language: Deutsch   Français   italiano   Español   Português   日本語   russian   arabic   norwegian   swedish   danish   Nederlands   finland   ireland   English  

digital millennium copyright act : définition de digital millennium copyright act et synonymes de digital millennium copyright act (anglais) us digital millennium copyright act of 1998 definition

Digital Millennium Copyright Act From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation , search Digital Millennium Copyright Act Full title To amend title 18, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes. Acronym / colloquial name DMCA Enacted by the 105th United States Congress Effective October 28, 1998 Citations Public Law Pub. L. 105-304 Stat. 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) Codification Act(s) amended Copyright Act of 1976 Title(s) 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 substantially amended 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 104, 104A, 108, 112, 114, 117, 701 Legislative history Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Rep. Howard Coble ( R - NC ) on July 29, 1997 Committee consideration by: House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property); House Commerce Committee (Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection Passed the House on August 4, 1999 (voice vote) Passed the Senate on September 17, 1998 (unanimous consent) Reported by the joint conference committee on October 8, 1998; agreed to by the Senate on October 8, 1998 (unanimous consent) and by the House on October 12, 1998 (voice vote) Signed into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998 Major amendments None

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 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 (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. 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 on-line services for copyright infringement by their users.

On May 22, 2001, the European Union passed the Copyright Directive or EUCD, which addresses some of the same issues as the DMCA. But the DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries (Title II of the DMCA), was separately addressed, and largely followed, in Europe by means of the separate Electronic Commerce Directive . (Unlike U.S. federal laws and regulations, the execution of European Union directives usually requires separate legislation by or within each of the Union's member states.)

Contents 1 Provisions 1.1 Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act 1.2 Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act 1.3 Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act 1.4 Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions 1.5 Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act 2 Anti-circumvention exemptions 3 Linking to infringing content 4 Notable court cases 4.1 Edelman v. N2H2 4.2 MPAA vs. RealNetworks Inc. 4.3 Viacom Inc. vs. YouTube, Google Inc. 4.4 IO Group Inc. vs. Veoh Networks Inc. 4.5 Vernor v. AutoDesk 4.6 Kazaa v. Google 5 Criticisms 5.1 Takedown Notice 5.2 Effect on Analog Video Equipment 5.3 Effect on research 5.4 Effect on Innovation and Competition 5.5 Reform and opposition 6 See also 7 References 8 External links Provisions Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act

DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act , has two major portions. One portion includes works covered by several treaties in US 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 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") and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention created by Macrovision (now Rovi Corporation ) built in, giving Macrovision an effective monopoly on the analog video-recording copy-prevention market. However, section 1201(c) of the title clarified that the title does not change the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, or defenses. The title contains other limitations and exemptions, including for research and reverse engineering in specified situations.

Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs ) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement 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, if the material upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also provides for subpoenas to OSPs to provide their users' identity.

Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act

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.

Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions

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 copies of sound recordings. Added provisions relating to collective bargaining and the transfer of movie rights. Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act

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 they are useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function. [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Anti-circumvention exemptions

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, the exemptions issued in the prior rulemakings, in 2000 and 2003, are no longer valid.

The current administratively-created exemptions , issued in November 2006, are:

Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors. (A new exemption in 2006.) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption, first approved in 2003.) 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. (Revised from 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. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2003.) Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. (A new exemption in 2006.) Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in Compact Disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities. (A new exemption created in 2006, after a faulty copy protection system installed on Sony 's compact discs had caused technical problems for many users.)

The Copyright Office approved two exemptions in 2000; four in 2003; and six in 2006. In 2000, the Office exempted (a) "Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications" (renewed in 2003 but not renewed in 2006); and (b) "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). In 2003, 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." 2003 also added an ebook exemption for text readers and an obsolete software and video game format exemptions, both of which were renewed in 2006. The 2000 filtering exemption was revised and renewed in 2003, but was not renewed in 2006. [ 3 ]

Linking to infringing content

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 DRM ( digital rights management ) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material. [ 4 ]

There have been no cases in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances.

Notable court cases This section requires expansion with: more cases. look: EFF , DMCA 1201 . Edelman v. N2H2

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, sought a Declaratory judgment to affirm his first amendment rights when reverse engineering the censorware product of defendent N2H2 in case he intended to publish the finding. N2H2 filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted.

MPAA vs. RealNetworks Inc.

In August 2009, the Motion Picture Association of America 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 MPAA 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 MPAA's Content Scrambling System. [ 5 ]

Viacom Inc. vs. YouTube, Google Inc.

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 lawyers say they are relying on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to shield them from liability. [ 6 ] On March 11, 2008 the judge ruled that Viacom cannot seek punitive damages against YouTube. Massive statutory damages , however, remain on the table. [ 7 ] Viacom's case against Google, which is being run in conjunction with a separate class action filed by the Premier League and several music publishers, is unlikely to go to trial until 2009 or 2010. [ 8 ]

IO Group Inc. vs. Veoh Networks Inc.

