Source: http://www.llrx.com/2001/12/features-court-decisions-tilt-dmca-balance-away-from-libraries-users/
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 16:38:16
Document Index: 219504268

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 1', '§ 8', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', '§ 109']

By K. Matthew Dames, 17 Dec 2001	K. Matthew Dames is the Resident Librarian at Georgetown University Law Center’s Edward Bennett Williams Law Library in Washington, D.C. Critics of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act1 will spend part of this holiday season figuring out how to use the lumps of coal a pair of federal courts tossed them in response to lawsuits that challenged the constitutionality of the 1998 law.
Clinton-Era Law Implements International Copyright Treaties At issue in these and other cases7 is whether the DMCA’s anticircumvention provisions diminish the first sale doctrine, the fair use privilege and the First Amendment.8 The law, which President Clinton signed on Oct. 28, 1998, implements the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Treaty, and its Performances and Phonograms Treaty. “These treaties will become effective at a time when technological innovations present us with great opportunities for the global distribution of copyrighted works,” Clinton said upon signing the DMCA into law. “These same technologies, however, make it possible to pirate copyrighted works on a global scale with a single keystroke. The WIPO treaties set clear and firm standards – obligating signatory countries to provide ‘adequate legal protection’ and ‘effective legal remedies’ against circumvention of certain technologies that copyright owners use to protect their works, and against violation of the integrity of copyright management information. This Act implements those standards, carefully balancing the interests of both copyright owners and users.”9
The DMCA is divided into five titles; its anticircumvention provisions in Title I and are codified at Section 1201 of the Copyright Act of 1976. In summary, Section 120110 prohibits people from “circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [copyrighted] work.”11 The Section also prohibits people from manufacturing or offering to the public “any technology, product, service, device [or] component” that (a) is designed or pr
oduced primarily to circumvent copyright protections;12 (b) has a limited commercially significant purpose other than to circumvent copyright protections;13 and (c) is marketed in use for circumventing copyright protections.14
Theory and Practice: Is DMCA Anti-Competitive? The goal of the DMCA’s anticircumvention clauses is to protect copyright owners’ ability to electronically protect their content. Despite the plain language of the statute, however, the courts’ and owners’ early interpretation of Section 1201 suggest the law has a much broader sweep, one that tilts the copyright balance away from traditionally defined free speech and fair use principles, and toward an environment in which copyright owners control their work exclusively and preemptively.
Owners Leveraging DMCA in Multiple Arenas While neither of Felten nor 2600 addressed fair use and first sale doctrine issues, recent developments make it clear that copyright owners are seeking to leverage Section 1201 in ways that limit even authorized users’ ability to exercise their intellectual property and commercial rights and privileges. Digital rights management (DRM) technologies are one tool the entertainment industry is using to narrow the scope of traditional rights. Universal Music Group – a sister company of Universal City Studios, the plaintiff in the 2600 case – announced in late November that the company was going to place copy-protection technology on its “More Fast & Furious” compact disc, a follow-up to a major a popular movie soundtrack. The copy-protection scheme will keep any purchaser from saving the disc’s contents to their computer hard drive.23 Any attempt to bypass this protection – even an attempt from an authorized purchaser – could run afoul of the DMCA.
