# data[].attributes.body
Svenska källa?

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Första DMCA striken på ett clip från 2018. 

Man får en klump i magen när man inser att 10+ år på Twitch kan försvinna så enkelt.

Jag tror vi alla älskar Twitch, men besvikelsen är enorm att 10 år måste raderas. Jag är okej med att radera all DMCA content. Men allt!? Hejdå clips

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Första DMCA striken på ett clip från 2018. 

Man får en klump i magen när man inser att 10+ år på Twitch kan försvinna så enkelt.

Jag tror vi alla älskar Twitch, men besvikelsen är enorm att 10 år måste raderas. Jag är okej med att radera all DMCA content. Men allt!? Hejdå clips https://t.co/4AlSBiqiM1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Första DMCA striken på ett clip från 2018.

Man får en klump i magen när man inser att 10+ år på Twitch kan försvinna så enkelt.

Jag tror vi alla älskar Twitch, men besvikelsen är enorm att 10 år måste raderas. Jag är okej med att radera all DMCA content. Men allt!? Hejdå clips pic.twitter.com/4AlSBiqiM1
— slop3 - Fredrik Wahlstedt (@slop3) November 6, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Första DMCA striken på ett clip från 2018. 

Man får en klump i magen när man inser att 10+ år på Twitch kan försvinna så enkelt.

Jag tror vi alla älskar Twitch, men besvikelsen är enorm att 10 år måste raderas. Jag är okej med att radera all DMCA content. Men allt!? Hejdå clips https://t.co/4AlSBiqiM1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Första DMCA striken på ett clip från 2018. 

Man får en klump i magen när man inser att 10+ år på Twitch kan försvinna så enkelt.

Jag tror vi alla älskar Twitch, men besvikelsen är enorm att 10 år måste raderas. Jag är okej med att radera all DMCA content. Men allt!? Hejdå clips https://t.co/4AlSBiqiM1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Första DMCA striken på ett clip från 2018. 

Man får en klump i magen när man inser att 10+ år på Twitch kan försvinna så enkelt.

Jag tror vi alla älskar Twitch, men besvikelsen är enorm att 10 år måste raderas. Jag är okej med att radera all DMCA content. Men allt!? Hejdå clips

# data[].attributes.body
Inte orkat läsa än.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This post is not available in your language. Here are some other options:

Creators, we hear you. Your frustration and confusion with recent music-related copyright issues is completely justified. Things can-and should-be better for creators than they have been recently, and this post outlines our next steps to get there. Moving forward, we'll be more transparent with what's happening and what tools and resources we're building to help.

Copyright law and the DMCA are not small or simple topics, so this won't be a brief post. We'll do our best to keep the legalese to a minimum, though there's bound to be technical terms here and there.

DMCA and Twitch

First off, a quick review of what DMCA actually is. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") is a set of US laws that allows you to create and share content on digital service providers like Twitch. We comply with the DMCA and similar laws worldwide. Part of complying means that when a copyright holder thinks a streamer has used their content without permission, we have a process in place for them to be able to request the content be taken down.

When we receive a DMCA notification, we process the notification in accordance with our DMCA Guidelines. This includes removing the content, sharing the details with the channel owner, and tracking the allegation.

DMCA takedown notifications can affect your ability to stream because we, as part of our efforts to comply with the DMCA and similar global laws, issue and track copyright strikes and ban the accounts of those who repeatedly infringe the copyrights of others.

This policy is important because we respect the rights of all creators, including those who create or record music, as well as the rights of those who own and control copyrights. As a company that is built around a community of people who create content, we take allegations of copyright infringement seriously.

Recent DMCA notifications

How did we get to this moment? Until May of this year, streamers received fewer than 50 music-related DMCA notifications each year on Twitch. Beginning in May, however, representatives for the major record labels started sending thousands of DMCA notifications each week that targeted creators' archives, mostly for snippets of tracks in years-old Clips. We continue to receive large batches of notifications, and we don't expect that to slow down.

This means two things: 1) if you play recorded music on your stream, you need to stop doing that and 2) if you haven't already, you should review your historical VODs and Clips that may have music in them and delete any archives that might.

We were as surprised by this sudden avalanche of notifications as many of you were. We also realized that we needed to provide streamers with more educational programs and content management tools to help you deal with this unprecedented number of notifications coming in all at once. So, while we continued to remove content targeted by these notifications as required by the DMCA, we understood VODs and Clips from years ago may not necessarily reflect your current approach to music. Therefore, we also paused the processing of strikes associated with these batched notifications in order to give you the tools, information, and time that you would need to deal with them.