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. [ 9 ] 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. [ 10 ] 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. [ 11 ]

Vernor v. AutoDesk

After numerous stifling DMCA takedown notices on his eBay listings Timothy S. Vernor sued AutoDesk in August 2007 for abusing the DMCA and disrupting his right to sell used software he bought at a garage sale. [ 12 ] A federal district judge in Washington State dismissed AutoDesk's argument that the software's license agreement preempted the seller from his rights under the first-sale doctrine . [ 13 ]

Kazaa v. Google

Kazaa used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to demand that Google remove references to allegedly copyrighted material on their sites. [ 14 ]

Criticisms Takedown Notice

The DMCA has been criticized for making it too easy for copyright owners to encourage website owners to take down allegedly infringing content and links which may in fact not be infringing. When website owners receive a takedown notice it is in their interest not to challenge it, even if it is not clear if infringement is taking place, because if the potentially infringing content is taken down the website will not be held liable. The Electronic Frontier Foundation senior IP attorney Fred von Lohmann has said this is one of the problems with the DMCA. [ 15 ]

Google asserted misuse of the DMCA in a filing concerning New Zealand's copyright act, [ 16 ] quoting results from a 2005 study by Californian academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse. [ 17 ] 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." [ 18 ]

Effect on Analog Video Equipment

The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all producers of analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of Macrovision , a commercial firm. [ citation needed ] The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support the Macrovision technology to the financial benefit of Macrovision whereas those who build the video equipment get nothing in compensation.

Effect on research Main article: Digital rights management

The DMCA has had an impact on 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. [ 19 ] 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. [ 20 ] 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. [ 21 ] 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 [ 22 ] ), 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 US. [ 23 ]

Effect on Innovation and Competition Reform and opposition

There are efforts in Congress to modify the Act. Rick Boucher , a Democratic congressman from Virginia, is leading one of these 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.

On the tenth anniversary of the DMCA, 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 [ 24 ] ; and 4) interferes with computer intrusion laws. [ 25 ]

See also Internet portal Related US laws The "No Electronic Theft" ( NET ) Act Copyright Term Extension Act (1998) Proposed US legislation Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations ( BALANCE ) Act of 2003 The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (INDUCE) (introduced 2004) Pirate Act (introduced 2004) Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (introduced 2003 & 2005) Digital Transition Content Security Act (introduced 2005) Related international law EU Copyright Directive ( European Union ) DADVSI ( France — Loi sur le Droit d'Auteur et les Droits Voisins dans la Société de l'Information ) Bill C-60 ( Canada — proposed ) Bill C-61 jyetdlwe. indirizzo outlet moncler milano stazione centrale(Canada — proposed ) Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations Treaty ( proposed ) Proposed international law Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement DMCA anti-circumvention cases Chamberlain v. Skylink Universal v. Reimerdes Dmitry Sklyarov in United States v. ElcomSoft and Sklyarov Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components DMCA damages cases Stockwire Research Group, Inc., et al. v. Lebed, et al. DMCA notice-and-takedown issues Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) (more information about the DMCA 512 takedown provisions) Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. References ^ 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.") ^ "Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1997 (H.R. 2696)" , Statement of MaryBeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights, before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, Oct. 23, 1997 ("It is a long-held view of the Office that a gap exists in legal protection for the designs of useful articles. Existing bodies of federal intellectual property law do not provide appropriate and practical coverage for such designs, while state law is largely preempted in this area. Consequently, while considerable investment and creativity may go into the creation of innovative designs, they often can be copied with impunity."). ^ See U.S. Copyright Office, Oct. 27, 2000, Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works, at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/anticirc.html  ; U.S. Copyright Office, Oct. 28, 2003, Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works, at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/index.html . ^ "Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US" . WebTVWire. 2006-09-12 . http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/ . Retrieved 2006-10-12 .   ^ <a href=" http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10307921-93.html?tag=mncol;title ">RealNetworks loses critical ruling in RealDVD case</a> ^ Viacom sues Google over YouTube clips ^ Judge to Viacom: No punitive damages in YouTube case ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/15/googlethemedia.digitalmedia ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115154757274993889.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology ^ http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/test-for-web-video-veoh-faces-copyright-suit ^ http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/27/transcoding-is-not-a-crime-says-court-in-veoh-porn-case/ ^ http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2007/09/autodesk-sued-for-10-million-after-invoking-dmca-to-stop-ebay-resales.ars ^ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars ^ Technology News: News: Google Pulls P2P Links Over Kazaa Copyright Claims ^ "Fox commits copyright fraud (See comment from EFF)" . BoingBoing. 2006-01-12 . http://www.boingboing.net/2006/12/01/fox_commits_copyrigh.html . Retrieved 2006-10-12 .   ^ Carolyn Dalton and Antoine Aubert (6 March 2009). "Google submission on TCF Draft ISP Copyright Code of Practice" (PDF) . http://tcf.org.nz/content/ebc0a1f5-6c04-48e5-9215-ef96d06898c0.cmr . Retrieved 2009-10-14 .   ^ Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban (2005). "Efficient Process or 「Chilling Effects」? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Summary Report" . http://mylaw.usc.edu/documents/512Rep-ExecSum_out.pdf . Retrieved 2009-10-14 .   ^ "Google submission hammers section 92A" . New Zealand PCWorld. 2009-03-16 . http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/93FEDCEF6636CF90CC25757A0072B4B7 . Retrieved 2009-03-19 .   ^ First Indictment Under Digital Millennium Copyright Act Returned Against Russian National ^ Adobe FAQ: ElcomSoft legal background ^ Sklyarov: A Huge Sigh of Release ^ RIAA challenges SDMI attack 2002-01-07, Retrieved on 2007-02-26 ^ Video crypto standard cracked? ^ e.g. OdioWorks v. Apple [1] ^ "Unintended Consequences: Ten Years under the DMCA" . Electronic Frontier Foundation . 2008-10 . http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-ten-years-under-dmca .   Litman, Jessica (2000). Digital Copyright . Berlin: Prometheus Books . pp. 208. ISBN 1-57392-889-5.   External links Works related to Digital Millennium Copyright Act at Wikisource H.R. 2281 , DMCA U.S. Copyright Office summary of the DMCA ( PDF format) Title 17 of the U.S. Code , Cornell Law School Cybertelecom's DMCA information and background material A citizen's guide to the DMCA ChillingEffects.org , a clearinghouse of DMCA 512 notices and cease and desist letters Info on Dealing with Digital Copyrights Infringement including filing DMCA Notices Interview of Marcia Hoffman from the EFF on Lenz v. Universal DMCA lawsuit Seth Finkelstein, How To Win (DMCA) Exemptions And Influence Policy . The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) page on the DMCA Unintended Consequences: Ten Years under the DMCA - EFF


