Jump to content

Talk:Digital Millennium Copyright Act/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Political speech

In the 2008 US Presidential Elections, republican candidate Senator John McCain's campaign issued a letter to YouTube regarding the DMCA counternotice procedure and YouTube's policy. The letter requests special procedures to exempt political candidates and campaigns from the take down procedures. Some people argue that a tiered 'fair use' policy leaves user generate content at an unfair advantage by limiting the freedom of speech for average Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadalu (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If valid and noteworthy, should this be on the article page itself, rather than (or in addition to) this page for discussing how to edit the article? (Just asking.) —— Shakescene (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Senate Vote Date correct?

The sidebar page lists the date of the Senate vote as being in September 17 1998, but the introduction of the article and the link to the Senate legislative history page says it was May 14, 1998.... What gives?

Washington Post Votes Database: S.2037 as amended; Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 says Date/time: May 14, 1998, 5:51 p.m. 71.162.141.213 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't NPOV

This article isn't NPOV. It delivers things in a persuasive style, and only presents one side of the story. First step, balance the anti-DMCA exrefs with some pro-DMCA exrefs. Wikipedia is NOT about propaganda.

Vacuum 18:03, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
The routine uses aren't usually noteworthy - it's generally agreed that enforcing copyrights is good. It's the interesting uses and cases which merit individual mention, not the mundane and obvious ones. It's pretty unlikely that Congress intended to stop people from teaching robotic dogs new tricks, so it's noteworthy when the DMCA is used to achieve that result. The article inevitably will, and should, cover the cases where the law is applied in unexpected ways and discussions of cases where copyright holders have tried to go beyond what the law provides for and had their arguments rejected. Still, if you'd like to document some mundane cases where everyone thinks that a use of the DMCA is obviously right, feel free. I've written a couple of takedown notices and responded to some infringement claims. They don't merit mentioning here because they aren't notable and don't illustrate anything intersting. I support the DMCA, so don't take this as a comment from someone who opposes it. Jamesday 01:11, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"it's generally agreed that enforcing copyrights is good". While your statment is correct, I would still have to disagree. Your statment ignores the first camp (below).
There are three camps:
  1. There is a vocal minority of Americans which would take issue with this statment.

  2. In the middle, the majority of Americans have little or no knowlege of copyright and simply adapt their views on copyright based on what they are taught by the corporate media: copyright is good. These Americans, the overwhelming majority, feel violations of copyright are theft because the media told them it is theft.

  3. On the other side, there is a larger minority of people (larger than the minority who are against copyright) who are more familiar with copyright law than the average American and want copyright because it protects the monopoly on their intellectual property, or feel that violations of copyright is bad because it is stealing, like the majority of Americans.
  1. What about those who understand copyright and agree that it is good policy? Not because it protects their own material, but because it allows economic activity in fixed expression--a multi-billion dollar industry?
This is a broad simplification, like Jamesday statment: "it's generally agreed that enforcing copyrights is good" but I think it is correct.
Copyright Term Extension Act "cover(s) the cases where the law is applied in unexpected ways and discussions of cases where copyright holders have tried to go beyond what the law provides for and had their arguments rejected" it should be merged into this article. Travb 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

violation of anti-trust require someone purchase second product?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a violation of anti-trust to require someone to purchase a second product once they've bought another. Would the Lexmark case fall into this catagory? --Guest

Correct. See Tying (commerce). Specifically it runs afoul of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case of International Salt Co. v. United States is especially interesting. Frotz661 02:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

European Union

On March 10, 2004 the European Union passed a "DMCA on steroids" which is very similar to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

"DMCA on steroids" is unencyclopedic (I'll change that). Was that a directive, a regulation? What is its exact reference? This sounds very fuzzy. David.Monniaux 14:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be this, it appears, but I don't see a reference. Another article. I don't see a specific name that we can pin to it, though, or a link to the text of the resolution. The article on the EU Copyright Directive might also be of interest. —Simetrical (talk) 03:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To do

