TITLE 1 – WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act
Title 1 implements the WIPO Treaties. It prohibits the production, development or use of technologies designed to avoid technical protection measures. This means that if we assume that a media publisher is implementing technology that prevents copying, and that someone bypasses this protection, that person is guilty of both making the copy and avoiding the technical protection against copying. It also granted an effective monopoly to a manufacturer of copy protection devices, stating that all analog video recorders support their proprietary solution.
TITLE 2 – Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
Title 2 defines the detailed requirements that service providers must meet to avoid prosecution for copyright infringement by other users of their services. It is a title for website owners and Internet users in general.
TITLE 3 – Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act
This title allows you to store replicas of copyrighted material while storing sponsorship data for repair and maintenance purposes.
TITLE 4 – Miscellaneous Provisions
This title relates to a number of detailed provisions concerning the operation of the Copyright Office, distance education, exceptions to copyright law for libraries, exceptions for ephemeral recordings, recordings audio streaming over the Internet and the use of collective bargaining procedures regarding the transfer of rights to films.
TITLE 5 – Vessel Hull Design Protection Act
Title 5 contains copyright protection for the designs of vessel hulls.
In Nutshell, DMCA is collaboration between legislators, media companies, and consumer advocates. The DMCA executed two 1996 WIPO treaties that criminalize the broadcasting of copyrighted works and also the act of circumventing access control. The DMCA exempts ISP and their intermediaries of all kind of liability whether directly or indirectly, for violations that may occur on their networks. For instance, Youtube has countless content but it’s would be impossible to monitor all user-submitted content proactively and hence the service would normally be protected from liability when users post infringing content. In exchange for this protection, the service must promptly remove infringing content when notified. ISP who chooses not to remove infringing material after getting a notice may be subject to criminal or civil penalties.
THE TAKEDOWN NOTICES
Any individuals or organizations, or their attorneys can send ‘Takedown notices’ to Internet service providers under section 512 of DMCA asking the ISP to remove material or a link to material that the letter claims is an infringement of copyright. Section 512 has distinct provisions for different kinds of ISPs which including access providers, caching functions, hosting services, search engines etc. Section 512 doesn't require any court decision that material is actually infringing before a rights holder can send a takedown notice. A displeased copyright holder can issue a takedown notice to a hosting company, a social network, or a search engine and successfully get its copyrighted work removed. Some service providers take the time to look into these claims, requiring some kind evidence of infringement. Search engines like ‘Bing’, ’Yahoo’, ‘Yandex’ etc are subject to takedown notices, and may simply de-index a URL that contains infringing material. Other service providers, especially web hosting companies, tend to notify their customers when removing content after a takedown notice.
Counternotice – IPS can file a ‘counternotice’ explaining why the think the content should be left alone or restored under section 512(c) of DMCA pleading that the usage of copyrighted material is protected under Fair Use or the material is not actually under copyright and so the takedown notice was issued in error. The counter-notice will be considered valid if it contain signature, identification of the content removed, and where it appeared before removal, statement of good faith, contact information, including name, address, phone number. Also includes a statement that consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for your judicial district.
LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: REPRODUCTION BY LIBRARIES AND ARCHIVES
The customs of media and entertainment are changing rapidly and so did our technology for creating copies of those works. Hence, the Copyright Act of 1976 gave libraries and other educational non-profit organizations an exception with Section 108 of DMCA. This section is still debated and many amendments are introduced since then. In the original version of Section 108, it was stated that libraries and archives were able to make a single copy of a work if the following criteria were met:
- It was for non-commercial purposes.
- The works were otherwise available to the general public.
- Copyright notices were placed on the copy of the work.
If all conditions were met, the copies could then be made for the purposes of preservation or to loan out to another library. This section was updated in year 1998 and following amendments were introduced:
- For preservation purposes, libraries and archives may make three copies of the unpublished work.
- You can make three copies to replace a damaged, lost, or otherwise deteriorated published work, but only if you cannot buy a replacement part at a fair price.
- Digital copies of these works can be created as long as they remain in the library or archives and are not distributed to the general public.
- The copyright notice must appear on all copies created. If this is not possible or if one of them is missing, the library must clearly indicate that the work is protected by copyright.
- Libraries, archives and other non-profit educational organizations may copy or digitize a work or phonographic recording after the last 20 years of copyright. However, this cannot be used for commercial purposes and it must be proven that the copy cannot be purchased at a reasonable price.
Good work.
ReplyDelete