We have analyzed the notifications we received during that period from the end of May through the middle of October. What we found is that more than 99% of the notifications were for tracks that streamers were playing in the background of their stream.

The point of the DMCA is to strike a balance between the interests of rights holders (the major record labels in this case) and creators. Because of this, we were compelled to delete the VODs and Clips that were identified in the notifications. This showed our commitment to upholding our obligations under the DMCA, while affording us the opportunity to sort out the best way to handle issuing strikes in these circumstances. Under these extraordinary circumstances, we recognized creators should have a reasonable chance to understand that content created in the past was being targeted as allegedly infringing and be given an opportunity to change their approach to music use before they got hit with strikes.

This led to the current situation, which is understandably frustrating and worrying for many of you. Given the circumstances, the warning email many of you received didn't include all the information that you'd typically get in a DMCA notification (normally, when we receive a DMCA notification against your channel, we send you an email that includes information about the allegedly infringed work, who the claimant is, how the claimant can be contacted, and possible penalties under our repeat infringer policy, so that you can make an informed decision about whether to submit a counter notification or seek a retraction). We hear your feedback about how frustratingly little information we provided, and we should have made that warning email a lot more informative and helpful.

Over the last several months, we have done our best to manage this situation on behalf of both rights holders and creators. One of the mistakes we made was not building adequate tools to allow creators to manage their own VOD and Clip libraries. You're rightly upset that the only option we provided was a mass deletion tool for Clips, and that we only gave you three-days notice to use this tool. We could have developed more sophisticated, user-friendly tools awhile ago. That we didn't is on us. And we could have provided creators with a longer time period to address their VOD and Clip libraries - that was a miss as well. We're truly sorry for these mistakes, and we'll do better.

How to avoid DMCA notifications

One important question we've heard from you is: how can I stream safely and confidently on Twitch without having to worry about getting DMCA notifications from music use?

Most importantly, don't play recorded music in your stream unless you own all rights in the music, or you have the permission of the necessary rights holder(s). Doing this is the best protection for your streams going forward. If you're unsure whether you own all the rights, it's pretty likely you don't. If you want to include recorded music in your stream, use a fully licensed alternative like Soundtrack by Twitch, or other rights cleared music libraries such as Soundstripe, Monstercat Gold, Chillhop, Epidemic Sound, and NCS.

While we haven't received more than a handful of DMCA notifications targeting in-game music, if you're playing games with recorded music in them, we recommend you review their End User License Agreements (that wall of text at the beginning of a game) to see how the terms cover streaming with that music. One way to do this is to search for a game's official EULA online and then do a ctrl+f (Command+f on Mac) search for words like "stream," "licensed," and "music" to point you toward the correct sections. If you're unsure about the rights, some games allow you to turn off music when streaming, or you can mute the game audio yourself. If neither of those apply, consider turning off VODs and Clips.

For your stream archives (VODs and Clips), right now your only options, if you think they contain unauthorized music, is to either go through them one by one, or, for Clips, use the "delete all" tool we've provided. We understand both of these options have downsides, and we're working to provide you more and better options as soon as possible. These things will take time to get right, and new challenges may appear in the future. Regardless, we're committing here and now to investing in building better tools and keeping you posted on our progress.

New products and tools

Ever since the influx of DMCA notifications began, we have been working on building new (and improving existing) tools to help creators (such as the Clips mass deletion tool). This work is still happening. Many of these changes won't be visible to the community, but we're focused on three areas where we heard you need more support from us:

First, you don't have enough control over the recorded content on your channel. We have made improvements to enable you to mass delete Clips, but in addition, we will (1) expand the use of technology to detect copyrighted audio, and (2) give you more granular ways to manage your archive instead of just a "delete all" option.

Second, we'll make it easier for you to control what audio from your live streams will show up in your recorded content. Soundtrack by Twitch has some of this technology built into it, and we'll work to make it available for everyone regardless of whether you want to use Soundtrack, for which we've cleared all necessary rights, or music from others that provide rights-cleared music.

Third, we need to give you the ability to actually review your allegedly infringing content when you receive a DMCA notification, in addition to the details already provided in our takedown notifications - that is, information about what copyrighted work was allegedly infringed, who the claimant is, and how the claimant can be contacted. We also need to help you more easily file counter notifications if you believe you have the rights to use the content-for example, because you've secured a license, believe the use is a fair use, the claimant does not control the rights, or believe you have the right to use the music without permission.