This article fails to mention the White Paper (the report of President Clinton's Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights), titled Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure. I think the White Paper is important enough to have its own article, too. It was written by a prominent entertainment industry lobbyist who had been appointed chair of this committee and a number of Federal bureaucrats -- other constituencies were excluded. The White Paper amounted to a recording and motion picture industry wish list, and this industry got most of what they wanted in the DMCA. So there's an important history that's left out of the article.Bryan 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me add, too, that I think there needs to be a section that explains why the DMCA is so controversial. I do not mean that the article should take sides! The DMCA is controversial -- that is a fact about which there is little controversy. Such a section would help explain why reform has been proposed. Bryan 17:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
"Scientology is one of the first organizations to make use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In June of 1999, Scientology used the controversial law to force AT&T Worldnet to reveal the identity of a person who had been posting anonymously to alt.religion.scientology with the pseudonym of "Safe". The organization also used the same law to force the Google search engine to erase its entries on the popular anti-Scientology Web site Operation Clambake in March 2002, though the entry was reinstated after Google received a large number of complaints from Internet users." Scientology_vs._the_Internet
Maybe the article should mention this is some way. --165.155.128.134 17:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
All the contoversy is over at Copyright Term Extension Act. This article should be merged to reflect the controversy.Travb 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs some major restructuring and fleshing out. The section listing the various Titles is fine, but it is followed by random sections that jump back and forth between anti-circumvention issues and takedown issues. These are totally separate matters and ought to be organized accordingly. Put all the stuff about exemptions and controversy with regard to anti-circumvention law under the rubric of Title I, and put the example of a takedown notice (NOT a takedown "provision") under Title II. We could use a more fleshed out explanation of the whole notice-counternotice procedure, as well as a discussion of the penalties provided for misuse. Cmnewman 06:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Copyright Term Extension Act Travb 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"POV accusation"

User:Brighterorange wrote:

"spam or not, the movie is for sale, not actually available yet, and obviously POV. I think it was added as self-promotion"

Two important questions to you User:Brighterorange:

  • If the movie is not available yet, how do you know it is POV if you have never seen it?
  • What is your evidence it is self-promotion? Or is this speculation only?

Why not simply write: "The movie appears not to conform to my own POV, so therefore I don't want it on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wikipage." This is much more genuine than stating the movie is POV when you have never seen it, and accusing the person who added this link of self-promotion with no evidence.

A cursory glance of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wikipage shows no controversy at all about the bill. This ignores the controversial history of the bill. There were two sides to this bill, one supported it, and one did not support it. By its very nature, there were two POV with this bill.

I think you are confusing POV and controversy. Wikipedians are supposed to write and submit verifable information in a non-POV, encyclopedic manner, avoiding weasel words, etc. This does not mean that Wikipedians are barred from adding links or verifable opinions about a controvery. This movie link is controversial and explains one side of two or more sides of the controversy over the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This is one point of view, but it is explaining one side of the controversy. Again, Wikipedians are supposed to write and submit verifable information in a non-POV, encyclopedic manner, avoiding weasel words, etc. adding controversial links which explain one point of view of two sides of a controversy does not violate wikipedia POV policy.

If you look at any controversial wikisite, a good wikisite has two sides presented in both the text and in the links provided. This is not POV by its nature, this is explaining two sides of a controversial matter.

I see on the first histrory page alone that four people have added back this link: myself, 71.214.106.153 three times,[1] [2] [3] user:H2g2bob [4], 24.152.152.151, [5] and the user who added it orginally. I know consensus is important to wikipedia. This shows that three people support the view that it is NPOV. In almost all cases, you have deleted this link, repeatedly, with no explanation on the talk page.

