Digital Millennium Copyright Act

By Jarrod Slavinskas & Tara D.

Thesis
The Digital Millennium Copy Right Act of 1998 criminalizes the access, control, production and distribution of technology, devices, or services amongst the Internet. The DMCA has been proven to be effective in prohibiting the distribution of copyrighted works but on the other hand, it has been controversial in some situations.

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

History
Passed by Congress on October 12th, 1998
President Bill Clinton signed the act into law on October 28th, 1998

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

Why was it enacted?

The Act was designed to implement the treaties signed in December 1996 at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Geneva conference. Designed to limit the liabilities for Online Service Providers (OSPs) for copyright infringement.

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

Modifications
Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention of technological measures protecting copyrighted works
Expire every three years Submitted to the public for comments Final ruling recommended by the Librarian of Congress Last ruling in July 2010

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

Title I: WIPO Treaty Implementation

World Intellectual Property Organization Treaties
National eligibility Anti-circumvention provisions

Exceptions
Civil remedies and criminal punishment

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation

Provides limited liability of copyright infringement for online service providers
Eligibility for limitations Safe harbor guidelines Limitations for information location tools

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

Title III: Computer Maintenance Or Repair

Expands exception for computer programs

Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions

Authority of the Copyright Office Exemption for ephemeral recordings Promote distance education Nonprofit libraries and archives

Title V: Protection Of Certain Original Designs

The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (VHDPA)

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

Case Studies

Blake A. v. Google Inc.

Procedural Posture:
Blake A. brought a copyright infringement action under the 17 amendment of the United States Code against Google (includes the DMCA). Claimed that Google allowed users to access copies of his copyrighted works that the author had published on his web site and that had appeared on pages cached by the search engine.
Source
Slavinskas, Dynan 10

Blake A. v. Google Inc.

Overview:
Court saw that Googles automated and non-violitional conduct did not constitute direct infringement under the Copyright Act; fair use. Authors decision of not including a no-archive meta-tag on the pages of his Web site.

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

11

Blake A. v. Google Inc.

Outcome:
Court granted Google motion for summary judgment on the issues of non-infringement, an implied license, estoppel, fair use, and the safe harbor provision of the DMCA Court denied the authors motion for summary judgment.

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

12

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc.

Procedural Posture:
DVD Copy Control Association sued RealNetworks for violation of copyright law when it sold its RealDVD software. Allowed users to copy DVDs and store them on hard drive.

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

13

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc.

Summary:
RealNetowrk was administered a restraining order on October 3, 2008 after the initial hearing of the case to prevent the sale and distribution of RealDVD.

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

14

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc.

Outcome:
The district court concluded that RealNetworks violated the anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA when the DVD copying software RealDVD bypasses the copy protection technologies of DVD.

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

15

Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc.

Procedural Posture:
Viacom sued YouTube, under Google ownership for allowing users to upload and view hundreds of thousands of videos owned by Viacom without permission.

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

16

Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc.

2007 2008
Viacom filed $1 billion lawsuit against Google

Viacom won District Court ruling

2010
2011
Source

District Court ruled in favor for Googles motion for summary judgment Previous 2008 ruling reversed

Viacom appealed. Case pending.

Slavinskas, Dynan

17

Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc.

Outcome:
Case was dismissed in 2010 due to summary judgment based on the fact that Google was protected under the DMCA provisions Case was appealed in 2011 and was argued at the U.S Court of Appeals Second Circuit

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

18

Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc.

Appeals:
Googles grant of a motion to dismiss due to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA was overturned in 2012.

Source

Slavinskas, Dynan

19

Benefits of DMCA
Stops illegal distribution Protects the rights of copyright owners Promotes people to buy

Protects the consumers

Slavinskas, Dynan

Prohibits bypassing technological measures

20

Threats of DMCA
ISPs not liable (loss of profit)
Jeopardizes fair use

Slavinskas, Dynan

21

Our Thoughts
No established Internet jurisdiction

Benefits consumers

Prevents spillovers

Slavinskas, Dynan

Benefits companies

Hurts the illicit market

22

Summary
The DMCA was made to protect the companies and consumers from the illegal distribution of copyrighted products and services on the Internet. It can be controversial in some cases such as Viacom v. Google where safe harbor rules apply.

Slavinskas, Dynan

23

Questions for the Class

What do you think the outcome to the Viacom v. Google case will be?
Do you feel the DMCA has been more beneficial than controversial or vice versa? What revisions, if any, would you make to the DMCA? Why?

Slavinskas, Dynan

24