Law Commons^™

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: The Future Of The Safe Harbor Provision, Jennette Wiser, Kristin Luciano, Christopher Psihoules, Caesar Lopez

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

Inspired by the current federal case, Viacom v. YouTube, this discussion delves into the history and creation of the Digital Millennium Act (DMCA), the court cases which set the foundation for the ongoing Viacom v . YouTube case, and an in-depth discussion on the growth of technology and the Internet with how it is affecting copyright holders. This article culminates with an analysis on how the DMCA is applied to the current Internet landscape and offers potential solutions to solve the battle between Internet Service Providers and copyright holders.

Technical Knockout: How Mixed Martial Arts Will Change Copyright Enforcement On The Web, Keith Black

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Notice And Takedown, Here And Abroad, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has been around for more than a dozen years now. Some of its provisions were just weird, such as the one that established sui generis protection for boat hull designs. Others have had a skeptical reception in the courts, like the anti-circumvention provisions that forbid certain forms of hacking through technological protections for copyrighted works.

But one DMCA provision that has proved popular in both the copyright community and the courts is the notice-and-takedown procedure codified at 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). When a copyright owner finds that some Internet user has illegally posted its copyrighted …

Copyright Infringement Pushin': Google, Youtube, And Viacom Fight For Supremacy In The Neighborhood That May Be Controlled By The Dmca's Safe Harbor Provision, William Henslee

Journal Publications

No longer does it seem that a copyright infringer is "anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner." Now, one who uses the copyrighted material without the permission of the owner is not an infringer until the court decides that the infringer has gone too far in appropriating content that he or she did not create. This new world order was most recently challenged in Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. This Article will explore why the Viacom/YouTube litigation should be the case that reestablishes the rights of copyright owners and clarifies the seemingly disparate views …

Licensing As Digital Rights Management, From The Advent Of The Web To The Ipad, Reuven Ashtar

Reuven Ashtar

This Article deals with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provision, Section 1201, and its relationship to licensing. It argues that not all digital locks and contractual notices qualify for legal protection under Section 1201, and attributes the courts’ indiscriminate protection of all Digital Rights Management (DRM) measures to the law’s incoherent formulation. The Article proposes a pair of filters that would enable courts to distinguish between those DRM measures that qualify for protection under Section 1201, and those that do not. The filters are shown to align with legislative intent and copyright precedent, as well as the approaches recently …

Acta Fool Or: How Rights Holders Learned To Stop Worrying And Love 512’S Subpoena Provisions, Colin E. Shanahan

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

This comment argues against the adoption of the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Specifically, that the ACTA provision establishing “[p]rocedures enabling right holders who have given effective notification of a claimed infringement to expeditiously obtain information identifying the alleged infringer” should not extend the current subpoena provisions of 17 USC § 512(h) to encompass p2p networks. The Comment discusses the current U.S. law and cases, why the rights holders want the ACTA Agreeement and argues why the ACTA agreement should not be adopted.

The Dmca And Repeat Infringers, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

The recent agreement between big media companies and big Internet service providers (ISPs) concerning online copyright infringement has the law and technology world abuzz. ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable have agreed to implement a system under which subscribers who repeatedly and illegally download copyrighted content will have their Internet access impeded and maybe even terminated.

This is big news, and it will probably receive more attention in this IP Viewpoints series. But the purpose of this column is to put this agreement in context, because much of what the companies have agreed to do appears to be …

The In Rem Forfeiture Of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names, Andrew Sellars

Faculty Scholarship

In the summer of 2010, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security began "Operation In Our Sites," an enforcement sweep targeted towards websites allegedly dealing in counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing files. The operation targeted the websites by proceeding in rem against their respective domain names. For websites targeted for copyright infringement, ICE Agents used recently-expanded copyright forfeiture remedies passed under the 2008 PRO-IP Act, providing no adversarial hearing prior to the websites being removed, and only a probable cause standard of proof.

This Paper examines three specific harms resulting from Operation In Our Sites, and …