# The Librarian's Copyright Companion/Chapter 6

Chapter Six
Digital Information and Software
This chapter will discuss how licenses and copyright law interact to control libraries’ use of digital information. Today, software and digital products generally are transferred under license. That is, unlike books you purchase, you generally will not own the digital products that publishers license to you.
Licensing information is more like renting an apartment than buying a house. Just as landlords may ban dogs or loud music in their rentals, publishers and information vendors may add a number of conditions to your use of their digital resources. These conditions may be more restrictive than copyright law requires. The most important thing to remember about licenses is to read them carefully. Contracts can override default copyright rules; if you are not vigilant, you may sign away the privileges that libraries are allowed under copyright law.
Some publishers have begun offering “digital ownership” or “perpetual access” to digital resources. These options usually involve a large payment with smaller annual fees to maintain access to publisher services and updates. An advantage of these arrangements is that you own the digital copies and don’t lose access to them if you cancel the database subscription. But these purchases will be governed by a contract, too; examine it closely so you know exactly what you are buying. Do you get continued access to the database search functions? If you just get thousands of digital articles, it might be difficult to access them without a search mechanism. Buying digital copies can make sense, but you want to be sure you can use ​what you own in case you cancel your subscription or the publisher stops supporting the resource.
A recent article describes a case where a law library purchased digital ownership to a database and then had to cancel the subscription due to budget cuts. The library received the files in the database on two 500GB hard drives. Because owning the files did not include access to the vendor’s search mechanisms, the library had to hire a computer engineering doctoral student to create a basic search interface. The library ultimately had a functional database, but cancelling the database still affected the patrons’ experience accessing the resource.
Now let’s cover some basic questions.
Question: Is information on the World Wide Web subject to copyright protection?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Do the same rules apply to digital content and information in book or magazine format?
Answer: Generally, yes, but there are exceptions, such as sections 108(b) (unpublished works duplicated for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives) and 108(c) (a replacement copy of a damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen published work) which restrict the places where digital copies may be read.
Question: May I send information from the Web to anyone I want, such as members of a listserv?
Answer: Think about the print world. You may not, under either fair use or the library exemption, photocopy a copyrighted journal article and send paper copies to an untold number of people without permission. That you can easily distribute digital articles to lots of people via e-mail does not mean that you can do so without infringing. This is true even when an author posts his or her article on the Web. Rather than download the text, send an e-mail message that includes a link. You achieve the same result, ​but you have not made any copies. Even e-mail messages are copyrightable. There may be an unwritten assumption that someone who sends an e-mail message to a huge list impliedly gives his or her permission to send it to the rest of the world, but this may not always be the case.
Question: John Bit and I are fellow members of list A. John sends a draft article to the list, and invites everyone to share their comments with other members. May I send a reply to the list, along with John’s article?
Answer: Yes. John sent out his article and invited comments. Consent to make copies can be inferred when one knows of a use and encourages it. John’s conduct gives an implied license to list members to make copies of his article for purposes of accessing it and providing comments.
Question: I am a member of list B. My colleague Mary Byte subscribes to both list A and list B. Mary received a copy of John’s article from list A and forwarded it to me. May I share John’s article with other members of list B?
Answer: John’s sharing his article with list A impliedly gave permission to the members of list A to make copies for the purpose of reviewing the paper and offering comments. John’s actions don’t indicate he intended to share copies with list B members, so you cannot rely on implied consent to justify making copies. You’d have to rely on some other exception to make copies. The best way of handling this is to ask John if he wants his article circulated to list B. If he doesn’t, don’t.
​Click and Shrinkwrap Licenses (Section 117)
6.1. Click and Shrinkwrap Licenses
Click and shrinkwrap licenses may
* Prevent libraries and patrons from using materials in ways copyright law would otherwise permit, and
* Specify the forum for any disputes.