A cursory look at any controversial site shows two sides to the argument. Look at the external links on Wal-mart, Business Plot, or Fox news, three that immediatly come to mind, and one of hundreds of examples on wikipedia.Travb 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure, I'm happy to discuss this on the talk page. To answer your questions:
  • If the movie is not available yet, how do you know it is POV if you have never seen it?
Well, I watched the trailer, and it is pretty obvious given the people involved. What you say after you ask this question seems to confirm it. Being POV certainly doesn't necessarily make it inappropriate for Wikipedia, but it is a point against it.
  • What is your evidence it is self-promotion? Or is this speculation only?
The link was added by anonymous IP addresses whose edit histories consist solely (or at least mainly) of adding this same link to related articles. [6] The movie is also a commercial product. Both are hallmarks of linkspam.
The DMCA is definitely controversial and there's no problem with having descriptions of the two sides of the debate. Please create such sections if you believe they are lacking.
Aside from being self-promotion and (probably) POV, the link is pretty useless given that you can't watch or even order the movie yet. So I feel pretty strongly that the link doesn't belong, for several reasons.
You have your facts about the history of the link wrong; other than yourself I have only seen it being added by anonymous contributors. Several other editors, including those with substantial and diverse edit histories, have also removed it. The history speaks for itself. I'd say there is strong consensus among established editors that the link should not be present. In truth, I find the accusation that I am trying to push my own POV somewhat offensive (and also way off base because I totally oppose the DMCA and indeed have recieved lawsuit threats under it), but I suppose I can't blame you based on my edit summaries calling the addition spam. But this is as clear a case of linkspam as I have ever seen, and I have seen many. Comments welcome. — brighterorange (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete it. You make an excellent case. I was wrong. You were right.
I won't loss any sleep over it. I have never watched the trailer. i think you are right, this firm does a lot of spam, I actually apologized to the person who deleted it yesterday,[7] after reverting some of their edits, it is obvious looking over his deletions that there is a spammer adveritising this same site.[8] I had a tiny bit of doubt when I wrote this message, and you just confirmed it completly.
I trust your judgement.
I apologize for jumping to conclusions and thinking you are a despised "self-appointed volunteer copyright policeman" as I usually call them here, or a "copyright nazi" which I call them elsewhere when Wikipedia:civility is not an issue. Sorry I am wrong.Travb 06:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks trav! No problem. Just remember that it is a great practice of one's commitment to NPOV to remove POV even when he agrees with it. Happy editing. — brighterorange (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Full text of the DMCA

Not sure if anyone wants to link to the full text in the article anywhere. For now, I'm just going to link it in External Links. If you are going to link, I suggest you note that it's a PDF. The size is 321k, so that shouldn't be a problem, even for us on 49.2 kbps connections. PDF here. --SheeEttin 14:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, seems it's already there. Didn't see it. --SheeEttin 14:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Examplar of DMCA

It should be useful to provide more examplars of DMCA that an author has to fill in and send to the provider or any concerned company. I added an simple examplar that I used in my job in the frame of Project LUXORION -Thierry.

This is confused terminology. This is an example of a DMCA takedown notice. Perhaps some industries or communities use the term "a DMCA" to refer to a DMCA takedown notice, but this terminology should be cleaned up and, probably, the example should be moved to another article about DMCA takedown notices or notice/takedown procedures more generally. Schoen 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote of House Representatives?

Maybe my USA civics is a little hazy, but doesn't the House as well as the Senate have to vote by majority to pass legislation before it's brought before the President to be signed into law? What was the voting record for Representatives in the House on the DMCA bill? 71.162.141.213 02:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the House and Senate are dominated by a few very powerful people who are nearly impossible to get rid of. For instance, I'm in California which has two of the most odious senators: Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. When these two came up in turn for reelection, they lost by large margins in most of the counties. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego are the bullies that run California and give it its laughinstock reputation. Most of the votes for these two come from those places and so they win the elections. Frotz661 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

International response to the DMCA?

Hullo, we are about to adopt a DMCA in Australia.

  • As with many nations around the world it comes as a compulsory prerequisite for a trade negotiation with the USA.
  • It is presented to Australians as a not negotiable with only small exemptions being open for negotiation.
  • I feel it is time that people around the world worked together to table an alternative copyright act to the international treaty table.
  • It feels like a good project for campaigns.wiki because as bloggers and wiki folk we understand the benefits of an open peer to peer community.

All the best. lucychili 22:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

wtf? so put it on campaigns - and anyway it's more negotiable than you seem to think - america gets more from an fta than we do Danlibbo 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

exemptions every three years?