us digital millennium copyright act of 1998 definition

moncler womens jackets
piumini moncler baby outlet
complaint definition in law
saks moncler moka
mens moncler acorus down jacket black 18+ Русский US English Français Español Deutsche InfoCenter | Customer support | Site map | Press release ... And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free ... John 8.32 The number of registered new users today: 515 The number of registered files today: 314 Initial registration Copyright registration and publication of materials: Login Login Registration Catalog About Science-Register    Copyright registration Digital Millenium Copyright Act Digital Millenium Copyright Act All news

Appendix B The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 19981 Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the “Digital Millennium Copyright Act”. Title I — WIPO Treaties Implementation Sec. 101. Short Title. This title may be cited as the “WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998”. * * * * * * * Sec. 105. Effective Date. (a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided in this title, this title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. (b) Amendments Relating to Certain International Agreements. — (1) The following shall take effect upon the entry into force of the WIPO Copyright Treaty with respect to the United States: (A) Paragraph (5) of the definition of “international agreement” contained in section 101 of title 17, United States Code, as amended by section 102(a)(4) of this Act. (B) The amendment made by section 102(a)(6) of this Act. (C) Subparagraph (C) of section 104A(h)(1) of title 17, United States Code, as amended by section 102(c)(1) of this Act. (D) Subparagraph (C) of section 104A(h)(3) of title 17, United States Code, as amended by section 102(c)(2) of this Act. (2) The following shall take effect upon the entry into force of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty with respect to the United States: (A) Paragraph (6) of the definition of “international agreement” contained in section 101 of title 17, United States Code, as amended by section 102(a)(4) of this Act. (B) The amendment made by section 102(a)(7) of this Act. (C) The amendment made by section 102(b)(2) of this Act. (D) Subparagraph (D) of section 104A(h)(1) of title 17, United States Code, as amended by section 102(c)(1) of this Act. (E) Subparagraph (D) of section 104A(h)(3) of title 17, United States Code, as amended by section 102(c)(2) of this Act. (F) The amendments made by section 102(c)(3) of this Act. * * * * * * * Title II — Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Sec. 201. Short Title. This title may be cited as the “Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act”. * * * * * * * Sec. 203. Effective Date. This title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. * * * * * * * Title IV — Miscellaneous Provisions Sec. 401. Provisions Relating to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and the Register of Copyrights (a) Compensation. — (1) Section 3(d) of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking “prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of Commerce” and inserting “in effect for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code”. * * * * * * * (3) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. “Register of Copyrights.”. * * * * * * * Sec. 405. Scope of Exclusive Rights in Sound Recordings; Ephemeral Recordings. (a) Scope of Exclusive Rights in Sound Recordings. * * * * * * * (5) The amendment made by paragraph (2)(B)(i)(III) of this subsection shall be deemed to have been enacted as part of the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995, and the publication of notice of proceedings under section 114(f)(1) of title 17, United States Code, as in effect upon the effective date of that Act, for the determination of royalty payments shall be deemed to have been made for the period beginning on the effective date of that Act and ending on December 1, 2001. (6) The amendments made by this subsection do not annul, limit, or otherwise impair the rights that are preserved by section 114 of title 17, United States Code, including the rights preserved by subsections (c), (d)(4), and (i) of such section. * * * * * * * (c) Scope of Section 112(a) of Title 17 Not Affected. — Nothing in this section or the amendments made by this section shall affect the scope of section 112(a) of title 17, United States Code, or the entitlement of any person to an exemption thereunder. * * * * * * * Sec. 406. Assumption of Contractual Obligations Related to Transfers of Rights in Motion Pictures. (a) In General. — Part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter: “Chapter 180 — Assumption of Certain Contractual Obligations “Sec. 4001. Assumption of contractual obligations related to transfers of rights in motion pictures. “§4001. Assumption of contractual obligations related to transfers of rights in motion pictures “(a) Assumption of Obligations. — (1) In the case of a transfer of copyright ownership under United States law in a motion picture (as the terms ‘transfer of copyright ownership’ and ‘motion picture’ are defined in section 101 of title 17) that is produced subject to 1 or more collective bargaining agreements negotiated under the laws of the United States, if the transfer is executed on or after the effective date of this chapter and is not limited to public performance rights, the transfer instrument shall be deemed to incorporate the assumption agreements applicable to the copyright ownership being transferred that are required by the applicable collective bargaining agreement, and the transferee shall be subject to the obligations under each such assumption agreement to make residual payments and provide related notices, accruing after the effective date of the transfer and applicable to the exploitation of the rights transferred, and any remedies under each such assumption agreement for breach of those obligations, as those obligations and remedies are set forth in the applicable collective bargaining agreement, if — “(A) the transferee knows or has reason to know at the time of the transfer that such collective bargaining agreement was or will be applicable to the motion