Shrinkwrap and click licenses refer to unsigned agreements between a purchaser of digital products or software and the creator or vendor that define the respective rights of the parties. Shrinkwrap refers to the plastic wrap that encases software; upon opening the program the first thing the user sees is the license agreement that sets out the terms of use. A purchaser who opens the shrinkwrap or other packaging, or begins using the software, is presumed to have read the license and assented to its terms.
Click licenses are found on Web-based products. The user cannot access the information or use the program until he or she agrees to the terms by clicking a box. Licenses frequently include terms that prohibit uses otherwise permitted under copyright law or state consumer protection law, such as the right to make fair use of the work. Courts are split on whether shrinkwrap or click licenses are enforceable.
Compare Vault v. Quaid, a 1988 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with Pro-CD v. Zeidenberg, a 1996 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In Vault, the court held unenforceable a license provision that was not disclosed to the purchaser at the time of purchase. By contrast, the Pro-CD court held that shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general. The fact that copyright law permits uses that might be precluded under a license did not convince the court to reach a different conclusion. Likewise, in Bowers v. ​Baystate Technologies, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that copyright law did not override a shrinkwrap provision that prevented reverse engineering of a template used with a computer program. Even if copyright law allowed reverse engineering, the license prevented it. Other cases have had mixed results. Relevant factors included the form of notice, methods by which assent was indicated, and each state’s contract laws.
Despite the differing cases, it is clear that a library can contract away its rights, so read licensing agreements carefully. Also pay attention to how the contract affects those who use the digital products. A license agreement between a library and a vendor may limit a library patron’s right to copy or otherwise use an article in the licensed database, even though the use would be a permissible fair use.
Computer Programs (Section 117)
6.2. Section 117 Computer Programs
Owner may make a copy or adapt the program
* To utilize it
* For archival purposes, or
* To repair or maintain equipment
Section 117 of the Copyright Act permits the owner of a computer program—“a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result”—to make a copy under three circumstances. First, the owner may make a new copy of the program, or an adaptation of the program, if it is an essential step in order to use the program in conjunction with a machine. For example, if the software you purchased cannot run on your equipment or operating system, you may make a copy in order to adapt it to make it work. This ​section also permits the automatic loading of a copy onto a computer’s random access memory (RAM).
A software owner may also make a copy for archival purposes, so long as the archival copy is destroyed if possession ceases to be legitimate. Remember that the archival copy is just that. You may not make an archival copy under section 117 for use on another computer. Furthermore, when possession is no longer legitimate—for example, if you give the original software to someone else—you must destroy the archival copy.
Finally, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act amended section 117 to permit someone who owns or leases a computer to make a temporary copy of a program that was loaded on the machine for the purpose of repairing or maintaining the equipment. The new copy must be destroyed after the maintenance has been completed.
Section 117 was drafted in the days of floppy disks. It is much less important now that software is held on CD’s or sent through the web. So let’s move on to what really engages libraries and information vendors, the matter of licenses. We are going where the wild things are, so let the wild rumpus begin.
Single-User and Site Licenses
The typical single-user license agreement prohibits use of software on more than one piece of equipment at one time. Unless the license so provides, you should not load the software on a network accessible to several different users, even if only one person can access the software at a time. However, installing software on a single computer that is used by several different people is permissible.
Site licenses permit group access to software, to databases, or to other digital products. Because cost is directly related to the number of users, you should determine how many people really need access. Although a public library may serve a population of 50,000 and a law firm library may serve 500 attorneys, this does not mean that the product needs to be accessible to everyone at one time. A public library may do quite well with a site license to a genealogy database that allows a few patrons ​simultaneous access to the database. Similarly, a firm’s license to a labor law database may only need to be accessed by a handful of lawyers at any one time.
Downloading
When you download a piece of information, a copy is being made. Copying the results of a database search onto a hard drive or saving a PDF copy of an article are good examples. Copyright principles, including fair use, apply, so you will want to answer the following questions: Is the work being used for private study, scholarship, or research? Is the use for a commercial or a non-profit educational purpose? Is the use transformative? Is the information factual or creative? How much is being downloaded? Will the copying significantly affect the market for the original work? And, of course, what does the license say?
