Showing posts with label DMCA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DMCA. Show all posts

Friday, May 8, 2009

It’s Time to Legalize Personal-Use DVD Copying | Threat Level

 It’s Time to Legalize Personal-Use DVD Copying | Threat Level

It’s Time to Legalize Personal-Use DVD Copying

  • By David Kravets Email Author

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge here Thursday or soon thereafter is likely to conclude RealNetworks’ DVD-copying software is unlawful, and therefore should be permanently barred from distribution.

That’s the correct interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Yet we think it’s offensive that the 1998 act produces the absurd result that consumers are considered hackers and copyright scofflaws just for duplicating DVDs for personal use.

By suing RealNetworks over the RealDVD-copying software, the Hollywood studios fear losing control of the DVD like the music industry did with the CD.

It’s OK to copy music from CDs, for example, and place it in an iPod. Yet, it’s illegal to do the same with a DVD. When it comes to the DVD, there’s not even a question of fair use.

How can the DVD and CD be treated so differently? Answer: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protects the DVD but not the CD.

Hollywood pushed hard for the DMCA, in part to produce the DVD. The studios were savvy enough to have seen how easy it was to duplicate the CD, which was not encrypted. Attempts to lace CDs with Digital Rights Management had failed.

But the DVD was different. It was born with encryption, now called the Content Scramble System. It is designed to prevent duplication. Under the DMCA, gadgets and software allowing duplication of encryption-protected works are prohibited.

That’s because the DMCA outlaws circumventing encryption to duplicate copyrighted works. It also forbids trafficking in circumvention products – although plenty of underground duplication solutions exist.

That brings us back to the ongoing litigation between the Motion Picture Association of America and RealNetworks, which is expected to conclude as early as Thursday. Hollywood fears that, if U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel blesses RealNetworks’ DVD copying software, which allows only one copy of a DVD to be made, the studios’ stranglehold on the DVD would be forever lost.

A RealNetworks victory would send the message to the general public that it’s OK to copy DVDs.

But DVDs cannot be copied without circumventing encryption, although RealNetworks claims its copying software is covered under the Content Scramble System license it acquired from the DVD Copy Control Association.

Circumventing encryption is barred by the DMCA. This situation should be changed to allow the public the lawful right to make backup copies of DVDs – those discs that children fling around like Frisbees and lick like lollipops.

RealNetworks is making the silly argument that its RealDVD software does not circumvent encryption technology. But what’s sillier is that RealNetworks finds itself in a courtroom, facing monetary sanctions, for producing a product that should be legal.

It’s Time to Legalize Personal-Use DVD Copying | Threat Level

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Serious YouTube test of copyright law - WORLD Law Direct Forums

Serious YouTube test of copyright law - WORLD Law Direct Forums 

Serious YouTube test of copyright law


A woman who posted a home video on YouTube of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" squared off Friday against entertainment giant Universal Music Corp. in a federal court case that tests copyright law.
The issue in Stephanie Lenz's lawsuit against Universal is whether the owner of the rights to a creative work that's being used without permission can order the Web host to remove it without first considering whether the infringement was actually a legal fair use - a small or innocuous replication that couldn't affect the market for the original work.
Lenz's lawyers, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, say her 29-second video, with fuzzy camerawork and unclear sound, was such an obvious noncommercial fair use that Universal should have to reimburse her for the costs of taking it out of circulation for more than a month last year.
The company's lawyers say the 1998 federal law that authorized copyright-holders to issue takedown orders didn't require any such inquiry - in fact, they argue, there's no such thing as an obvious fair use.
No court has ever addressed the issue, said U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, who is presiding over the case.
Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pa., used her digital camera to take the video of her son, Holden, dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" on a home CD player in February 2007, and she posted the file on YouTube for family and friends, her lawyers said.
Four months later, Universal, which owns the rights to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video and nearly 200 others involving compositions by Prince. Copyright owners gained that power under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows them to remove Web postings that they believe to be unauthorized duplicates without having to sue for infringement.
Lenz, exercising her rights under the same law, notified YouTube several weeks later that her video is legal and ordered it restored. YouTube complied after waiting two weeks, as required by law, to see whether Universal would sue Lenz for copyright infringement - a suit that would have allowed her to claim fair use as a defense. Lenz then sued Universal in Northern California, YouTube's home district, claiming the takedown order was an abuse of the copyright law.
"There must be some requirement that a copyright owner both consider fair uses and determine honestly whether they exist before sending their (takedown) notice," Lenz's lawyer, Corynne McSherry, said in court papers.
She said the video, which focuses on the toddler and contains only a snippet of the song, couldn't have any conceivable impact on the market Universal's copyright was meant to protect.
But Fogel, at Friday's hearing, said he was concerned that requiring copyright holders to consider the possibility of fair use before ordering a takedown puts judges in the business of "trying to read their minds" and seems to be an expansion of the 1998 law.
Universal's lawyer, Kelly Klaus, argued that even brief homemade videos have a potential commercial effect if they proliferate on a site like YouTube and that Lenz's posting flies in the face of the 1998 law, which allows copyright holders to order removal of work believed to be an infringement.
By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