Some of you have asked why we don't have a license covering any and all uses of recorded music. We are actively speaking with the major record labels about potential approaches to additional licenses that would be appropriate for the Twitch service. That said, the current constructs for licenses that the record labels have with other services (which typically take a cut of revenue from creators for payment to record labels) make less sense for Twitch. The vast majority of our creators don't have recorded music as a part of their streams, and the revenue implications to creators of such a deal are substantial. We're open-minded to new structures that could work for Twitch's unique service, but we must be clear that they may take some time to materialize or may never happen at all. In the meantime, we're focused on building tools to better help you manage VODs and Clips and providing licensed music options like Soundtrack, while we explore all options.

And just so there's no confusion, to music creators: we pay public performance licenses in order for you to perform music live to your communities. You should also avoid using pre-recorded music, and disable VODs and Clips, unless you have the rights to the music and compositions.

Ways to stay educated

We've got work to do, and at the same time, we urge you to keep learning about copyrights. They are important, not only because of the issues we've covered in this post but because they are created every single day by songwriters, recording artists, authors and other creators like you. While you can take helpful steps to manage your existing content, you run the risk of getting a DMCA takedown notification whenever you use someone else's copyrights in your channel without permission.

In order to help with continuing education around this subject, we've added in a "Copyright and Your Channel" Creator Camp page and hosted a follow up livestream where we answered community questions live. Moving forward, our goal is to continue to provide more insight and resources to our community. Starting November 18, we'll host the first of four additional Creator Camp live sessions. Topics will include a DMCA Overview, Musicians on Twitch and DMCA, and Copyright & Managing Your Twitch Content. These sessions will go deep with insights both from internal and third party experts, and we hope they'll be useful for you. Be sure to follow Creator Camp to ensure you receive notifications when sessions are live. We will plan additional sessions as needed, informed by the response to those sessions and the ongoing needs of the Twitch community.

Transparency going forward

We know there are probably still many questions that we didn't get to here. We've started to compile some we've received from the community and have drafted this FAQ. We always appreciate additional feedback, so we have created a UserVoice forum around this topic as well.

Finally, please remember to check your security settings to confirm the email associated with your account is up to date as soon as possible and allow email from no-reply@twitch.tv to ensure you're receiving relevant communication. We send reminders and notices here periodically and want to ensure you are getting the information. We're looking forward to continuing the conversation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Music-Related Copyright Claims and Twitch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This post is not available in your language. Here are some other options: Creators, we hear you. Your frustration and confusion with recent music-related copyright issues is completely justified. Things can-and should-be better for creators than they have been recently, and this post outlines our next steps to get there.

# data[].attributes.body
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Long title

To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes.

Acronyms (colloquial)

DM, DMCA

Enacted by

the 105th United States Congress

Effective

October 28, 1998

Citations

Public law
Pub. L. 105-304

Statutes at Large

112 Stat. 2860 (1998)

Codification

Acts amended
Copyright Act of 1976

Titles amended

5 (Government Organization and Employees); 17 (Copyrights); 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure); 35 (Patents)

U.S.C. sections created

17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201-1205, 1301-1332; 28 U.S.C. § 4001

U.S.C. sections amended

17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 104, 104A, 108, 132, 114, 117, 701

Legislative history

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM). It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of Internet service providers and other intermediaries. This exemption was adopted by the European Union in the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000. The Information Society Directive 2001 implemented the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU.

DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, amends U.S. copyright law to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, adopted at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference in December 1996. The treaties have two major portions. One portion includes works covered by several treaties in U.S. copy prevention laws and gave the title its name. For further analysis of this portion of the Act and of cases under it, see WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act.

The second portion (17 U.S.C. 1201) is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions changed the remedies for the circumvention of copy-prevention systems (also called "technical protection measures"). The section contains a number of specific limitations and exemptions, for such things as government research and reverse engineering in specified situations. Although, section 1201(c) of the title stated that the section does not change the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, or defenses, it did not make those defenses available in circumvention actions. The section does not include a fair use exemption from criminality nor a scienter requirement, so criminal liability could attach to even unintended circumvention for legitimate purposes.

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright infringement liability, provided they meet specific requirements. OSPs must adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users' identity.

DMCA Title III modified section 117 of the copyright title so that those repairing computers could make certain temporary, limited copies while working on a computer. It reversed the precedent set in MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).