With the courts failing to find that Section 1201 violates free speech and the Copyright Office taking a wait and see attitude on first sale and other issues, DMCA critics fear they are running out of time to readjust the copyright balance. “I expect that once this status quo becomes entrenched, it will be incredibly hard for a court to draw the line and say that Section 1201 goes too far,” said Jonathan Franklin, Assistant Librarian for Library Services at the University of Washington’s Gallagher Law Library, and AALL’s Copyright Committee chairman. Franklin said he remained hopeful that remaining court cases and the Copyright Office’s stated willingness to revisit the issues raised in the report will stem a tide that clearly is gaining momentum in favor of copyright holders. “In the meantime, a lot of issues will be chilled.” Footnotes 1. Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28, 1998). <back to text> 2. A watermark is a form of electronic access protection for compact discs. <back to text> 3. Janelle Brown, “Crack SDMI? No Thanks!” Salon.com, 14 Sept. 2000, http://www.salon.com/tech/log/2000/09/14/hack_sdmi/index.html (3 Dec. 2001). See also Edward W. Felten, et al. “Statement Regarding the SDMI Challenge,” No date, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/sdmi/announcement.html (2 Dec. 2001). <back to text> 4. Cindy Cohn, Electronic Frontier Foundation Legal Director, interview by K. Matthew Dames, 29 Nov. 2001. <back to text> 5. “The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8. <back to text> 6. Reno v. ACLU, 520 U.S. 1113, 117 S.Ct. 1241, 137 L. Ed. 2d 324 (1997). <back to text> 7. “These cases include United States v. Elcom Ltd., No. CR-01-20138 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 28, 2001), the first criminal prosecution under the DMCA. Defendants Dmitri Sklyarov, a Russian computer programmer, and his employer, Moscow-based ElcomSoft Co. Ltd., were indicted Aug. 28 on allegations that they violated the criminal provisions of the DMCA when they developed the Advanced eBook Processor, a technology that bypasses the digital rights management system in Adobe’s eBook Reader. In a stunning reversal, the Department of Justice agreed on Dec. 13 to dismiss the criminal charges against Sklyarov if he “appear[s] willingly and responds truthfully” at depositions, hearings and the scheduled April 15 trial against his employer.” 8. The DMCA also has provisions that limit the liability of online service providers and grants copyright protection for boat hull designs. <back to text> 9.President’s Statement on Signing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 2 Pub. Papers 1902 (Oct. 28, 1998). <back to text> 10. 17 U.S.C. § 1201 (1994). <back to text> 11. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A) (1994). <back to text> 12. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)(A) (1994). <back to text> 13. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)(B) (1994). <back to text> 14. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)(C) (1994). <back to text> 15. David Nimmer, A Riff on Fair Use in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 673, 686 (2000). <back to text> 16. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b) (1994) <back to text> 17. Nimmer at 688. <back to text> 18. 17 U.S.C. § 1201 (d)(1) (1994). <back to text> 19. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(4) (1994). <back to text> 20. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(1) (1994). <back to text> 21. Rick Karr, “Scientists from Princeton Crack Musical Codes and Now the Music Industry is Up In Arms,” National Public Radio, 27 April 2001, Lexis-Nexis (29 Nov. 2001). <back to text> 22. Robert Lemos, “Online Limits to the First Amendment,” News.com, 30 Nov. 2001, http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8026297.html (1 Dec. 2001). <back to text> 23. Reuters, “Universal to Protect U.S. Album Release,” News.com, 28 Nov. 2001, http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8009369.html (30 Nov. 2001). <back to text> 24. John Borland, “Customers Put Kibosh on Anti-Copy CD,” News.com, 19 Nov. 2001, http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7922576.html (30 Nov. 2001). <back to text> 25. Declan McCullagh, “New Copyright Bill Heading to DC,” Wired News, 7 Sept. 7 2001, http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46655,00.html (2 Dec. 2001). <back to text> 26. Declan McCullagh, “Hollywood Loves Hollings’ Bill,” Wired News, 11 Sept. 2001 http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46671,00.html (3 Dec. 2001). <back to text> 27. Brad King, “Disney’s Peer-to-Peer Pressure,” Wired News, 24 Oct. 2001, http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,47806,00.html (2 Dec. 2001). <back to text> 28. The first sale doctrine says that once a person lawfully purchases a copyrighted work, he may sell “or otherwise dispose of” that work, notwithstanding the copyright owner’s right to distribute copies of his protected work. 17 U.S.C. § 109 (1994). <back to text> Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)	Posted in: Copyright, Features