Serious YouTube test of copyright law - WORLD Law Direct Forums

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Missouri college fights music downloading with copyright quiz : Macleans OnCampus

"Interesting strategy to help curb campus violations of copyright infringement." -- HSM

 

Missouri college fights music downloading with copyright quiz

By Macleans.ca | June 9th, 2008 | 3:46 pm

Most Popular

Filed Under: News

A tech-savvy university near the Missouri Ozarks is resorting to an old standby to reduce illegal music downloads by students: the pop quiz.Missouri University of Science and Technology now requires students to ace a six-question quiz on digital copyright law to get six hours of access to peer-to-peer software they can use to share music and movies online.

The quiz has cut copyright complaints on campus from recording industry to eight this academic year, down from 200 in 2006-07, said Tim Doty, a campus systems security analyst.

“We’re still allowing peer-to-peer access,” Doty said, “but in a controlled fashion. We’re providing them the information to make an informed decision.”

Missouri S&T students who violate copyright law may lose their Internet privileges or face fines, community service, extra research assignments or suspension from classes.

Violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act also can draw lawsuits by the recording industry, which often cost several thousand dollars to settle. Universities that fail to stop repeat offenders can face liability too.

Several schools have addressed the problem by eliminating access to peer-to-peer software, even though it is used by academic researchers to share data. Most schools that continue to allow access have toughened penalties for piracy, including completing tests like Missouri S&T’s or watching an anti-piracy DVD provided by the recording industry. The Missouri school appears to be the only U.S. campus that requires a test in advance, Doty said.

At Stanford, students who don’t remove illegal downloads from their computers must pay $100 to reconnect to the Internet once they’re found out. A second offence boosts the reconnection fee to $500.

Jonathan Lamy, a Recording Industry Association of America spokesman, applauded schools’ efforts to teach students about copyright law.

“What we’ve found to be the most effective is a comprehensive approach that employs a combination of tools: innovative educational programs, legal ways to enjoy music and technological tools that prevent the misuse of campus networks in the first place.”

-with a report from CP

Missouri college fights music downloading with copyright quiz : Macleans OnCampus

Friday, February 29, 2008

The Post

 

The RIAA one year later

As recording industry wages nationwide war on piracy, OU falls off the map

Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008
Last Modified: Thursday, February 28, 2008, 2:02:37am

David Hendricks / Campus Senior Writer / dh100006@ohiou.edu

As the recording industry’s nationwide legal battle against college music sharers enters its second year, Ohio University — once ground zero in that campaign — is no longer under fire.

Identified last February by the recording industry as the recipient of more music sharing complaints than any other university, OU shelled out more than $75,000 last summer for a device that scans data crisscrossing its network for copyrighted media.

Copyright complaints plummeted from 716 during Fall Quarter 2006 to 77 during Fall Quarter 2007. Threats of litigation from the Recording Industry Association of America, the music industry trade group that coordinated the crackdown, stopped altogether.

“There has been a very dramatic change at Ohio University,” said RIAA President Cary Sherman.That change began last February, when the The Associated Press published the top 25 recipients of the RIAA’s copyright complaints. OU topped the list with 1,287.

“This is not a list any school wanted to be on,” Sherman said, adding that widespread publication of the list put pressure on universities.

Before the end of that month, OU would top another RIAA list, this one more serious.

Six days after the AP article, the RIAA sent 400 letters to 13 universities; one in eight went to OU. In each letter, the RIAA alleged that a university Internet address distributed copyrighted music and asked each school to forward the letter to the person responsible.

Unlike copyright complaints sent under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which warn of potential legal liability for the university, these letters demanded unspecified settlements from individual network users within 20 days. The letters threatened lawsuits if the recipients did not respond or refused to settle.

OU, like most universities, forwarded the letters.

