Repeal the Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
It is evident that the framers of the infamous Digital Millenium Copyright Act intended it to have a transformative effect on the public and legal perception of intellectual property. In the attempt to develop a fully-realized definition of what constitutes infringement, fair use, and the rights of users in the consumption of digital works, the DMCA has had quite the opposite effect by institutionalizing considerable legal ambiguity. The recent spat between the John McCain presidential campaign and YouTube has demonstrated that both practitioners of law and a leading supporter of the DMCA are no closer to understanding the controversial law than the general populace.
With so much confusion and abuse surrounding the DMCA, isn't it time we start over and take a fresh approach to intellectual property that doesn't irreconcilably tip the scales in favor of big media?
FotoGuy
So, which parts of this act need repeal?
about 1 month ago
FotoGuy
--1203. and 1204.
--- Rules for the courts in rewarding damages
Title 2 is the Safe Harbor part. Basically, Online Companies cannot be held responsible for its users infringements
Title 3 allows computer repair personel to make copies of data while repairing
Title 4 Allows broadcasters to have a copy of a performance, for the purpose of transmitting it.
about 1 month ago
FotoGuy
--1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
---Basically says you cannot remove DRM measures unless it restricts your Fair Rights to the item
---It allows you to Reverse Engineer software to achieve interoperability
---Made MacroVision required
--1202. Integrity of copyright management information
--- Basically, you are not allowed to remove or falsify copyright info
about 1 month ago
FotoGuy
--1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
---Basically says you cannot remove DRM measures unless it restricts your Fair Rights to the item
---It allows you to Reverse Engineer software to achieve interoperability
---Made MacroVision required
--1202. Integrity of copyright management information
--- Basically, you are not allowed to remove or falsify copyright info
about 1 month ago
FotoGuy
Since DMCA is missunderstood, Here's a summary:
DMCA has 5 Titles, I not include the 5th as its about boat Hulls, go figure!
Title 1 contains:
-Updates and additions to Definitions in various parts of the Copyright Law
-Added Chapter 12, "COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS" Which contains these sections:
about 1 month ago
FotoGuy
This is a good discussion to have, but it is not relevant to repealing the DMCA Act. "Big Business" not wanting you to post their property on the web for everyone to get freely is a simple copyright issue. Repealing DMCA would not change that.
Furthermore, it actually helps the homegrown producer or small business by not allowing the removal of their copyright information (Ch.12 Sec 1201)
about 1 month ago
ricster
The big media companies should have no greater say, control or rights over the publishing of creative content on the internet than the homegrown producer or small business. The internet represents an ideal open platform where content can be judged based solely on its own quality. New Media Creators must not be subjected to censorship, throttling or carrier charges in order to reach their audience.
about 1 month ago
Alexgrieve
Musicalrunner's comment is an argument for amendment, not repeal. After Web 2.0 comes 2.1... and then 3.0 in a form we haven't even imagined yet. Bureaucracy runs behind creativity, big business gets in the way; DMCA needs the flexibility to balance intellectual property with fair use, remove obstacles, reward creators and penalise pirates. Will the three-year rulemaking capacity be enough?
about 1 month ago
FotoGuy
This act does protect your Fair Use rights. Title 17 Ch.12, sec. 1201, subsection (c)(1) states: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
So, you can circumvent the DRM to make a personal copy, either analog or digital.
It also protects ISPs and websites from the acts of their users.
about 1 month ago
NicholasB
Copyright laws were not designed for digital content. What is required is a proper legal, social, and technical review of the copyright regime to update it for the interconnected, interactive, world of the future. A future where all contributors – artists, authors, performers, producers, distributors, and consumers – have their rights protected.
See: http://www.commonrights.com
about 1 month ago
chrisf826
I am wondering if a funding pool would be most apropriate to ensure artists get their losses recovered from piracy, this could be a small fee attached to every storeage device upon purchase? Once this is streamlined and enacted. drop the criminal and exorbitant legal fees and penalties for filesharing.
about 1 month ago
pmocek
See also: "Adopt EFF's Innovation Agenda" (http://obamacto.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/71893). It includes repairing the DMCA.
about 1 month ago
FreeCulture
freeculture.org
about 1 month ago
USGeek
NO. While the act could use some tweaking, all a repeal would do is circumvent the rights of artists and composers, not necessarily "big business." People are still looking for a way to get something for nothing, and still whining when they get caught. There's lots of "free" music out there, but that doesn't mean that everything is. Quit depriving people of their livelihood by stealing their work.
about 1 month ago
Sir_Sid
The Safe Harbor clause is important. We cant get rid of that.
about 1 month ago
themaskedanalyst
The DMCA is blatantly unconstitutional. We have a constitutional right to speak anonymously on the internet. However, if your speech or video is the target of a takedown notice you either have to give up your anonymity or commit perjury to file a counternotice--even if the takedown notice was bogus. For more details see:
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20DMCA%20is%20Uncontstitutional.htm
about 1 month ago
ohmightyvlog
DMCA is a pile of bologna, I got slapped with 2 in ONE day because someone found a way into my wi-fi and downloaded illegal HBO shows, it is not inforceable in a fair way, if I had gotten one more they would have killed my Internet, for a crime I did not even commit.
about 1 month ago
orange.eagle
Thoroughly support this. Saying "Oh, but there are some exceptions built in" is like saying "We don't really need to REPEAL the "cut off thieves hands" law, there ARE exceptions for old ladies and children." The law is poorly designed from the ground up. Scrap it, and put something better in its place. Something that balances the rights and interests of creators with that of the public.
about 1 month ago
Dr. Lizardo
So the Fair Use doctrine establishes a judicial precedent allowing us to make backup copies, but the DMCA effectively makes it a felony to do so? Time to stop allowing the RIAA and MPAA to handcraft laws (or international treaties) to suit their bottom line and email them to their campaign-supported Members of Congress for a rubber-stamping that turns us all into felons... Repeal the thing!
about 1 month ago
josephsack
Wouldn't this issue be something for congress to legislate? While I agree with repealing (or amending) the DMCA, it seems out of the scope of what the executive branch could implement.
about 1 month ago
snapdoodle
I think it needs to be amended. So I'm not voting on repeal.
about 1 month ago
snapdoodle
I think it needs to be amended. So I'm not voting on repeal.
about 1 month ago
mgoren
Can we assume that this item is referring to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA? Because everyone would be in big trouble if the safe harbor provision were repealed.
about 1 month ago
underwhelm
The DMCA must be reformed, at a minimum. The triennial rulemaking is a disaster and does not achieve it's intended purpose—to protect fair use. The Librarian has failed to exercise the authority delegated by Congress.
about 1 month ago
jps
There are some good parts of the DCMA, such as protections for archival copies, reverse-engineering, and allowing the Librarian of Congress to make specific exemptions. Don't repeal the whole thing.
about 1 month ago
freelancer
I don't agree with this, as a self employed artist, when my work is available for free who's going to want to buy a print? small business & self employed artist/individuals are hurt by this.
about 1 month ago
musicalrunner
Agreed. We need a new "web 2.0" definition of intellectual property that gives credit to the creators/owners without prohibiting the spread/popularity (!) of whatever the file is.
about 1 month ago