picture; or “(B) in the event of a court order confirming an arbitration award against the transferor under the collective bargaining agreement, the transferor does not have the financial ability to satisfy the award within 90 days after the order is issued. “(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), ‘knows or has reason to know’ means any of the following: “(A) Actual knowledge that the collective bargaining agreement was or will be applicable to the motion picture. “(B)(i) Constructive knowledge that the collective bargaining agreement was or will be applicable to the motion picture, arising from recordation of a document pertaining to copyright in the motion picture under section 205 of title 17 or from publication, at a site available to the public on-line that is operated by the relevant union, of information that identifies the motion picture as subject to a collective bargaining agreement with that union, if the site permits commercially reasonable verification of the date on which the information was available for access. “(ii) Clause (i) applies only if the transfer referred to in subsection (a)(1) occurs - “(I) after the motion picture is completed, or “(II) before the motion picture is completed and - “(aa) within 18 months before the filing of an application for copyright registration for the motion picture under section 408 of title 17, or “(bb) if no such application is filed, within 18 months before the first publication of the motion picture in the United States. “(C) Awareness of other facts and circumstances pertaining to a particular transfer from which it is apparent that the collective bargaining agreement was or will be applicable to the motion picture. “(b) Scope of Exclusion of Transfers of Public Performance Rights. — For purposes of this section, the exclusion under subsection (a) of transfers of copyright ownership in a motion picture that are limited to public performance rights includes transfers to a terrestrial broadcast station, cable system, or programmer to the extent that the station, system, or programmer is functioning as an exhibitor of the motion picture, either by exhibiting the motion picture on its own network, system, service, or station, or by initiating the transmission of an exhibition that is carried on another network, system, service, or station. When a terrestrial broadcast station, cable system, or programmer, or other transferee, is also functioning otherwise as a distributor or as a producer of the motion picture, the public performance exclusion does not affect any obligations imposed on the transferee to the extent that it is engaging in such functions. “(c) Exclusion for Grants of Security Interests. — Subsection (a) shall not apply to — “(1) a transfer of copyright ownership consisting solely of a mortgage, hypothecation, or other security interest; or “(2) a subsequent transfer of the copyright ownership secured by the security interest described in paragraph (1) by or under the authority of the secured party, including a transfer through the exercise of the secured party's rights or remedies as a secured party, or by a subsequent transferee. The exclusion under this subsection shall not affect any rights or remedies under law or contract. “(d) Deferral Pending Resolution of Bona Fide Dispute. — A transferee on which obligations are imposed under subsection (a) by virtue of paragraph (1) of that subsection may elect to defer performance of such obligations that are subject to a bona fide dispute between a union and a prior transferor until that dispute is resolved, except that such deferral shall not stay accrual of any union claims due under an applicable collective bargaining agreement. “(e) Scope of Obligations Determined by Private Agreement. — Nothing in this section shall expand or diminish the rights, obligations, or remedies of any person under the collective bargaining agreements or assumption agreements referred to in this section. “(f) Failure to Notify. — If the transferor under subsection (a) fails to notify the transferee under subsection (a) of applicable collective bargaining obligations before the execution of the transfer instrument, and subsection (a) is made applicable to the transferee solely by virtue of subsection (a)(1)(B), the transferor shall be liable to the transferee for any damages suffered by the transferee as a result of the failure to notify. “(g) Determination of Disputes and Claims. — Any dispute concerning the application of subsections (a) through (f) shall be determined by an action in United States district court, and the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party and may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs. “(h) Study. — The Comptroller General, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall conduct a study of the conditions in the motion picture industry that gave rise to this section, and the impact of this section on the motion picture industry. The Comptroller General shall report the findings of the study to the Congress within 2 years after the effective date of this chapter.”. * * * * * * * SEC. 407. EFFECTIVE Date. Except as otherwise provided in this title, this title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. * * * * * * * Title V — Protection of Certain Original Designs Sec. 501. Short Title. This Act may be referred to as the “Vessel Hull Design Protection Act”. * * * * * * * Sec. 505. Effective Date.2 The amendments made by sections 502 and 503 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.3 Appendix B · Endnotes 1This appendix contains provisions from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860, that do not amend title 17 of the United States Code. 2The Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 amended section 505 by deleting everything at the end of the sentence, after “Act.” Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, app. I at 1501A-521, 593. 3Section 502 of the DMCA added chapter 13 to title 17 of the United States Code. Section 503 made conforming amendments. The date of enactment of this Act is October 28, 1998.

Register your author's rights and get the full juridical protection.

Copyright Registration will cost - $ 20

Public offer - read carefully before registration!