When the University of Wisconsin-Madison refused to forward 15 letters to its students in March, the RIAA responded by upping the number of letters to 66 across the University of Wisconsin system. Record companies filed lawsuits against the unnamed network users and forced the university to turn over student names and other information.

This month, the RIAA sent 401 more letters, none of which went to OU. In all, the RIAA has sent 5,404 letters to universities and commercial Internet service providers nationwide. More than 2,300 recipients have settled. The RIAA has filed lawsuits against 2,465 people who either did not respond, refused to settle or were not forwarded the letter. Of the 100 OU students threatened with lawsuits, 80 settled.

Lawsuit Machine

Thousands of DMCA notices are sent to universities and commercial Internet service providers each month. The notices, which warn ISPs that someone using their network is violating copyright law, are an important weapon in the RIAA’s war on piracy.

Several companies have sprung up to send DMCA notices on behalf of major movie studios and record labels for a fee.

One of those firms, California-based MediaSentry, works with the RIAA to send DMCA notices on behalf of major record labels and gathers evidence for use in copyright infringement lawsuits. Together, MediaSentry and Colorado-based law firm Holme Roberts & Owen form the backbone of the RIAA litigation campaign.

MediaSentry, HRO and smaller, regional law firms that handle cases in each state all referred Post inquiries to the RIAA, which has been tight-lipped about the campaign — refusing even to confirm its widely known association with MediaSentry. Court filings, though, have revealed the basics of that arrangement.

In a sworn statement filed this summer in federal district court, an RIAA vice president explained that MediaSentry combs file-sharing networks for music files copyrighted by RIAA members. When it finds a user sharing such files, MediaSentry downloads them and records the sharer’s Internet provider address.

Any resulting copyright infringement lawsuit hinges on the RIAA’s ability to link that IP address to an individual computer and its owner — something only an ISP, in this case the university, can do.

Those files are passed to the RIAA, which listens to each song to determine whether the file contains copyrighted music, according to court filings. Once satisfied, the RIAA creates a list of about 10 copyrighted songs marked “Exhibit A.”HRO sends Exhibit A, along with a form letter, to the college or university tied to the IP address. The RIAA asks that the college or university match the IP address to the student and forward the letter.

Each letter warns that unless the recipient settles copyright infringement allegations within 20 days, he or she will be sued in federal court. The letter encourages recipients to visit p2plawsuits.com, where they can settle online with a credit card.

Students who settle within 20 days usually pay at least $3,000, Sherman said, adding that the RIAA has not made an exact figure public. After she was sued, one OU student paid more than $10,000 to settle.

“The easier you make (copyright) infringement, the more people will do it,” Sherman said. “The whole program here is deterrence. The more people you can send a notice to … the more likely it is that the people they know will know someone that was sued.”

OU received 100 letters during the last academic year and chose to forward them to students. Of those, 80 settled, according to the RIAA.

One man gave up his truck’s title to pay his daughter’s settlement. Several students interviewed by The Post said they were not sure if they could afford to pay both the settlement and tuition.

Eight students who did not settle were sued in Ohio’s federal district courts after OU was forced to hand over their names during the summer in response to a subpoena. One student unsuccessfully challenged the subpoena; his name was turned over Nov. 30.

Five cases are ongoing. Another student settled and a seventh, who failed to respond to the lawsuit, had a $6,750 default judgment entered against her. Record companies have asked that their eighth case be dismissed. One lawsuit could cost OU its starting varsity baseball catcher.

“I am a college student who is trying to better myself and if I have to pay this I am going to be forced by my father to drop out of school,” wrote Chris Klimko, a junior criminology major and starting catcher for OU’s baseball team since his freshman year. “I do not have their music, and I do not want their music. If they were trying to get people to stop listening to their music, they succeeded.”

Action at OU

OU administrators scrambled to respond after the RIAA figures were released last February.

“Up until now, we filed judicial charges only against students deemed to have engaged persistently in illegal file-sharing over the computer network,” wrote Kent Smith, vice president for Student Affairs, in an e-mail to students. “However, in light of increased reports of the problem, all newly-reported, alleged first-time offenders will be referred to University Judiciaries in a manner consistent with our existing policy.”

Previously, students temporarily lost Internet access and received a warning if it was alleged they had shared media using peer-to-peer software.

Leadership changes in OU’s central information technology division resulted in an abrupt policy reversal.

Shawn Ostermann, then interim chief information officer, did not change the university’s stance on peer-to-peer software during Winter Quarter 2007, despite an increase in DMCA notices. He cited legitimate uses of the software and was concerned that banning a type of traffic from the campus network would damage academic freedom.