If exemptions are made every three years, shouldn't there have been exemptions in 2000 and 2003? The 2003 exemptions are described [9]. I, however, can't find a link discussing the 2000 exemptions. Since the DMCA was passed in 1998, they should exist, shouldn't they? TerraFrost 05:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there were rulemakings in 2000 and 2003. The exemptions from the rulemaking only LAST for 3 years, though, so 2000 and 2003 have expired. 2006 included 6 exemptions, 3 of which were slightly modified carryovers from earlier rulemakings, and 3 of which were new. Some of the 2003 and 2000 exemptions were NOT carried over. At any rate, 2006 is the only current set of rulemakings. 2000 and 2003 should be listed only for historical curiosity, and should be clearly noted as not current law. Personally, I would argue to not include them, since it might confuse people, but I've clarified the entry to explain that 2000 and 2003 aren't valid. A "history of the DMCA anticircumvention exemptions" might be an interesting article, since there's interesting backstory in why the Copyright Office rejects some exemptions, claim that others aren't needed, and so on, but I think including the expired exemptions in this article would merely confuse people and be unnecessary to the article. --LQ 13:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
People who only read half the article are liable to get confused, anyway. Such people could skip to the Criticisms section of Wikipedia and perhaps conclude, based on reading that alone, that no one likes Wikipedia or uses it.
In any event, I can't find a link describing the 2000 exemptions... any ideas? TerraFrost 15:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia comparison isn't really apt. Legislative and rulemaking situations regularly revise and tinker with language and replace language, and it's a very different thing to (a) describe what the law is, and (b) describe the history of the law. The detailed regulatory history is very interesting, but to me, it seems a little beyond the scope of a general article on the DMCA. As I said, in an article that specifically looks at the anticirc provisions, then it would be appropriate. Here, it seems like too much specificity for the general reader who wants to read about the DMCA. And it's not scaleable, because these rulemakings are going to go on, and on, and on. So, I think just including the current rulemakings, and a link to some more detailed description of the process would be the best way to handle it.
That said, I put in a paragraph describing what happened in the 2000 and 2003 rulemakings and how those rules were expired (filtering), renewed but edited (obsolete access controls -> obsolete dongles). Other folks can look at it and weigh in with their thoughts. At some point I will break it out into a separate article. --LQ 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Crook

Michael Crook redirects here... yeah, I get the joke... but, shouldn't Michael Crook have his own page at this point for being a well-known, notorious complete ass that he is??? Cowicide 08:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Penalties for noncompliance not included in article

Most articles discussing legislation include the range of penalties for non-compliance; this one does not. I don't have the background to do a good assessment of the act; however, if someone who is familiar with it could include a section on this, it would be very much appreciated by this reader - that was actually what I came to this article to find out. Thanks. Risker 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding references/sources tag

I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as a reliable source here, but this doc from the EFF might help with the referencing/sourcing of information in the marked section. http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php --Jhaagsma 11:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hackers

This Act has been used against hackers who broke into corporate networks and copied emails, has it not? Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a bit more complicated than that. If a hacker circumvented a network and then went back and sold that information, he or she would have done more than violate the DMCA. It would still fall under its purview. Mnemnoch (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Example of DMCA Takedown Provision

This section doesn't seem to present a criticism at all, I suggest it be removed or modified to show a point. --Muna (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the section, if somebody wants to restore it, they can find it on my talk page. --Muna (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Impact on research

I don't understand the logic of Impact on research. While it is certainly a troubling topic, the example of Dmitry Sklyarov is an odd choice since it's a case of the law working exactly as is intended. It would surely be far better to lead with Niels Ferguson since his situation is an unintended effect.

In the same paragraph it's said that to "strip usage restriction information" from eBooks is legal in both Russia and America. It then goes on to say that "paradoxically, under the DMCA, it is not legal in the United States". Only one of these statements can be true, and the citation given doesn't help me know which. Can anyone fix that up? I'll assume that it is illegal when I edit otherwise. --Tom Edwards (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight to EUCD?