We sense you are not satisfied, so here are some guidelines. The more transformative your use, the more likely it is to be fair. Downloading a work and then copying and distributing it without any changes would be frowned upon. Even worse would be selling the copies for profit. On the other hand, if you download some works and then recompile them, deleting material that is not relevant to the end user, reorganizing the material for easier use, and adding your own original comments, then that use would be more favored.
Downloading works that are freely available online or available through licensed databases and keeping copies until your need for them has ended is better than keeping copies permanently. If the work comes with a license that prohibits even temporary retention of copies, you may be stuck, so don’t agree to such terms.
Database Protection (Redux)
We know that some information—facts and works of the U.S. government, for example—are not protected by copyright. However, databases of federal governmental works and other works in the public domain, such as facts, might receive protection as compilations.
​As noted in Chapter One, in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” doctrine and held that a white pages telephone directory could not be copyrighted because it lacked originality. But a database may be eligible for protection if the compiler exercised sufficient skill and judgment in selecting, organizing, and arranging the data.
Although many database providers thought that Feist would bring the apocalypse to their businesses, subsequent to that decision many lower courts have held that databases consisting of factual information (a Yellow Pages directory, a database of used vehicles values, or a price guide for yachts, for example) may be copyrightable compilations. Remember that compilation copyright extends only to the material contributed by the author, not to the underlying materials that are compiled. For instance, data collected by tax assessors about real estate is not eligible for copyright protection, but its creative arrangement in a database is. The data may be extracted from the database and used freely. However, using the copyrighted arrangement and compilation of the information may be infringing. Fair use, of course, is a possible defense.
The Bottom Line: You may use unprotected factual information from a printed work (like an almanac) or an online database that is copyrighted as a compilation. But if you copy or download a significant amount of that information in its compiled form—more than that which is allowed under fair use—you may violate the copyright that protects how the information is selected, arranged, and presented. For online products, remember to check your license.
​The First Sale Doctrine (Reprise) (Section 109)
Section 109 of the Copyright Act—the First Sale Doctrine—permits libraries to lend their materials. We discussed this earlier in chapter two, but let’s visit section 109 again in the context of digital information.
Lending Software
6.3. Lending Software and Sound Recordings
But
* Nonprofit library or educational institution may lend
** To another educational institution
** To faculty, staff, or students
* For-profit entity may lend internally
* Include copyright notice for software
Remember that the copyright owner has the right to copy, to publicly distribute, and to publicly display the copyrighted work. The Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 amended section 109 to prohibit the owner of a copy of computer software from lending that copy for a purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage. The prohibition does not, however, bar a non-profit library or a non-profit educational institution from lending software to another educational institution, or to faculty, staff or students, so long as the software has the requisite notice prescribed by the Register of Copyrights. Affix the notice on the computer disk or its container, whether it is a stand-alone product or if the software comes with a book.
​Public Display (Section 109(c))
Notwithstanding the copyright owner’s right to display the work publicly, if you own a lawfully-make copy you may publicly display it, either directly or by projection. If you display by projection, you can only show one image at a time, and it must only be visible to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.
Question: The library purchased a sculpture from a local artist. Do we need written permission to display the sculpture in our lobby?
Answer: You can certainly display the sculpture without further permission. Section 109(c) says you do not need permission to display copies that you own and are legitimately made.
Question: What about showing a picture of the sculpture on a screen on another floor?
Answer: Taking a photograph of the sculpture and displaying that image is a different question. The simplest solution is to ask the artist to grant the library permission to make and display images of the sculpture for promotional purposes. Without such permission, though, making and displaying an image that does not substantively replace the sculpture would probably be fair use. The more the image could replace the sculpture, the less likely using it would be fair use. Posting a small thumbnail image, or even a somewhat larger image, on a monitor is very likely to be fair use, while hanging a high-resolution, life-size poster is less likely to be fair use. Displaying the picture on a public billboard or in a different building is less likely a fair use. But fair use is still possible for some public uses, such as posting a small, low-resolution image.