F.A.Q SciReg

Copyright Registration

Recent Publications reg № 856275 «НОВЫЙ ВИД ШАХМАТНОЙ ДОСКИ ДЛЯ ИГРЫ В ШАХМАТЫ ПО СПОСОБУ «МАКУРИНА - КУДРЯВЦЕВА»» More >> reg № 199737274 Elphitamine More >> reg № 56022273 Фраза "хуи выше гор" More >> reg № 658314297 Фраза "хуи выше гор" More >> reg № 365805294 Alyonna "Love Ang" More >> Terms of use Article 1. Contracting parties. 1. The Parties of this Public Offer (paid service agreement), hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement” or “Offer”, are, as follows: a) Executor is a person, who makes this Offer and who executes this Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions: Solcity World Investment and Development; and b) Customer is a person, who accepts this Offer and who is the author of any publication. Article 2. Acceptance. 1. The Customer shall accept this Offer in case of and after the following activities: a) fill in and send to the Executor an application in electronic format in the form established by this Agreement and posted on the Executor’s official website; and b) provide the author’s abstract specifying what material was created by the author; and c) provide a list of all key words (tags) that enable finding the location of the author’s abstract of the Customer on the Executor’s website; and d) post (“upload”) the material itself on the Executor’s official website; and e) pay for the Executor’s services in the amount and following the procedure set forth by this Agreement. 2. The Executor shall verify the Customer’s data and post the information about the Customer and his/her work of authorship on SciReg.org in Internet. From this moment on, the Customer shall be considered as an acceptor of this Offer and a Party to this Agreement. 3. The Executor shall be entitled, without giving any reasons, to refuse the Customer to accept this Offer and the Customer unconditionally, entirely and irrevocably agrees with this provision. Article 3. Scope of the Agreement. 1. The Executor hereof shall render services on establishing, formation and maintenance of the Copyright register in electronic format on the Executor’s official website in Internet. 2. The Executor hereof shall render to the Customer paid services on posting (publishing) of information about the applicant as the author of the material under the terms and in accordance with this Agreement. 3. The work of authorship shall be understood by the Parties as a subject matter of copyright established by the Civil Code or other laws of the Author’s Country of domicile.  4. The Executor shall publish information (data), hereinafter referred to as the “summary”, about the applicant as the author of the material in the Register posted on the Executor’s official website in Internet under the terms set forth by this Agreement. 5. The Executor shall be entitled, at his own discretion and without coordination with the Customer, to assign his obligations for execution of this Agreement to any third party, and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision. Article 4. Register. 1. The Register shall be an ordered and standardized register containing a summary of the Customer: Author’s information, including co-authors, name of the work of authorship, publication date, author’s abstract revealing the content of the work of authorship and its unique character, as well as a unique number of posting in the Register assigned to the author and his/her material automatically by the Executor, key words (tags) that enable any person to find information about the author and his/her publication posted in the Register on the Executor’s official website in Internet. 2. The author’s abstract shall be a brief description of the author’s publication designating its unique character and showing that the Customer is its author. 3. The Register shall be maintained in electronic form on the Executor’s official website in Internet. 4. Information about the author, work of authorship and other information required by the rules for information posting in the Register, set forth by the Executor, except for the unique number, shall be posted by the Customer individually on the Executor’s official website in Internet. 5. Both the Register and the official website shall be the Executor’s property. 6. Any and all information posted by the Customer in the Register in accordance with the terms set forth by this Agreement shall be the Executor’s property. Hereby, the Customer shall not transfer copyright for his/her work of authorship to the Executor. 7. The rules for maintenance of the Register, its execution, posting of any details (information) in it shall constitute Appendix 1 to this Agreement forming an integral part hereof. The rules shall be issued exclusively by the Executor. The Executor, without coordination with the Customer and the Customer’s consent, shall have the right to make any changes in and/or amendment to the Register maintenance rules and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision. The Register maintenance rules shall be unconditionally mandatory for the Customer. Article 5. Obligations of the Parties. 1. The Parties hereto shall (hereby shall be obliged to) unconditionally, voluntarily, conscientiously, and accurately follow all provisions of this Agreement, as well as any and all supplements, amendments and/or alterations hereto made under the terms set forth by this Agreement. 2. The Customer shall pay for the Executor’s services following the procedure and in the amount established by this Agreement. 3. The Customer, in contemplation of his/her death, shall be obliged to bind defendants to the terms of this Agreement. 4. If the Customer’s copyright is assigned to a third party, he/she shall be obliged to bind such third party to his/her obligations hereunder. 5. The Customer shall have an exclusive right to refer, in any form, to his/her summary (synopsis, author’s abstract) posted in the Register on the Executor’s official website in Internet in case of complete and fair execution of his/her obligations under this Agreement. Article 6. Payment for the Executor’s services. Agreement price. 1. The Customer shall pay for the Executor’s services following the procedure and in the amount established by the provisions of this Article. 2. The price for one posting by the applicant of one his/her summary in the Register shall be 20 (twenty) US Dollars – price of this Agreement. 3. The procedure for paying the amount set forth by this Article of the Agreement shall be determined in Appendix 1 to this Agreement. 4. The applicant shall pay the amount stated in para 2 of this Article (pay for the Executor’s service) to the Executor at the time of registration. 5. The amounts paid hereunder by the Customer to the Executor shall be nonreturnable. 6. Each Party shall individually pay any and all own taxes, duties and/or fees established by the legislation of the Party in connection with execution of the terms hereof by the Party. Neither party shall be a fiscal agent of the other Party. Article 7. Withdrawal from the Agreement. 1. The Customer shall be entitled to withdraw from execution of this Agreement in the form of non-payment of a next settlement set forth by this Agreement. 2. The Executor shall have the right, including in his sole discretion, to withdraw from execution of this Agreement without reimbursement to the Customer of any expenses and/or losses (damages), as well as without payment of any penalty and/or penalty fee and/or any other forfeit, and the Customer unconditionally and entirely agrees with this provision, in the following case (cases): a) failure to pay by the Customer for the services to the Executor in the amount and under the terms set forth by this Agreement; and/or b) provision of false information by the Customer; and/or c) any other technical reasons. Article 8. Information sharing.  1. Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, the Parties hereto may share information, and this information for the Parties shall be regarded as official, by phone, fax, sms, Skype, via e-mail and/or in writing (in hard copy).  2. The Parties hereto may share documents and these documents shall be legally effective for the Parties and considered properly received by the Parties by fax, Skype, via e-mail, in writing in hard copy, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party via e-mail shall be accepted by the Parties. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party by fax shall be accepted by the Parties. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party via Skype shall be accepted by the Parties. 3. Along with the afore-mentioned, the Parties may have electronic documentary interchange and affix their electronic digital signatures (EDS) on any and all documents. Article 9. Arbitration. 1. All disputes arising between the Parties in relation to interpretation of this Agreement and/or execution of this Agreement shall be settled by the Parties in the form of bilateral negotiations.  2. If the Parties fail to reach a compromise during negotiations, they shall settle their dispute in the arbitration court (arbitration) of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of British Virgin Islands. 3. As the rules of procedural law based on which the Parties shall settle their dispute, the Parties shall accept the rules of arbitration court (arbitration) of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of British Virgin Islands. 4. As the rules of substantive law based on which the Parties settle their dispute, the Parties shall accept this Agreement and rules of international agreements (conventions) regulating copyright legal relationship. Article 10. Other terms and conditions. 1. This Agreement is made in written and electronic form, in one counterpart, which:  a) Agreement in writing is kept in the Executor’s office, and  b) posted in electronic form on the Executor’s official website in Internet. 2. Alteration, amendments and/or supplements to this Agreement shall be made in written and electronic form by the Executor individually, in a single hard counterpart and a single electronic counterpart posted on the official website in Internet and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision.  3. Changes in this Agreement shall be made by the Executor as a new version of the Agreement. 4. If the Customer disagrees with new terms and conditions, he/she shall have a right to withdraw from the Agreement following the procedure and terms set forth by this Agreement. NEWS: most visited Толкин Юсупов , registered "ДОПОЛНЕНИЕ пункта (идеи) № 780 от 23.06.2011 года ЕДИНЫЙ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ЦЕНТР РАЗРАБОТКИ И СЕРТИФИКАЦИИ АТРИБУТОВ СЕМЕЙНОЙ И ИНДИВИДУАЛЬНОЙ ГЕРАЛЬДИКИ (тотемов, гербов, флагов, вымпелов, и т.д.). " reg № 158119657, 2012-03-26 09:58:21