DMCA Title IV contains an assortment of provisions:

Clarified and added to the duties of the Copyright Office.

Added ephemeral copy for broadcasters provisions, including certain statutory licenses.

Added provisions to facilitate distance education.

Added provisions to assist libraries with keeping phonorecords of sound recordings.

Added provisions relating to collective bargaining and the transfer of movie rights.

DMCA Title V added sections 1301 through 1332 to add a sui generis protection for boat hull designs. Boat hull designs were not considered covered under copyright law because boats are useful articles whose form cannot be separated from their function.

In addition to the safe harbors and exemptions the statute explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) requires that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology. Exemptions are granted when it is shown that access-control technology has had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of people to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works.

The exemption rules are revised every three years. Exemption proposals are submitted by the public to the Registrar of Copyrights, and after a process of hearings and public comments, the final rule is recommended by the Registrar and issued by the Librarian. Exemptions expire after three years and must be resubmitted for the next rulemaking cycle. Consequently, only the most recent rulemaking is valid, and prior exemptions issued (in 2000, 2003, 2006, 2010 and 2013) are no longer valid. As of 2017 (for the 2018 rulemaking), the Copyright Office is considering re-authorizing such exemptions if no new evidence is submitted to the contrary.

After much criticism (see below), on December 29, 2015, the Copyright Office initiated a study to assess the operation of section 1201 and the triennial rulemaking process. This is different from usual public comments on exemption proposals. It includes the role of the anti-trafficking provisions and permanent exemptions, and the requirements of the rulemaking itself. The Office has issued a Notice of Inquiry requesting public comment.

Several comments were posted by individuals and organizations. An individual recalls that the Copyright Clause has limitations. Association of American Publishers et al. hold there is no need to amend the statute or to significantly alter the rulemaking. They are happy with the protection they are being granted, including anti-trafficking provisions, and talk of placing the cart before the horse, when they argue about requiring a proof of the mindset that consumers would have when utilizing circumvention tools before actual acts of circumvention occur. In their opinion, the meaning of Section 1201 is to extend, not merely duplicate, copyright holder's rights. Society of American Archivists say they are not aware that the anti-trafficking provisions of section 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) have had any impact in deterring copyright infringement. They do know, however, that the provisions have created an absurd, Catch-22 situation for any archives that sought to adhere to the letter of the law. iFixit also talks of Catch-22 on stressing that since it is up to proponents to show that an exemption is relevant, they need to show that there's overwhelming market demand if only it were legal. Rapid7 notice that DMCA adversely affects good faith security research by forbidding researchers from circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs) to analyze software for vulnerabilities. Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School points out that the rulemaking is a complicated, ad hoc, and unduly burdensome process. Professors Andrea M. Matwyshyn, Steven M. Bellovin, Matt Blaze, J. Alex Halderman, and Nadia Heninger, jointly advocated making the security research exemption granted in the 2015 Triennial Section 1201 Rulemaking permanent.

The Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) commented that circumventing DRM restrictions to meet accessibility needs deserves a permanent exception. Entertainment Software Association gives a vivid and detailed description of a flourishing market which is only possible because of DMCA. They are deeply concerned about people with disabilities, but that concern is already being taken care of by the copyright holders, so that no permanent exception is needed.

In June 2017, the Copyright Office published a report where it "shares the concern" that Section 1201 can affect activities unrelated to copyright infringement, but also expressed concerns over weakening "the right of copyright owners to exercise meaningful control over the terms of access to their works online", which they believe is "essential to the development of the digital marketplace for creative content". However, with respect to the question of whether the security research exemption granted in the 2015 Triennial cycle should be made permanent in some form, the Office recommended "that Congress consider expanding the reach of this exemption, easing the strict authorization requirement for researchers and restrictions on the use of information generated from the research, and abandoning or clarifying the multifactor test," stating that "it continues to believe that the exemption adopted in 2015 can be a useful starting point, and notes that most of the security researchers who petitioned for that exemption .. agree."

The Copyright Office approved two exemptions in 2000, four in 2003, six each in 2006 and 2010, five in 2012 and nine in 2015.

In 2000, the first rulemaking, the Office exempted:

"Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications" (renewed in 2003 but not renewed in 2006); and

"Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage, or obsoleteness." (revised and limited in 2003 and again in 2006).

2003 rulemaking

In 2003, the Office made the following rules:

The 2000 filtering exemption was revised and renewed.