* A group of people may view an image from the product at the same computer terminal or from a projection device.
* The image may be transmitted simultaneously to computers throughout the library so lots of people may see it at the same time.
* You may transmit the image throughout the library to multiple pieces of equipment, but no more than one computer can show the image at any one time.
Answer: “A” and “C.” A group of people may view the image on one screen because section 109(c) permits displaying one image of a lawfully obtained work. As long as one image is made, any number of people can view it. For instance, you could display the image on a large projection screen for a group. “C” is an option because only one image is being made at a time, even though the image is being displayed in different places within the library. Crucial for “C” is that only one image can be displayed at any time and that all display equipment is within the library.
“B” isn’t permissible under section 109(c) because projecting the image on more than one screen, even if all the screens are in the same building or room, counts as displaying more than one image at a time. If you want multiple, simultaneous access, get those terms in a license. Remember that fair use could apply to some uses beyond what is covered by section 109(c). For example, displaying the image in a way that does not substitute for the work (say, as a thumbnail image) could be a fair use.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
6.4. Digital Millennium Copyright Act
* Digital copies for preservation
* Online service provider protections
* Anti-circumvention provisions
The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) addresses several matters that affect librarians and educators. In addition to the amendments to sections 108(b) and (c) that permit some digital copying, the DMCA ​provides some protection for service providers who have infringing materials on their Web sites, or temporarily store or link to such materials. The DMCA also includes two important prohibitions. One proscribes the circumvention of devices that limit access to digital works, and the other bans interference with copyright management information.
Under the DMCA, a service provider is “an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the materials sent or received.” Most libraries have parent institutions that supply Internet connectivity. Whether you work for an independent library or one with a parent institution, it is important to understand the DMCA and help your institution stay within the DMCA’s safe harbor. The DMCA uses “service provider”, and that is what we use here, but “internet service provider” and “online service provider” are synonyms.
In a nutshell, there are four situations where the DMCA protects service providers: (1) transitory digital communications, (2) caching, (3) materials stored on a network at the direction of a user (including hosting Web sites), and (4) information location tools (linking). Very generally, under certain circumstances a service provider that infringes because its Web site routes, stores, or links to infringing material will be liable neither for monetary damages nor subject to injunctive relief.
Transitory Digital Network Communications (Section 512(a))
Section 512(a) of the DMCA addresses a service provider that “merely acts as a data conduit, transmitting digital information from one point on a network to another at someone else’s request” when the information transmitted happens to be infringing. This protects the service provider for simply routing or providing connections that enable the information to be ​transmitted, and also for any intermediate and transient copies that are made automatically during regular network operations.
The key is passivity, and several things must (or must not) take place: (1) the service provider does not initiate the transmission; (2) the transmission, routing, connecting, or copying is automatic (that is, the service provider did not select the materials transmitted); (3) the service provider does not determine who receives the materials transmitted: (4) intermediate copies are accessible only to anticipated recipients of the transmission; (5) the service provider does not retain the materials transmitted: and (6) the service provider does not modify the materials that are transmitted.
System Caching (Section 512(b))
System caching is an automatic process that stores data from other networks temporarily on the service provider’s system so that data need not be retrieved over and over again from the original source. Caching, which technically involves making a copy, saves bandwidth. Section 512(b) provides some protections for a service provider if (1) the caching process is automatic; (2) the content of the data was not modified; (3) the data is refreshed with more current materials according to industry standards; (4) the service provider does not interfere with “hit” information (which is used for advertising revenue); and (5) the service provider limits or blocks access to the data when the original poster uses access control devices, such as passwords.
Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users (Section 512(c))
6.5. DMCA Service Provider Protections
Generally limits liability for infringing content or links to infringing content if:
* No actual knowledge
* No financial benefit
* Designated Institutional Agent
* Take down
Designated Agent, and Notice and Takedown
The service provider is protected under section 512(c) only if it has filed with the Copyright Office the name and contact information for its designated agent, someone who can receive complaints from copyright owners. Neither Congress nor the Copyright Office specifies what role the designated agent must have in your organization. A university, for example, may appoint its director of information technology, a law firm its managing partner, a public library its chief librarian, and a corporation its general counsel. It’s totally up to you.
