercussions (Cobia 387).
Also, DMCA is criticized for its negative influence on research, especially in the discipline of cryptography. This is because it is effortless for an innocent cryptanalytic to be blamed for a DMCA violation and experience unjust legal outcomes. An example of such a case was of Dmitry Skylarov a programmer from Russia who was arrested after the DEFCON presentation. Dmitry was jailed for a month and released without official charges. In other words, critics accuse DMCA of illegalizing free expression to the disadvantage of numerous innocent victims (Nimmer 707).
Other critics against the DMCA Act claim that it compromises the fair use of intellectual property that has been paid for by the consumers. For instance, companies like Apple go to extremes in locking down their devices. Besides, third-party software developers have to experience unreasonably tiresome processes to get their applications to the consumers of iPhones and other popular phone brands. Thus, many people think that the limitations placed on these devices are too excessive, particularly considering how costly they are.
Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC
Capitol Records vs. MP3Tunes, LLC is a case involving fourteen record companies and EMI Music Group. These companies were claiming for copyright infringement against Michael Robertson and MP3tunes that provides online music storage lockers. The court apprehended that MP3tunes is eligible as safe harbor protection according to DMCA, in a judgment that has implications for the future of internet services. However, MP3tunes was still found liable for contributing to copyright infringement due to its failure to eradicate infringing songs after acquiring takedown notifications. Moreover, the court ruled Robertson as being liable for the songs he copied from unapproved websites (Rasenberger, and Pepe 627).
Michael Robertson started MP3tunes in 2005, which runs two websites. In 2007, EMI Music Group issued MP3tunes a takedown notice that indicated unauthorized websites and 350 songs. However, MP3tunes failed to take action on this notice to remove the unauthorized songs and asked EMI for additional clarification. EMI failed to give further clarification and instead filed a suit for copyright breach against Robertson and MP3tunes. The court’s decision towards both parties is that it denied in part and granted in part. Moreover, MP3tunes claimed shelter basing on the DMCA safe harbor provisions that safeguarded online service providers (OSP) conditionally from legal responsibility for copyright violation. The court agreed with MP3tunes and held that the company has qualified for safe harbor protection. Furthermore, EMI presented evidence on infringement to bring a case for infringement. The court agreed with EMI’s claims and held that their copyright declarations establish ownership of copyright (Chow 121).
Companies such as Apple, Amazon, and Google closely followed this case since they were launching cloud services. Amazons and Google were offering services without authorization pacts with the music industry. Thus, the judgement of the court was termed as a victory for the cloud music and the initial step in placing music locker services on a concrete lawful basis for two key reasons. First, decision established DCMA as safe harbor security for online locker services granting them extensive protection from copyright liability. Second, the court’s decision legalized data deduplication permitting cloud music services to assign storage and reduce efficiently the volume of space required by a user.
Conclusion
DMCA made key changes to the US Copyright Act that were necessary to bring the US copyright law into compliance with the intellectual property of the world copyright agreement. The DMCA is divided into five sections or titles which address some important copyright issues. The open source software community and the scientists were the main opponents and critics who believed the Act was an attempt to inhibit the free flow of information. Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC is a case involving fourteen record companies and EMI Music Group. The court’s decision towards both parties is that it denied in part and granted in part. Thus, the decision of the court was termed as a victory for the cloud music and the initial step in placing music locker services on a concrete legal basis for two reasons.
Works Cited
Cobia, Jeffrey. "The digital millennium copyright act takedown notice procedure: Misuses, abuses, and shortcomings of the process." Minn. JL Sci. " Tech. 10 (2008): 387.
Chow, Christina. "Capitol Records, Inc.: Holdings No Public Performance Violations for Deleting Duplicative Files off Cloud Servers and the Positive Future Implications regarding Consumer Efficiency." J. Intell. Prop. L. 20 (2012): 121.
Nimmer, David. "A riff on fair use in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148.3 (2000): 673-742.
Rasenberger, Mary, and Christine Pepe. "Copyright enforcement and online file hosting services: Have courts struck the proper balance." J. Copyright Soc'y USA 59 (2011): 627.