About 45% of the lead is about the EUCD, which is outside the primary scope of an article on the DMCA. Would the paragraph on the EUCD be better placed under a new heading of "Related international law" (terminology borrowed from the existing sub-section under "See also"). Alternatively, since EUCD and DMCA are regional responses to WIPO treaties, would the comparison of EUCD and DMCA with each other, as well as with other regional responses, be better placed in a separate article? -- Timberframe (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Take down noice

What would happen if I filed a take down notice about this article? Would that cause a paradox and make the stupid law disappear entirely? 99.147.246.155 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding a DMCA

Since the DMCA applies to the United States (EU has something similar, Canada does not), can a foreign national (Someone outside the United States) file a DMCA? That Thing There (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Its an "American" law... if your French, living in France you cant use the DMCA on anyone other than Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.236.123.168 (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 1st article in Criticisms section

http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00/dmca-2k/macrovision.html would the last paragraph on this site work as a citation? it mentions that it is illegal under DMCA to not support Macrovision's copy protection. 131.151.26.188 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Youtube False DMCA Claims

Should this be added, it is very significant in that they are abusing this and filing false claims to take down some well respected and top "Youtubers" Such as Chuggaaconroy and NintendoCaprisun. CNN's iReport has an article on it here: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-474046 Should this be put here or on the Youtube Wikipedia article? Thanks. 76.236.121.75 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Qwertykool (Unregistered)

Yes, this is notable. Some people have discovered that YouTube operates a "three strikes and you're out" policy. By filing three frivolous DMCA takedown notices against an account, they can get it suspended. Someone may have acted in bad faith with chuggaaconroy's account, which is currently suspended. The flaw seems to be that YouTube plays it safe by agreeing to DMCA takedowns immediately, rather than establishing first whether the complainant actually owns the copyright on the claimed material. Anyone in this situation can appeal, though. See also [10]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I have seen that too but should it be in this article? Or in another one or even not in one. I think this qualifies as deserving to be in this artcicle what do others (and you) think?

Thanks. 76.236.121.75 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Qwertykool (Unregistered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.157.173 (talk)

In terms of article relevance, Criticism of YouTube seems to be the best choice.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll put it in, if needed please check it, 76.236.121.75 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Qwertykool (Unregistered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.157.173 (talk)

Updated for 2010 DMCA Exemptions

I'm not totally sold on how I worded the 'history'-esque section below the exemptions, I tried to follow the style of when an exemption was introduced, how it changed and if it was renewed. 64.201.177.59 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've forked the page Talk:Digital Millennium Copyright Act/Temp with a new history section. Any comments? 64.201.177.59 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The revised section is definitely more readable. I'm wondering now whether the information would be better presented in a table or list format for all the exemptions, with highlights and notable introductions of exemptions in paragraph form. Just an idea (don't have time right now to work up an example myself) Hartboy (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned about injecting synthesis/POV. I think I'm close that line with the 'copy protection scandal' link, the article over there doesn't even mention the DMCA exemption. It's fairly well known the exemption is related to the scandal but do I still need a WP:RS to go with that? Fortunately the jailbreaking article mentions the DMCA. The DMCA exemptions are related to these uses and are relevant to this article but there's still a right way to do this :-) 64.201.177.59 (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think my concerns may be unfounded. Found this: [11] which very explicitly states that the CD exemption was related to the Sony scandal. The new problem - there's a lot more information on the 'why' behind the history of the exemptions so it's about finding a good format for it and keeping it short. 64.201.177.59 (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What ever happened to the listing for Sony's clear violation of the DMCA with the LAME Mp3 library??

At one time there was a clear and concise listing of Sony Music violating the DMCA with LAME code and their root kit scandal but now it seems to have vanished. I smell a cover up here and anyone else who was familiar with the incident and it's being listed here would agree too. What was stated was not opinion. It was fact.