Protection under the DMCA is conditional on having a designated agent, so if your library is independent, you must choose one and file their contact information with the Copyright Office. If your parent institution handles DMCA complaints for the library, be sure you know who your institution’s agent is.
The designated agent will receive complaints from copyright owners, such as a poet who discovers her poem on your Web site, or that your Web site links to an infringing copy of her poem. Section 512(c) also spells out the required elements of notification of a claimed infringement, including that the notification must (1) be in writing with a physical or electronic signature; (2) identify the infringing work or materials; (3) include information on how to contact the complainant; and (4) include statements that the complainant has authority to act on behalf of the copyright owner, has ​a good faith belief that the use complained of is not authorized, and that the information in the complaint is accurate.
This begins the “notice and takedown”—takedown, not shakedown—process. Assuming that the copyright owner follows the statutory notification requirements, the service provider must remove or block access to the material, and also notify the subscriber who posted the allegedly infringing materials of the complaint. The subscriber may then file a counter notification. If that happens, the service provider must restore the materials unless the complainant notifies the provider that it has sought a court order to enjoin the alleged infringement.
Information Location Tools (Linking) (Section 512(d))
Finally, the DMCA protects a service provider that provides information location tools. A service provider will not be liable for referring or linking users to a Web site that contains infringing content if the service provider did not have knowledge of the infringing link and, if it had the right and ability to control the activity, it does not receive a financial benefit from doing so. As in 512(c), the service provider must remove the link if it receives notice that it is linking to a site that has infringing content.
Non-Profit Educational Institutions (Section 512(e))
Non-profit educational institutions are included in the DMCA’s definition of “service provider.” But some faculty or graduate students engaged in teaching and research activities are not considered activities of the institution itself, so DMCA protection can apply as it does for the activities of students and patrons. The protection will apply when ​
* the faculty or graduate student’s activity does not involve access to instructional materials for a course taught by that person that are or were required or recommended within the last three years;
* within the last three years the institution did not receive more than two notifications of infringement by the instructor; and
* the institution provides informational materials that accurately describe and promote compliance with federal copyright law.
Anti-Circumvention (Section 1201)
Copyright owners sometimes use technological measures (such as encryption or regional lock codes) to prevent unauthorized access to information and unauthorized copying of information. The DMCA prohibits circumventing or overriding these technological measures in most cases, but it treats access controls (for example, region lock that prevents playing a movie made in China from playing on a device made in the United States) differently from copying controls (such as codes that prevent copying a DVD to a hard drive).
The DMCA prohibits producing or selling devices that break through technological barriers to enable unauthorized access or copying. Even if you acquired one of these devices, in almost all instances it is illegal for you to circumvent or override those technological measures. The only exemptions to this prohibition are granted by the Copyright Office. Here are the most recent set of exemptions, in simplified form:
* You may break through the Content Scrambling System (CSS) on lawfully-purchased DVDs to incorporate small portions of the work for purposes of comment or criticism for educational uses by college professors or media studies students, documentary films, and noncommercial videos.
* You may break through software that prevents your mobile phones from executing other software applications. This is what legitimates jail-breaking your iPhone and installing software not approved by Apple.
* You may break software controls that force your phone to connect to only one network. You may also buy an iPhone from one phone company and then move it to another company’s network. ​
* You may break software controls on computer games to test them for security flaws.
* You may break through software controls when the dongle (a hardware security device needed to operate some programs) malfunctions, is damaged, or becomes obsolete.
* You may break through software controls to enable read-aloud or screen readers for e-books when all authorized copies do not permit these features. This allows print-disabled readers to access e-books they purchase.