ЕДИНЫЙ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ЦЕНТР РАЗРАБОТКИ И СЕРТИФИКАЦИИ АТРИБУТОВ СЕМЕЙНОЙ И ИНДИВИДУАЛЬНОЙ ГЕРАЛЬДИКИ (тотемов, гербов, флагов, вымпелов, и т.д.). Применение указанных атрибутов без сертификации ЦЕНТРА является НЕДЕЙСТВИТЕЛЬНЫМ! Данная информация приобретает юридическую силу с момента регистрации данной учётной записи (23.06.2011г.).

read: >>> Константин Букшан , registered "Прибор читающий мысли на расстоянии" reg № 772856601, 2013-07-05 11:52:23

Мое изобретение – это прибор, который включает и выключает любой электронный прибор, например светодиод, дистанционно, силой мысли человека, на расстоянии, без датчиков крепящихся на голове. Моя идея состоит в том, что туннельный контакт Джозефсона с определенной толщиной диэлектрика между проводниками и с определенной площадью соприкосновения контакта может реагировать на мысли людей на расстоянии, включая и выключая любой электронный прибор, например светодиод, силой мысли человека на расстоянии. Принцип работы прибора основан на вли

read: >>> Leonid Minaev , registered "Леонид Минаев - "Там где я был"" reg № 78767695, 2013-11-14 18:36:26

автор песни (музыка и слова) Леонид Леонидович Минаев. Песня написана и записана 11 – 14 ноября 2013 года. Прилагается архив с рабочей записью с файлом формата mp3 частота 44,1KHz 16bit 192kbps и текстом песни «Там где я был».

read: >>> NEWS: news copyright Sunbeam Ruling Strengthens Rights of IP Licensees in Bankruptcy JULY 27, 2012 BANKRUPTCY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYSunbeam Ruling Strengthens Rights of read: >>>  

SciReg catalog

are implemented search engine for scientific, educational and cultural information by keywords, subjects, authors, in this section - the publication of scientific papers, theses, articles, musical and artistic works

Science

mathematics, physics, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, higher mathematics, geography, geology, astronomy, biology, botany, zoology

Social science

philosophy by sections, history of Russia, ancient history, rhetoric, history of Western Europe, America’s history, ancient world’s history, modern history, sociology, contemporary history, linguistics, philosophy, languages, dictionaries, language textbooks, religion, and religious studies

Culture & Art

prehistoric art, pictorial art, graphic arts, history of arts by sections, ancient and classical texts, music (notes), Russian literature, new Russian literature, national literature by countries, music, musicology, architecture, history of architecture, biographies of famous personalities, design

trademark office copyright registration us patent intellectual property trademark search copyright registration form registration of copyright search for trademark registration for copyright patent trademark registration patent registration india us copyright patent search registered trademark wipo patent search search copyright office copyright trademark registration patents copyright and registration search us patent registration of patent copyright office registration trademark name search copyright office patent office search uspto trademark copyright how to copyright name copyright search copyright and registration

copyright Posted by: Margaret Rouse WhatIs.com Contributor(s): Robert Richardson Share this item with your network:

Copyright is a legal term describing ownership of control of the rights to the use and distribution of certain works of creative expression, including books, video, movies, music and computer programs. Historically, copyright law has been enacted to balance the desire of cultures to use and reuse creative works (thus creating "derivative work") against the desire of the creators of art, literature, music and the like to monetize their work by controlling who can make and sell copies of the work.