The 2000 "literary works including computer programs" exemption was limited to "Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete" and this exemption was renewed in both 2006 and 2010.

A new exemption was implemented for electronic books for which technological protection measures prevented the use of read-aloud software or screen readers. This exemption was renewed in 2006, 2010, 2012, and 2015.

A new exemption was made for "Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access." This exemption was renewed in 2006 but not in 2010.

2006 rulemaking

In 2006, the Office made the following rules:

The 2003 exemption on obsolete computer programs and video games was renewed.

The 2003 exemption on computer programs protected by dongles was renewed.

The 2003 exemption on electronic books was renewed.

A new exemption was made for sound recordings allowed after security flaws were found in a copy protection system on some Sony CDs; this was not renewed in 2010.

A new exemption was implemented covering the audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university's film or media studies department; this was not renewed in 2010.

A new exemption was implemented allowing circumvention to allow wireless telephone handsets to connect to wireless networks. This exemption was revised in 2010 to specify used handsets and require authorization from the wireless network operator. Another exemption for wireless handsets was introduced in 2010 specific to interoperability software on the phone itself.

2010 rulemaking

Rulemaking was scheduled to occur in 2009, but the final rule was not issued until the following year. The 2010 exemptions, issued in July 2010, are:

Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;

Documentary filmmaking;

Obsolete software and video game formats.

Noncommercial videos. (A new exemption in 2010, similar to a previous educational exemption.)

Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset. (A new exemption in 2010.)

Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2006.)

Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:

The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and

The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law. (A new exemption in 2010.)

Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.)

Literary works distributed in e-book format when all existing e-book editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.)

2012 rulemaking

The 2012 exemptions, issued in November 2012, are for:

Literary works, distributed electronically, that are protected by technological measures that either prevent the enabling of read-aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other applications or assistive technologies

Computer programs that enable smartphones and portable all-purpose mobile computing devices to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smartphone or device, or to permit removal of software from the smartphone or device

Computer programs that enable certain types of wireless devices to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is undertaken solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and such connection is authorized by the operator of such network

Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where circumvention is undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures for the purpose of criticism or comment in limited instances

Motion pictures and other audiovisual works on DVDs that are protected by the Content Scrambling System, or that are distributed by an online service and protected by technological measures that control access to such works, where circumvention is related to developing captioning and descriptive audio technologies

2015 rulemaking

The 2015 exemptions, issued in October 2015, are for:

Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where circumvention is undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures for the purpose of criticism or comment in limited instances,

Literary works, distributed electronically, that are protected by technological measures that either prevent the enabling of read-aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other applications or assistive technologies,

Computer programs that enable the following types of wireless devices to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is undertaken solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and such connection is authorized by the operator of such network,

Computer programs that enable smartphones, tablets and portable all-purpose mobile computing devices, and smart televisions to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smartphone or device, or to permit removal of software from the smartphone or device,

Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial motor vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for computer programs primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle, when circumvention is a necessary step undertaken by the authorized owner of the vehicle to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function,

Computer programs, where the circumvention is undertaken on a lawfully acquired device or machine on which the computer program operates solely for the purpose of good-faith security research and does not violate any applicable law,

Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable local gameplay,

Computer programs that operate 3D printers that employ microchip-reliant technological measures to limit the use of feedstock, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of using alternative feedstock and not for the purpose of accessing design software, design files or proprietary data, and

Literary works consisting of compilations of data generated by medical devices that are wholly or partially implanted in the body or by their corresponding personal monitoring systems, where such circumvention is undertaken by a patient for the sole purpose of lawfully accessing the data generated by his or her own device or monitoring system.

The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent ( digital rights management) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material.

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.

In July 2002, American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Benjamin Edelman, a computer researcher at Berkman Center for Internet and Society, seeking a declaratory judgment to affirm his first amendment rights when reverse engineering the censorware product of defendant N2H2 in case he intended to publish the finding. N2H2 filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted.[citation needed ]

In August 2009, the DVD Copy Control Association won a lawsuit against RealNetworks for violating copyright law in selling its RealDVD software, allowing users to copy DVDs and store them on a harddrive. The DVD Copy Control Association claimed that Real violated the DMCA by circumventing anti-piracy measures ARccOS Protection and RipGuard, as well as breaking Real's licensing agreement with the Content Scrambling System.

On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its corporate parent Google for copyright infringement seeking more than $1 billion in damages. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Viacom claims the popular video-sharing site was engaging in "massive intentional copyright infringement" for making available a contended 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's entertainment programming. Google relied on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision to shield them from liability.