If you have a legitimate copy of a copyrighted work and can lawfully access it, you can also break through technological barriers to make copies because, according to the Copyright Office, copying may be a fair use. Encryption and scrambling programs are both access and copy protections because they control whether a device will access, play, and copy the content. If you lawfully obtain a DVD that uses a scrambling system, you can only use a program to descramble and access the DVD if you fall under the higher education exemption mentioned above. However, if you can legally break the access controls under this exemption, you can also break the copy protection for copying that is covered by fair use or another copyright exception.
To summarize rules for complying with the DMCA, imagine Moses carrying tablets down from Mount Millennium. They might say:
* Thou shalt not decrypt an encrypted work;
* Thou shalt not descramble a scrambled work;
* If one needest a password to access a digital work, thou shall not override password access;
* Thou shalt not avoid, bypass, remove, or deactivate a technological protective measure that limits access to a protected work without permission;
* Thou shalt not traffic in devices that have a primary purpose of circumvention; and
* Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s databases.
Congress did toss a tiny bone to the library and educational communities. A non-profit library or educational institution may circumvent technologies that prevent access to a work in order to make a decision whether to acquire it. This provision is largely meaningless, of course, because ​publishers are delighted to give libraries temporary passwords to sample their products.
Copyright Management Information (Section 1202)
Copyright management information includes the copyright notice, the title of the work and other information that identifies it, identifying information about the author, performer, or director of a work, and the terms and conditions of use. The DMCA makes it illegal to knowingly falsify, alter, or remove any copyright management information with the intention of inducing or enabling infringement. Don’t mess with copyright management information. This is only a snapshot of some of the DMCA provisions that may affect libraries. For more information on the DMCA, the U.S. Copyright Office, Association of Research Libraries, and EDUCAUSE are particularly helpful.
* ↑ Sallie Smith, Susanna Leers, & Patricia Roncevich, Database Ownership: Myth or Reality?, 103 Law Lib. J. 233 (2011).
* ↑ Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1116 (D. Nev. 2006). See also John S. Sieman, Comment, Using the Implied License to Inject Common Sense into Digital Copyright, 85 N.C. L. Rey. 885 (2007).
* ↑ 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).
* ↑ 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
* ↑ 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2000).
* ↑ Maurice Sendak, Where the Wild Things Are (1963).
* ↑ 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
* ↑ See, e.g., BellSouth Adver. & Publ’g Corp. v. Donnelly Info. Publ’g, Inc., 999 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1993); Key Publ’ns, Inc. v. Chinatown Today, Publ’g, 945 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1991).
* ↑ CCC Info. Servs., Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Mkt. Reports, Inc., 44 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1994).
* ↑ BUC Int’l Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd., 489 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2007).
* ↑ Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, Inc., 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003).
* ↑ Pub. L. No. 101-650, Title VIII, §§ 802, 803, 104 Stat. 5134 (1990).
* ↑ 37 C.F.R. § 201.24 (2011) (“The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the reproduction, distribution, adaptation, public performance, and public display of copyrighted material.”).
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 109(c) (2006).
* ↑ William F. Patry, 5 Patry on Copyright § 15:10 (2011).
* ↑ Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998).
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(k) (2006).
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(j) (2006) (spells out the limited injunctive relief available to a plaintiff).
* ↑ U.S. Copyright Office, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, at 10 (Dec. 1998), available at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf [hereinafter DMCA Summary].
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(b) (2006).
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1) (2006).
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2) (2006).
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) and (g) (2006). See DMCA Summary, supra note 20, at 12; Casey Lide, What Colleges and Universities Need to Know about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 22 Cause/Effect 1 (1999), available at http://net.educause.edw/ir/library/html/cem/cem99/cem9913.html.
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(d) (2006).
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(e) (2006).
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C) (2006).
* ↑ 75 Fed. Reg. 43,825 (July 27, 2010).
* ↑ DMCA Summary, supra note 20, at 3–4.
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 1201(d) (2006).
* ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 1202 (2006).
* ↑ DMCA Summary, supra note 20.
* ↑ Association of Research Libraries, Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Status and Analysis, available at http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/dmca_band.pdf.
* ↑ EDUCAUSE, Current Issues: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, available at http://www.educause.edu/node/tid/31236?time=1304969776.