OU banned all peer-to-peer traffic the following quarter under its new CIO, Brice Bible. At the time, OU said it would issue exceptions for those with a legitimate need to use peer-to-peer software. That ban would draw widespread condemnation. OU began to look for a better option.

Audible’s Magic Box

Colleges and universities across the country are turning to special software to wipe out, limit or monitor peer-to-peer file-sharing on their networks. OU began testing one of these devices last year and spent more than $75,000 to purchase one.

CopySense, a special computer sold by California-based Audible Magic, uses patented software to create audio fingerprints for copyrighted media. It compares those fingerprints to audio passing over OU’s network and disconnects computers sharing files with matching fingerprints.

OU paid $59,950 for the CopySense device and an additional $15,585 for support, maintenance and a year of database updates, which keep the device loaded with fingerprints for newly released music.

After CopySense was installed, the number of DMCA notices OU received dropped dramatically.

Each notice lists the copyrighted file and how long it was available. None of the 77 files listed in DMCA notices sent to OU during Fall Quarter 2007 was available for more than two seconds. During the same time during the previous academic year, before OU purchased CopySense, some files were available for several weeks.

DMCA notices received during Fall Quarter 2007 were probably generated in the seconds before CopySense disconnected the offending computer from OU’s network, said Sean O’Malley, OU’s information technology communications manager. Record companies have not sued any OU student for copyright infringement that occurred during Fall Quarter.

The Post

Monday, January 7, 2008

Techdirt: Copyright, Defamation, Bloggers, DMCA, Safe Harbors, Cease-And-Desists And Anonymity... Oh My!

Techdirt: Copyright, Defamation, Bloggers, DMCA, Safe Harbors, Cease-And-Desists And Anonymity... Oh My! 

Copyright, Defamation, Bloggers, DMCA, Safe Harbors, Cease-And-Desists And Anonymity... Oh My!

from the we've-got-it-all-in-this-case dept

Well, here's a lawsuit that's got all the hot button issues going around these days, and yet has received very little publicity. Both Eric Goldman and Sam Bayard provide detailed legal breakdowns of what happened (and it may take a couple reads to grasp all the details), but let's try to summarize (some of it's good, some of it's bad). Basically, there was a site that has a few anonymous bloggers posting about politics. One of those anonymous bloggers, going under the name "Tom Paine" posted something accusing the CEO of a company of something that the CEO believed was defamatory. The company sent the blog a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that Paine's post be removed. That cease-and-desist letter was then posted to the blog by a different anonymous blogger, using the name "d2."
Here's where things get interesting. The company had registered the cease-and-desist with the copyright office, and then claimed that d2 was violating the copyright. We've seen a few other companies try to do this, and the idea that a boilerplate cease-and-desist letter is copyrightable is highly questionable -- and, even if it can be covered by copyright, there are strong fair use arguments for a blogger being able to post it. Unfortunately, though, the court felt otherwise, and decided that just because the company had registered the copyright on the document, that's all the evidence it needed to say the document was covered by copyright, and posting it could be considered infringement. If that stands, it could be disastrous to plenty of other bloggers (and the Chilling Effects archive) who post the ridiculous C&Ds they receive. Indeed, this ruling may prove to have a true "chilling effect" itself. Hopefully, though, a few more high profile cases of this nature will eventually have it made clear that posting a C&D is perfectly legitimate.
But, wait... there's more! In claiming copyright infringement, the company didn't just go after d2, but used the DMCA to subpoena for information on both d2 and Tom Paine -- even though Tom Paine had absolutely nothing to do with posting the cease-and-desist, and was accused of defamation, not copyright infringement. Luckily, the court saw right through that one, and decided that there was no reason to identify Tom Paine over the copyright issue. And, of course, we don't even get to touch on the questions concerning the rights to anonymity, as well as the safe harbors provided by the company that runs the blog concerning the speech of its users -- all of which are a part of the case as well. So, if you've got some time and want to dig through all the gory legal details, go ahead. But the summary is that there's a bit of good (in that a company that tried to misuse the DMCA to unmask an anonymous blogger was denied -- even if it's a bad sign that the company even thought to use the DMCA in this manner) and there's a lot of bad (in suggesting that it may be infringement to post a generic cease-and-desist). I would imagine this is not the last we'll be hearing of this case.

Techdirt: Copyright, Defamation, Bloggers, DMCA, Safe Harbors, Cease-And-Desists And Anonymity... Oh My!