On June 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton granted summary judgment in favor of YouTube. The court held that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the DMCA. Viacom appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On April 5, 2012, the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Louis Stanton's ruling, and instead ruled that Viacom had presented enough evidence against YouTube to warrant a trial, and the case should not have been thrown out in summary judgment. The court did uphold the ruling that YouTube could not be held liable based on "general knowledge" that users on its site were infringing copyright. The case was sent back to the District Court in New York, and on April 18, 2013, Judge Stanton issued another order granting summary judgment in favor of YouTube. The case is over; no money changed hands.

On June 23, 2006, IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District.

IO Group alleged that Veoh was responsible for copyright infringement by allowing videos owned by IO Group to be accessed through Veoh's online service without permission over 40,000 times between the dates June 1 and June 22.

Veoh is a Flash video site relying on user contributed content. IO Group argued that since Veoh transcoded user uploaded videos to Flash format it became a direct infringer and the materials were under their direct control, thereby disqualifying them for DMCA safe harbor protection.

The ruling judge disagreed with the argument, stating that

Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users. Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the thirdparty software... But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh's users.

The Court has granted the Veoh's motion for summary judgment, on the basis of the DMCA, holding that the defendant's video-sharing web site complied and was entitled to the protection of the statute's "safe harbor" provision. Even though Veoh won the court case, it blamed the litigation as one of the causes of its preparing to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and its subsequent sale to Qlipso.

After numerous DMCA takedown notices in response to his eBay listings, Timothy S. Vernor sued Autodesk in August 2007, alleging that Autodesk abused the DMCA and disrupted his right to sell used software he bought at a garage sale. In May 2008, a federal district judge in Washington State Autodesk's authorised that the software's license agreement preempted the seller from his rights under the first-sale doctrine. In September 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly authorised the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use authorisations."

In 2007, Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to the Prince song " Let's Go Crazy" and posted a 29-second video on the video-sharing site YouTube. Four months after the video was originally uploaded, Universal Music Group, which owned the copyrights to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks-not two weeks, as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act-to see whether Universal planned to sue Lenz for infringement. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song.

In August 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

On February 25, 2010, Judge Fogel issued a ruling rejecting several of Universal's affirmative defenses, including the defense that Lenz suffered no damages.

In 2015, the court ultimately upheld the finding that Universal was liable under 17 USC 512(f) (the DMCA's bad faith notice and takedown provision) for failing to consider fair use before sending its initial takedown notice.

In the case of Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter the court denied the defendant safe harbor protection under DMCA . The district court found that the defendant had knowledge of its users' infringing activity and also failed to prevent future infringing activity. As such the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction was granted. On appeal, however, the Seventh Circuit vacated the injunction, citing the standard set in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., which states that courts should not rely on categorical rules as a standard for injunction.

In this case of Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc., the court denied plaintiff's attempt to find liability for YouTube and Myspace's takedowns of the plaintiff's homemade videos. Despite potential fair use claims, the court found it impossible to use the DMCA takedown provisions as a foundation for liability. The court found that the safe harbor provision serves "to limit the liability of internet service providers, not to create liability that could not otherwise be imposed under existing law independent of the DMCA."

In January 2011, Sony Computer Entertainment sued George Hotz over violating the Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well as the Federal Fraud and Abuse Act due to facilitating consumers to jailbreak their PlayStation 3 consoles. Hotz argued that because he had purchased the product, he had the right to do with it as he pleased. After three months, Sony and Hotz decided to settle out of court. This also included an injunction against George Hotz, barring him from hacking any more Sony products.

In 2013, Oliver Hotham wrote an article on WordPress (owned by Automattic, Inc.) critical of Straight Pride UK that included material from a press release sent to him by Straight Pride UK's press officer, Nick Steiner. Steiner sent WordPress a DMCA takedown notice claiming that Hotham's article infringed their copyright. WordPress and Hotham sued in a federal District Court in California, under §512(f) of the DMCA, claiming that the takedown notice was fraudulent, and that the takedown cost the plaintiffs time, lost work and attorneys' fees. In 2015, the court issued a default judgment in favor of WordPress and Hotham in the amount of $25,084.

Google asserted misuse of the DMCA in a filing concerning New Zealand's copyright act, quoting results from a 2005 study by California academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse. Takedown notices targeting a competing business made up over half (57%) of the notices Google has received, the company said, and more than one-third (37%) "were not valid copyright claims."