Download this free guide Download Now: Mobile Security Vendor Reviews and Ratings

Are your mobile devices secure against today’s threat landscape? Inside this guide discover 7 secret mobile security tips, top drivers for mobile security purchases, survey data on top mobile trends in 2017, peer reviews on mobile security vendors in the market today and more.

Start Download Corporate E-mail Address: You forgot to provide an Email Address.

This email address doesn’t appear to be valid.

This email address is already registered. Please login .

You have exceeded the maximum character limit.

Please provide a Corporate E-mail Address.

By submitting my Email address I confirm that I have read and accepted the Terms of Use and Declaration of Consent.

By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding relevant content, products and special offers.

You also agree that your personal information may be transferred and processed in the United States, and that you have read and agree to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy .

To strike this balance, the exclusivity of control is almost always restricted to a set period of years, after which a copyright-protected work reverts to the public domain and may be freely used. Under current law in the U.S., works created after Jan. 1, 1978, are afforded copyright protection for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For anonymous, pseudonymous and corporate-owned works, a copyright lasts 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.

The copyright holder is often a company or corporation. If a work is created as a component of employment ("work for hire"), then the copyright for the work defaults to the employer.

Copyright ownership is bounded by the territory of the jurisdiction in which it has been granted (a copyright granted by the United States is valid only within that country, for example), as well by certain specific exceptions. Much of international copyright law was brought into relative conformity with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (usually referred to as the Berne Convention), in 1886 (with numerous subsequent revisions over the decades). The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (also known as the WIPO Copyright Treaty or WCT) was adopted in 1996 to cover information technology and the internet, elements not directly addressed in the Berne Convention.

The copyright symbol, used to assert copyright ownership.

An important shift in copyright legislation that appeared in the Berne Convention was the move to make copyright protection automatic. In most countries today, creators do not need to register or apply for copyright protection of a work. Rather, the author of a work is immediately entitled to all copyrights of the work until those rights are explicitly disclaimed or the copyright expires.

Before 1989, United States law required the use of a copyright notice to assert that copyright was being claimed. The copyright symbol or the word "copyright" had to be placed somewhere within the protected work, along with the year the work was created or published.

Copyright duration and public domain

The notion of protecting publishers from unauthorized third-party sales of copies of their books dates back to the 1709 Statute of Anne in Britain, a law that gave publishers exclusive publishing rights for a fixed period, after which their work could be produced and sold by others. In the United States, the first legislation along these lines appears in the U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, where the so-called Copyright Clause gives Congress the authority to enact laws "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Both these laws, along with current copyright legislation worldwide, call for protected works to enter the "public domain" after the copyright law's stipulated term has passed. Works in the public domain may be used, copied and distributed with no restrictions under copyright law.

Copyright exceptions and fair use

Not every expression of an idea may be copyright protected. Copyright doesn't protect:

Product names Titles of works (such as book titles) Names of businesses and organizations Pseudonyms, including computer hacker " nyms ." Slogans, catchphrases, mottos and short advertising phrases Lists of ingredients, such as on product labels or as used in recipes

Some things on this list, such as product names, may be afforded protection under trademark law.

Even when a work is protected under copyright law, the copyright law allows certain exceptions where works may be used even when the copyright holder has otherwise restricted use. Some of these exceptions are a matter of practicality, such as allowing libraries to make Braille copies of books they own. In some cases, such as public venues that play music through jukeboxes, the copyright owner is compelled by the law to grant the jukebox owner a license at a predetermined fee.

One important set of exceptions is the allowance for making backup copies of digital works that are copyright protected.

The most important exception is "fair use," known in some other international jurisdictions as "fair dealing." Conceptually, fair use is a refinement of the basic balance copyright strikes between author and civil interests. It is in the public's interest to have access to critical reviews of works, and in considering these works, the critic may include short excerpts of a work in order illustrate a point being made. Copyright laws also generally protect works of parody from copyright infringement claims, as is the use of works for educational uses.

It is important to note, though, that what counts as fair use is generally not well delineated in copyright laws around the world. In the U.S., the law lists four basic guidelines courts may use in lawsuits where infringement is alleged:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is commercial or noncommercial; the nature of the work (e.g., factual works are entitled to less protection than purely creative works); the amount and substantiality of the portion of the work used; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the work.

In the world of popular music, the boundaries of fair use have been tested as a result of the use of "samples" or short snippets of copyright-protected songs in new works. Clear precedents have not been established because court decisions have taken unpredictable turns. A 2005 decision in the 6th District Court in the U.S. held that copying even as few as three consecutive notes could constitute infringement. Other cases have revolved around whether permissions must be obtained for portions of a work that are sampled or for the underlying song, or both. Generally, commercial musicians generally buy "clearances" to sample works, meaning that whether that sampling could be allowed under fair use provisions is simply not tested.

Digital rights management as copyright control

Digital expressions, such as ebooks and music, are of course protected under copyright just as their traditional book and compact disc counterparts are. Controlling infringement and unauthorized reproduction of digital works is considerably more difficult than hard copy products that require printing and physical distribution. Copyright protects these works and can be used as the basis for lawsuits after the fact, but corporations have embraced the idea of using digital technologies to protect digital works.