Why was this DMCA violation deleted from the wiki article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.21.141 (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

e-DMCA: What is a DMCA? fails WP:EL as it does not add significantly to what is already in the article. It also has an element of WP:LINKSPAM as it says "To submit a DMCA notice now, click here to go to our purchase page". Please don't add this again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if i'm doing this correctly, as it is my first time trying to submit to Wikipedia. I think my external link would be very useful for this Wiki page. my article is called "How to write and format a DMCA Letter" and cotains instructions and a sample lette. http://scottwyden.com/how-to-write-and-format-a-dmca-letter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottwyden (talk • contribs) 13:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed someone's unsourced personal opinion

Under the Title II section, in a passage describing how the law works, someone inserted the phrase "effectively allowing individual companies to censor the internet." That's someone's personal opinion and not part of the law in question. While that section may be criticized by certain parties for leading to ad hoc censorship, such opinions should be documented and sourced, e.g. "Constitutional scholar and author John Doe has stated that the Title II provisions effectively allow individual companies to censor the internet." 96.245.116.174 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

DMCA and the NSA

Since the DMCA forbids (as I understand) decoding of protected copright information; and since everyone automatically has copyright in their own works; and since it is, inter alia, the business of the NSA to decrypt relevant intelligence information; it appears that the NSA, if it's doing its job, is violating the DMCA.

I presume some sort of exception was made for "national security", but if so it doesn't seem to be documented in the article? Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

See 17 USC §1201(e) (not to suggest that all law enforcement and intelligence activities are "lawfully authorized"). Schoen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Circumvention Exemptions

This article could be improved by giving some explanation for the exemptions. For example, the exemption for motion pictures on DVDs was in part achieved by the writings of vidding scholars like Francesca Coppa, who has studied the use of vidding as an intellectual practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgiugale (talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This section is outdated; it should reflect the results of the recent fifth triennial rulemaking[1] Evanhr (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Effect on innovation and competition

The one and only example of this topic is both insufficient and misleading. It presents a case wherein an open-source software developer used the DMCA to defend the legal status and license of the software project he was involved in against corporate abuse by another individual, but wherein the litigation was only partially successful in an extremely limited way. Reading the text in this article makes it sound as if the DMCA could do something good for open source development, but that is plainly a lie. It's surprising that the DMCA was involved in the case at all, which could have been handled with conventional copyright law, unless the parties intended to make an example of how to use the DMCA for good, which they generally failed to do. In fact, the DMCA is anathemic to innovation and competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.210.60.105 (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

missing material

The last time I checked this article, it contained a list of court cases and even some decisions illuminating the actual effects (for good or ill, depending on viewpoint) of this law. All of this material seems to have been delected. Was this vandalism or ...? The Talk page doesn't much illuminate, and before I go trolling through the page history attempting to figure it out, I thought I'd post a question. That material was valuable and I think it should have been retained if accurate (I never did the legal research to check!). Can't see why it should have been deleted.

And those are now at WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, at least in part - some useful detail was removed in the copy which was done, though additional useful material was also added. I changed the section titles back to their original full form instead of the short forms because in each case the short forms mentioned the least significant part of the portions pointed to. The first didn't mention bringing a vast array or works into US copyright protection while the second didn't mention the primary purpose, which was to protect OSPs. The WIPO portion is no longer at DMCA 1201 because section 1201 was only the least significant portion of that act, not all of it. Jamesday 01:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

The article now states that "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, the exemptions issued in the prior rulemakings, in 2000, 2003 and 2006 are no longer valid." 2012 should be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.184.172 (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Dated anti-circumvention exceptions

As far as I can tell, the anti-circumventions haven't been updated from the most recent round of rulemaking. I've added the dated template for now. Mount Flatten (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed here

"while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.60.53 (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Linking as infringement" citation

I have removed the sentence There has been only one case in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances. which had been marked as needing a citation since May 2012. I removed it under Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy. If you have a citation from a reliable source to this alleged case, please feel to restore this sentence with a citation to that source. --Bejnar (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not have time to get into this today (I need to leave the house in 20 minutes), but I wanted to point out that the Rovi page contains this text:

"United States fair use law, as interpreted in the decision over Betamax (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios), dictates that consumers are fully within their legal rights to copy videos they own. However, the legality has changed somewhat with the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act. After April 26, 2002, no VCR may be manufactured or imported without Automatic Gain Control circuitry (which renders VCRs vulnerable to Macrovision). This is contained in title 17, section 1201(k) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. However, there are a number of mostly older VCR models on the market that are not affected by Macrovision."
"On October 26, 2001, the sale, purchase, or manufacture of any device that has no commercial purpose other than disabling Macrovision copy protection was made illegal under section 1201(a) of the same controversial act."