Currently, there are three main abuses of the DMCA. First, fair use has been a legal gray area, and subject to opposing interpretations. This has caused inequity in the treatment of individual cases. Second, the DMCA has often been invoked overbearingly, favoring larger copyright holders over smaller ones. This has caused accidental takedowns of legitimate content, such as a record company accidentally removing a music video from their own artist. Third, the lack of consequences for perjury in claims encourages censorship. This has caused temporary takedowns of legitimate content that can be financially damaging to the legitimate copyright holder, who has no recourse for reimbursement. This has been used by businesses to censor competition.

In 2015 Volkswagen abused the DMCA to hide their vehicles' emissions cheat. It has been suggested that had the DMCA not prevented access to the software "..a researcher with legal access to Volkswagen's software could have discovered the code that changed how the cars behave in testing.."

Analog Copy Protection (ACP), the encryption technology created by Rovi Corporation (formerly Macrovision, now TiVo), is designed to thwart users' attempts to reproduce content via analog cables. When a DVD is played through an analog video cable and recorded using a VCR, Rovi's ACP technology will distort the copy partially or completely.

The technology works by adding additional lines to the video signal. In the NTSC video standard, blank lines ( vertical blanking intervals) that the user cannot see are used for functions like closed captioning. Rovi Corporation uses these blank lines to implement its ACP technology.

The implementation of ACP has been ill-regarded by some video enthusiasts. Many claim that the technology has led to signal issues with VCRs and analog video equipment. Some VCRs misread the encryption used to prevent copying, distorting the video image regardless of whether the recording is original or a copy.

The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all producers of analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of Rovi Corporation, a commercial firm. The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support and implement the corporation's proprietary technology. This benefits Rovi Corporation financially, whereas those forced to implement it receive neither profit nor compensation.

Additionally, some criticize the implementation of ACP as a violation of their fair use rights. A recently developed TV-streaming product called the Slingbox uses analog signals to convey video from television to a mobile device. However, the encryption used by ACP blocks analog transmission, rendering the Slingbox unusable. Additionally ACP blocks the use of recording for educational purposes. On one or more accounts, students have not been able to cite and record cable sources properly due to ACP restrictions.

The DMCA has affected the worldwide cryptography research community, since an argument can be made that any cryptanalytic research violates, or might violate, the DMCA. The arrest of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov in 2001, for alleged infringement of the DMCA, was a highly publicized example of the law's use to prevent or penalize development of anti-DRM measures. While working for ElcomSoft in Russia, he developed The Advanced eBook Processor, a software application allowing users to strip usage restriction information from restricted e-books, an activity legal in both Russia and the United States. Paradoxically, under the DMCA, it is not legal in the United States to provide such a tool. Sklyarov was arrested in the United States after presenting a speech at DEF CON and subsequently spent nearly a month in jail. The DMCA has also been cited as chilling to legitimate users, such as students of cryptanalysis (including, in a well-known instance, Professor Edward Felten and students at Princeton), and security consultants such as Niels Ferguson, who has declined to publish information about vulnerabilities he discovered in an Intel secure-computing scheme because of his concern about being arrested under the DMCA when he travels to the U.S.

In at least one court case, the DMCA has been used by open source software projects to defend against conversion of software (i.e., license violations) that involved removal of copyright notices.

There have been several Congressional efforts to modify the Act. The Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 was introduced to attempt to exempt non-infringing uses from the anti-circumvention clause. However, the bill was not passed by Congress. In 2014, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act was passed, granting a specific exemption for unlocking cell phones, without affecting the other provisions of the DMCA.

Bills in 2015 included the Unlocking Technology Act of 2015, and the Breaking Down Barriers to Innovation Act of 2015. Republicans are considering legislation as well, as it becomes clear that Section 1201 is impeding the country's security. Facing escalating numbers of cyberthreats, cybersecurity researchers petitioned to conduct research to keep pace with evolving cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, stating: "Without such an exemption, security risks will lie unaddressed and the public will be substantially less safe." The bills are intended to address the fact that section 1201 prevents circumvention even when doing so is not copyright infringement. In addition, the section requires exemption proponents to bear the burden of proof every time their exemption comes up for triennial review, instead of there being a presumption of renewal for an exemption whose importance was previously proven.

Rick Boucher, a congressman from Virginia, led previous efforts by introducing the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA).