There are two basic approaches used in typical DRM products:

Individual copies of the digital product are encrypted and contain the code necessary to protect their use. The protections used to prevent unauthorized duplication of commercially distributed DVD s are examples of this and rely on safeguards built into DVD players to prevent the use of pirated copies. A centralized rights management server checks authorizations at time of use and locks or unlocks digital copies accordingly. This allows finer-grained control and better overall use accounting but requires internet connection before each use.

There are, in some DRM systems, additional controls enforced. Books read in the Amazon Kindle ecosystem, for instance, can be "highlighted" within the context of the present copy, but copying text displayed in a Kindle reader to the clipboard of the operating system isn't allowed.

This DRM-imposed restriction on cutting and pasting is, critics have noted, a restriction that goes beyond the rights provided under copyright law, where that cutting and pasting might well fall into the realm of fair use. Not being able to make backup copies of DVDs is another case where use of a work is allowed under copyright but may be prohibited by the DRM system a corporation has opted to use.

Further, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ( DMCA ) includes a stipulation that makes it a criminal offense to reverse engineer DRM systems, even if the aim is to take actions that are allowed under that same copyright law. Manufacturers of goods such as farm tractors and cars that one wouldn't normally associate with copyright protections have asserted that the DMCA reverse engineering provision applies to software used in embedded systems within their products. Thus, third-party attempts to understand those systems are criminal offenses, not because of copyright infringement but simply because research on the workings of DRM systems is illegal.

A number of prosecutions (and threatened legal actions) have been mounted since the DMCA was enacted. A partial list of these is maintained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation .

In October 2016, the Library of Congress temporarily authorized security researchers who were "acting in good faith" to conduct some kinds of research on consumer devices so long as the research did not violate other laws such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). 

There is a four-part test for whether any given research falls under the exemption:

1)     The computer program must be lawfully acquired.

2)     The actions taken must be "solely for the purpose of good-faith security research."

3)     The research must take place after Oct. 28, 2016.

4)     While not technically a requirement, the authorization implies that responsible disclosure is an important element in establishing that the work was done in good faith.

Good faith is circularly defined as being "solely for the purposes of good-faith testing," but is also explained to mean the work can't be done "in a manner that facilitates copyright infringement."

Only research conducted with primarily consumer-oriented products fall under this authorization.

Copyleft and creative commons

An interesting exception of sorts to copyright is a concept originally championed by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation , which created copyleft  as a means of effectively stripping most copyright restrictions from a work to allow free use (including copying) of the material, while retaining control over how the material is shared.

Under the copyleft, derivative works created using that original work must also be given copyleft protection. More broadly, this approach is known as "free" licensing, and is considered a form of open source license.

Material published under open source licenses may be freely copied, modified, shared and distributed, as long as the original license is applied to the distributed material. When used for publishing software, the copyleft license also requires that source code be included (or made available) when modified software is published.

In 2001, Creative Commons , a nonprofit organization, was created to facilitate several kinds of legal sharing so that works could be freely reused, but in contexts that are controlled by the copyright holder. Works covered under Creative Commons licenses are aggregated at creativecommons.org.

This was last updated in May 2017 Continue Reading About copyright Best practices for protecting intellectual property Protect intellectual property with data breach strategy How intellectual property impacts IT U.S. Copyright Office Related Terms black hat Black hat refers to a hacker who breaks into a computer system or network with malicious intent. See complete definition email spam Email spam, or junk email, is unsolicited bulk messages sent through email with commercial, fraudulent or malicious intent. See complete definition FRCP Rule 41 FRPC Rule 41 is the part of the United States Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that covers the search and seizure of physical ... See complete definition Dig Deeper on Information security laws, investigations and ethics All News Get Started Evaluate Manage Problem Solve Fancy Bear C&C servers taken down by Microsoft lawsuit Dark web markets' shutdown may lead to more arrests Security code reviews by Russian agencies cause concern International data privacy laws create inconsistent rules Load More Fancy Bear C&C servers taken down by Microsoft lawsuit Dark web markets' shutdown may lead to more arrests Security code reviews by Russian agencies cause concern International data privacy laws create inconsistent rules Load More FRCP Rule 41 Risk & Repeat: US accuses Russia of state-sponsored cyberattacks What happens if the Data Accountability and Trust Act becomes a law? How should agencies prepare for federal security scanning? Load More How major FDIC cybersecurity issues highlight leadership failures Risk & Repeat: Will Rule 41 changes become cybersecurity law? Risk & Repeat: US accuses Russia of state-sponsored cyberattacks How Brexit affects data privacy regulations between the US and U.K. Load More Want to avoid data breach lawsuits? Get legal on your side Information security and lawyers: Three ways to be besties How will Canadian anti-spam legislation affect commercial email? Best of authentication 2013 Load More Is settling a data breach lawsuit the best option for enterprises? Are cybersecurity lawyers necessary for organizations? How encryption legislation could affect enterprises Why did Anthem resist government vulnerability assessments? Load More PRO+ Content Find more PRO+ content and other member only offers, here.

Buyer's Handbook

Finding a secure managed file transfer tool: Key considerations

E-Handbook

Security analysis principles and techniques for IT pros

E-Zine

The best endpoint security practices are evolving and essential

Margaret Rouse  asks:

Should corporations be able to enforce restrictions on content use that exceed the protections of the copyright law? Join the Discussion
\n