There are a couple things in the Effect on analog video equipment section that want cites:

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.[citation needed] The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support and implement the corporation's proprietary technology.[citation needed] This benefits Rovi Corporation financially, whereas those forced to implement it receive neither profit nor compensation.

I do not have a chance to get to this in the next week or so, but I'm making a note here. If someone wants to see if that does provide sufficient info for citing that section, awesome, otherwise when I have a chance I'll see if I can get to it. --Thespian (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference footnote 1 - "dead link"

I don't know how to change this stuff, so I'm just putting the note out there for someone who does: the only reason footnote 1 is a dead link is because it has a fullstop after the ".pdf". If someone could remove that, it'd be fine. 1.42.7.160 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Clare

Help Simple Wikipedia

Please can you help improve the Simple English Wikipedia article of Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Effect on innovation and competition

"... make it a useful strategy for Open Source organizations" sounds like it means that removing copyright notices is a useful strategy, which is just ridiculous. Removing copyrights is illegal, plus Open Source is based on copyright.

After wading through some of the cited settlement document, I can see that the intent of this passage is to offer the opinion that the DMCA could be used to generate attorney fee awards if someone else is stupid enough to remove open source copyright/license/attribution.

I am not convinced. Opinion should not appear appear in this article anyway. If a reputable lawyer ventured this legal opinion and a reputable news source covered that opinion, then it might be suitable for inclusion.

I think it's nice to have Jacobsen v Katzer in a list of relevant court cases. I just don't think that this section of the article is strong enough to warrant inclusion. --GlenPeterson (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the Volkswagen cheat be in "Abuse of the anti-circumvention provision" section or should be moved to the "Effect on research" section?

I am not sure if it is the same abuse or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.247.113 (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

I don't feel that the criticism section adequately displays the severity and volume of criticism and dispute that this law receives. Could anyone look into expanding it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.156.218 (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC) ale (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with Section 1201 Study

I've added Digital Millennium Copyright Act#Section 1201 Study. The Study seems to have the potential to lead to important decisions. Comments are very interesting but range widely and it is not possible to summarize them in a non-controversial manner. The section is probably more readable if we cite just one sentence from each comment, in such a way that readers are encouraged to go and read those comments directly.

I hope someone, e.g. Lentower (talk · contribs) can help with that. Start with the Docket Browser and get the code. Most attachments can be referenced by filling XX in <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2015-0012-00XX&amp;attachmentNumber=1&amp;contentType=pdf}}</ref> and then adding title, author, and date.

TIA ale (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Though this is important editing, I'm on indefinite hiatus from Wikipedia. Hope others step forward, if you can't do this work yourself. — Lentower (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

DMCA doesn't seem to apply to audio CD copy protection

The cd protection schemes are designed to either make the disc unreadable in a PC, or sucker you to install software that interferes with ripping using autoplay. For the former, the protection works only to prevent access, not to ALLOW it. It doesn't work to allow playback in a CD player, as the cd player, which is the intended playback device, just ignores it completely. For the latter, which does allow access on a PCm and would otherwise qualify, depended on a feature of obsolete operating systems that forces a run of the installer on the PC session. This has not worked since Windows Vista, which gives you the opportunity to say no to the install using UAC (and then rip the CD), and has never worked on non windows operating systems. 50.21.206.176 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty boring Aliciayb (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

GFDL

Membuka Thunder Vpn Tajur028 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference #92 links to a dead page 68.98.76.189 (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Sender of False DMCA Takedown Notices Ordered to Pay £370K in Damages

Somebody could include this https://torrentfreak.com/sender-of-false-dmca-takedown-notices-ordered-to-pay-370k-in-damages-201028/ --Palosirkka (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Free fier

Free fier Purshottam Kumar Singh (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/77fr65260.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act/Archive_1&oldid=1234266412"