A prominent bill related to the DMCA is the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), known in early drafts as the Security Systems and Standards Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill, if it had passed, would have dealt with the devices used to access digital content and would have been even more restrictive than the DMCA.[vague ]

On the fifth anniversary of the DMCA, and several times afterwards, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documented harmful consequences of the anti-circumvention provisions. They document that the DMCA:

1. Stifles free expression, such as in its use against Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov, Princeton Professor Edward Felten, and journalists;

2. Jeopardizes fair use;

3. Impedes competition, such as blocking aftermarket competition in toner cartridges, garage door openers, and enforcing walled gardens around the iPod; and

4. Interferes with computer intrusion laws.

In July 2016, the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the US government alleging that Section 1201 violates the First Amendment.

The effects of DMCA are compounded by the extension of copyright coverage. The Electronic Frontier Foundation strongly dislikes the effects of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, specifically the extension of time for the protection of creations. They cite Rufus Pollock's study on optimal copyright term length. He found that copyright works best only when the amount of time protected is fourteen years. The EFF also makes the argument that all the side effects of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act are negative for all parties except media companies. Therefore, it only helps the big media companies.

Proposed international law

DMCA anti-circumvention cases

DMCA notice-and-takedown issues

Economic concepts

Related US laws

Proposed US legislation

Shelved US Legislation

Related international law

1. ^ Band, Jonathan; Katoh, Masanobu (2011). Interfaces on Trial 2.0. MIT Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-262-01500-4.

2. Cullins, Ashley ^ Music Industry A-Listers Call on Congress to Reform Copyright Act Hollywood Reporter. April 5, 2016

3. ^ 17 U.S.C. 101 (defining "Pictorial, graphic and sculptural works" as "Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.")

4. ^ "Section 1201 Study". U.S. Copyright Office. 2015.

5. ^ a "Section 1201 of Title 17" (PDF).b

6. ^ "Federal Register | Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" (PDF). www.federalregister.gov. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.

7. ^ "Federal Register | Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies". www.federalregister.gov.

8. ^ Viacom Int'l Inc., et al., v. YouTube, Inc., et al., Nos. 07-Civ-2103 (LLS), 07-Civ-3582 (LLS) Opinion and Order (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010).

9. ^ Sandoval, Greg (June 23, 2010). "Google defeats Viacom in landmark copyright case". cnet news. U.S.

10. ^ Delaney, Kevin J. (June 29, 2006). "Veoh Faces Copyright Suit, A Test of Web Video". The Wall Street Journal.

11. ^ "Content sharing company Qlipso buys Veoh" (Apr 9, 2010) Athena Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

12. ^ Egelko, Bob (August 20, 2008). "Woman can sue over YouTube clip de-posting". San Francisco Chronicle.

13. ^ Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

14. ^ Grady, John F. (27 July 2011). "Memorandum opinion" (PDF). Court rule in favour of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.

15. ^ Ouellette v. Viacom, Dist. Court, D. Montana (2011)

16. ^ Carolyn Dalton; Antoine Aubert (6 March 2009). "Google submission on TCF Draft ISP Copyright Code of Practice". Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2009.

17. ^ Keall, Chris (16 March 2009). "Google piles into S92". National Business Review. Archived from the original on 25 September 2017.

18. ^ Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban (2005). "Efficient Process or 'Chilling Effects'? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Summary Report" (PDF).

19. ^ Cobia, Jeffrey (2008). "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Takedown Notice Procedure: Misuses, Abuses, and Shortcomings of the Process". Minnesota Journal of Law Science & Technology. 1: 391-393 - via Hein Online.

20. ^ "Analog Off". Publicknowledge.org. Archived from the original on 2010-06-27.

21. ^ "Jacobsen v Katzer: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement and Denying Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgement" (PDF).

22. ^ OdioWorks v. Apple Eff.org

23. ^ "Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA". Electronic Frontier Foundation. March 2010.

24. ^ a Lunney, Glynn S. (2001). "The Death of Copyright: Digital Technology, Private Copying, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act". Virginia Law Review. 87 (5): 813-920. doi:10.2307/1073857. JSTOR 1073857. b

25. ^ Pollock, Rufus (June 15, 2009). "Forever Minus a Day? Calculating Optimal Copyright Term" (PDF).

Works related to Digital Millennium Copyright Act at Wikisource

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Long title To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes. Acronyms (colloquial) DM, DMCA Enacted by the 105th United States Congress Effective October 28, 1998 Citations Public law Pub. L. 105-304 Statutes at Large 112 Stat.