Sie sind auf Seite 1von 232
DMCA Section 104 Report U.S. Copyright Office August 2001 A Report of the Register of

DMCA Section 104 Report

U.S. Copyright Office August 2001

A Report of the Register of Copyrights Pursuant to § 104 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998, § 104

Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860, 2876

SEC. 104. EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF COPYRIGHT LAW AND AMENDMENTS ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT.

(a) EVALUATION BY THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION.–The Register of Copyrights and Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce shall jointly evaluate–

(1) the effects of the amendments made by this title and the development of electronic commerce and associated technology on the operation of sections 109 and 117 of title 17, United States Code; and

(2) the relationship between existing and emergent technology and the operation of sections 109 and 117 of title 17, United States Code.

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.–The Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce shall, not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the Congress a joint report on the evaluation conducted under subsection (a), including any legislative recommendations the Register and the Assistant Secretary may have.

DMCA Section 104 Report U.S. Copyright Office August 2001

A Report of the Register of Copyrights Pursuant to §104 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Library of Congress. Copyright Office.

DMCA section 104 report a report of the Register of Copyrights pursuant to [section] 104 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. p. cm. 1. United States. Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 2. Copyright-- Electronic information resources--United States--Legislative history. 3. Copyright and electronic data processing--United

States--Legislative history. KF2989.573.A15 2001

I. Title.

346.7304'82--dc21

2001042373

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is the result of the expertise, skills and dedication of many people. I was fortunate to be able to draw on many talented staff, and I am grateful to all of them. However, I especially thank and acknowledge the efforts of two officials of the Office. The first is Jesse Feder, Acting Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs, who served as the project manager and who was also a primary drafter of the report; the second is David O. Carson, General Counsel of the Copyright Office, whose wise counsel and sound advice was present throughout the process. Also, worthy of special praise are the others who drafted the report; they are Marla Poor, Attorney Advisor, Office of Policy and International Affairs, Steven Tepp, Policy Planning Advisor, Office of Policy and International Affairs, and Robert Kasunic, Senior Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Copyright General Counsel. Their efforts went well beyond writing sections of the report and they played important roles in the review process.

Others in the Office assisted the “report team” in numerous ways, including sharing their insight and advice. These individuals are Robert Dizard, Staff Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Copyright Office, Tanya Sandros, Senior Attorney, Office of the Copyright General Counsel; William Roberts Senior Attorney-Advisor for Compulsory Licenses, Office of the Copyright General Counsel; and Sayuri Rajapakse, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Policy and International Affairs. I also thank Kelly Lacey, our intern from Georgetown University Law Center, for her first-rate substantive help.

Numerous and important contributions were made by many others in the Copyright Office. I thank, Marylyn Martin of the Register’s Office, for her assistance in organizing our public hearing; Shirada Harrison of the Office of Policy and International Affairs, and Guy Echols and Sandra Jones of the General Counsel’s Office for their assistance in completing the final document; Helen Hester-Ossa, Teresa McCall and Charles Gibbons of the Information and Reference Division for their excellent assistance in the design and layout of the Report and in getting it printed; Denise Prince of the General Counsel’s Office for her assistance in getting it delivered to Congress; and Ed Rogers and George Thuronyi, our webmasters, for their expert contributions both during the study and in getting our Report out to the public via the Internet. Special thanks also to Xue Fei Li of our Automation Group for her technical assistance in receiving comments from the public by email.

Finally, just prior to completing the process, I asked June Besek, Director of Studies and Director of the International Program of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at Columbia Law School, to review the penultimate draft text. I appreciate her exceptional efforts (she had less than 48 hours) and her invaluable suggestions and comments.

Marybeth Peters Register of Copyrights

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. v

INTRODUCTION

1

I. BACKGROUND

5

A. THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT

 

5

1. The WIPO Treaties

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 5

2. Implementation of the WIPO Treaties in the DMCA

 

8

a. Section 1201 - Anticircumvention

 

9

b. Section 1202 - Copyright Management Information

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

12

c. Origin of the Present Report

 

14

B. SECTION 109 AND THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

19

1. History of the First Sale Doctrine

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

20

2. Legislative History of Section 109

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

22

3. Subsequent Amendments to Section 109

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

24

C. SECTION 117 COMPUTER PROGRAM EXEMPTIONS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

26

1. Legislative History of Section 117

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

27

a. Recommendations of CONTU

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

27

b. The 1980 Computer Software Copyright Amendments

 

29

c. The Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act of 1998

 

30

2. Judicial Interpretation of Section 117

 

31

II. VIEWS OF THE PUBLIC

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

33

A.

SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

33

B. VIEWS CONCERNING SECTION 109

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

34

1. The Effect of Section 1201 Prohibitions on the Operation of the First Sale

 

Doctrine

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

34

2. The Effect of Section 1202 Prohibitions on the Operation of the First Sale

 

Doctrine

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

41

3. The Effect of the Development of Electronic Commerce and Associated

 

Technology on the Operation of the First Sale Doctrine.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

42

4. The Relationship Between Existing and Emergent Technology, on One Hand,

and the First Sale Doctrine, on the Other

43

5. The Extent to Which the First Sale Doctrine Is Related To, or Premised On, Particular Media or Methods of Distribution

43

6. The Extent, if Any, to Which the Emergence of New Technologies Alters the Technological Premises upon Which the First Sale Doctrine Is

Established

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

44

7. The Need, if Any, to Expand the First Sale Doctrine to Apply to Digital

 

Transmissions

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

44

8. The Effect of the Absence of a Digital First Sale Doctrine on the Marketplace

.

for Works in Digital Form

.

.

.

.

48

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

i

C. VIEWS CONCERNING SECTION 117

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

49

1.

Exemption for Temporary Buffer Copies in Random Access Memory

 

(RAM)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

50

a. Legal Status of Temporary Copies and Need for an

 

50

b. The Economic Value of Temporary Copies

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

53

c. Promotion of Electronic Commerce

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

54

d. Changed Circumstances since Enactment of the DMCA

 

55

e. Applicability of the Fair Use Doctrine to Temporary Copies

 

57

f. Liability for Making Temporary Copies under Section 512

 

59

2.

Scope of the Archival Exemption

 

60

a. Expansion of the Archival Exemption to Works Other than Computer

 

Programs

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

60

 

b. Clarification of the Archival Copy Exemption for Computer Programs .

.

63

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

D. VIEWS ON MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

66

 

1.

Effect of Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information on Access to Works, Fair Use, and Other Noninfringing

 

Uses.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

66

 

2.

Privacy

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

68

3. Contract Preemption and Licensing

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

69

4. Open Source Software

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

71

5. Other DMCA Concerns

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

72

III.

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

73

A. THE EFFECT OF TITLE I OF THE DMCA ON THE OPERATION OF SECTIONS 109

 
 

AND 117

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

73

1. The Effect of Section 1201 on the Operation of the First Sale Doctrine

 

73

 

a. DVD Encryption

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

73

b. Tethering Works to a Device

 

75

 

2. The Effect of Section 1201 on the Operation of Section 117

 

76

B. THE EFFECT OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ON SECTIONS

109 AND 117

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

78

1. The First Sale Doctrine in the Digital World

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

78

a. Application of Existing Law to Digital Content

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

78

b. Evaluation of Arguments Concerning Expansion of Section 109

80

 

i. Analogy to the physical world

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

81

ii. Policies behind the first sale doctrine

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

86

iii. Development of new business models

 

91

iv. International considerations

 

92

c. Recommendations

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

96

 

i. No change to section 109

 

97

ii. Further consideration of ways to address library issues related

to the first sale doctrine

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

102

2. The Legal Status of Temporary Copies

106

ii

a. Relevance to this Report

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

106

b. RAM Reproductions as “Copies” under the Copyright Act

 

107

i. Technical background

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

107

ii. Statutory analysis

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

109

iii. Legislative history

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

114

iv. Judicial interpretation

 

118

v. Commentary

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

120

vi. International considerations

 

124

c. Temporary Digital Copies Incidental to any Lawful Use

 

130

d. Temporary Copies Incidental to a Licensed Digital Performance of a

Musical Work

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

132

i. Do buffer copies implicate the reproduction right?

 

133

ii. Is the making of buffer copies in the course of streaming a fair

use?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

133

e. Recommendations

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

141

i. A blanket exception for temporary copies incidental to a lawful

.

ii. Temporary copies incidental to a licensed digital performance

.

iii. Public performances incidental to licensed music downloads

use is not warranted.

141

142

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

should result in no liability

<

should result in no liability

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

146

3. Scope of Archival Exemption

 

148

a. Arguments in Favor of Expanding the Archival Exemption

 

148

i.

General vulnerability of content in digital form

 

.

.

.

.

.

148

b. Arguments Against Expanding the Archival Exemption

 

151

i. Lack of demonstrated harm

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

151

ii. Justification for section 117(a)(2) has diminished

 

151

c. Recommendations

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

153

4. Contract Preemption

.

.

.

.

.

.

.