In the 1999 case Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Gamemasters, Sony sought a preliminary injunction on Gamemasters’ distribution of accessories for the Sony Playstation game console. Sony alleged that Gamemasters violated anti-circumvention regulations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as well as state and federal unfair competition laws. Gamemasters, a retail store in California, was sued for selling a game enhancing device. The court granted the injunction and essentially eliminated all sales of such devices by Gamemasters.

This external device performed two primary functions when plugged into the Playstation game console. First, the game enhancer allowed users to temporarily modify aspects of the game, similar to the Game Genie, manufactured by Galoob Toys for use on the Nintendo. Nintendo v. Galoob Toys, as decided in 1992, declared that the Game Genie was not in violation of copyright laws as it was not a derivative work of the Nintendo console and the Game Genie was a fair use of the Nintendo game system. Second, and most importantly, this game enhancer permitted players to play Playstation games sold in Japan or Europe which were intended by Sony for exclusive use on Japanese or European consoles. The game discs contain electronic check codes which are checked by the console when inserted. Discs with codes that do not match the region in which the console operated were rejected. The game enhancer overrode this protection.

By invoking the DMCA, Sony stopped the use of potential copyright and trademark violating technologies. However, critics of the DMCA noted that this decision also allowed Sony to continue its controversial business practice. Sony divided its game distribution and operations into separate international regions. By disabling games from one region to be played in another, authentic Sony Playstation games played in one part of the world suddenly became illegal versions after crossing borders. With increasing video game products offering multiplayer and global competition, these restraints pose legitimate threats for the future of fair gaming, especially online games. Such restrictions enabled Sony to protect its anti-competitive business model and possibly promote price discrimination between different areas of the world.

Although Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a part of copyright law, technology companies and content owners use the law to attempt to monopolize the market and control the aftermarkets. This effectively creates a new business model out of exploiting the DMCA that has met little challenge in the courts. Progress is the spirit of copyright law, and this is something that finds itself severly limited under the DMCA. This project provides not only the law itself, but also court cases in which the DMCA is challenged as well as articles that desmonstrate how various companies exploit the DMCA because it is beneficial to them to have control of their products and the aftermarket, as is shown in the article about Apple and RealNetworks. The DMCA has changed what copyright law is used for, and denies the pricnciples that copyright was founded on. It is a new way of doing business that benefits the technology companies instead of public interets.

This article looks at how the DMCA provides a super-monopoly that is a viable method of doing business and bypasses the inconveniences of copyright and patents by protecting things that were once allowed. The article analyzes current court cases and shows how they have yet to rule out the so-called super-monopoly that the DMCA allows. The first section of the article explains the DMCA and what it does. It also explains how companies use the first part of section 1201 (1201 (a)) as a means of monopolizing their market. The first case that the paper examines is Lexmark v. Static Control. Lexmark makes their money through the after market sales of their toner cartridges and replacement parts. However, there are many companies that sell toner cartridges that are Lexmark compatible. Lexmark created a Printer Engine Program to combat this and make their cartridges the only ones that work with their printers. This copyrighted software works with a chip in the toner cartridge and prevents the printer from working with any other cartridge or with an empty cartridge. Static Control is a company that sold chips to companies that refurbished Lexmark Cartridges. These chips allowed the cartridges to be accepted by Lexmark’s software control program. The courts first ruled that Static Control violated the DMCA. The appeal overturned this decision because of failures with Lexmark’s software and the fact that they were not encrypted or necessarily copyrightable. The programs that Lexmark used only protected one type of access, and left other methods open. The second legal example is The Chamberlain Group vs. Skylink. Chamberlain wanted to control the garage door remote control market and sued Skylink over a remote control that opened doors with a digital security feature. The court ruled in favor of Skylink because the unauthorized copying that Chamberlain sued under did not involve copyright infringement, so it was not covered by the DMCA. The next section of the paper outlines how you can effectively create a super-monopoly. The first strategy is to copyright the software for the product and its replacement pieces. A part of this software has to contain a secret code that unlocks the main software. The second tip is to write long and inefficient programs. These programs are more likely to be copyrightable because they have original expression. They are also harder to reverse engineer and cannot be used because they are the most efficient. The third suggestion is to include non-functional code in the program so there is evidence if another company directly copies your program. The fourth way is to encrypt copyright programs. This prevents people from accessing the program itself. Fifth is not making the “key” dependent on the entire program in the parts. Code inputs should be stored elsewhere on the chip. The sixth and seventh methods are avoid licensing that allows continued use of copyright programs and sell the main unit and main program separately. The article concludes that the DMCA allows companies to monopolize their aftermarket.
This article is a good example of how the DMCA can be manipulated in a very effective manner. The DMCA is a tool that creates a new business model of monopolization, and this article is evidence of that. The court cases show how the courts have not ruled on the DMCA itself, they have only applied it to situations. The paper outlines how to avoid loopholes and make your business plan sound under the DMCA in order to create a monopoly. The DMCA has clearly created a new way of doing and controlling business that is contrary to the original intentions of copyright law.

This article argues that the anti-circumvention laws of the DMCA are being used to stifle competition and not in the spirit of copyright law in the traditional sense.   EFF claims that the DMCA puts scientific research, freedom of expression, fair use, competition and innovation and computer intrusion laws into jeopardy.  The next part of the article explains how the DMCA was enacted and what congress intended the laws to be for and protect.  The third section of the paper is evidence for the claim that the DMCA hampers research.  This section looks both and legal matters, speeches and how the DMCA works with the rootkit technology put on CDs.  The section also gives many examples of how research has been threatened and stopped because of the DMCA.  There are also examples of censorship and publications that were limited and pulled from publication because the DMCA, thus showing how it prevents free speech.  The fourth section of the paper gives examples of how the DMCA violates fair use, a fundamental principle of copyright law.  This section gives examples of DVD back-up software that is banned.  It also talks about copy protected CDs, ebooks, time shifting and manipulating fonts.  All of these examples show how actions that are allowed under the fair use doctrine can no longer exist under the DMCA.  The fifth section is about how the DMCA works against innovation and competition.  The DMCA stops progress and competition instead of working for it, as copyright law was designed to do.  This section gives examples of how the DMCA gets exploited by companies in order to control their market and the after markets.  This section gives examples of how the DMCA is used to control cell phone networks, music downloading, photography software compatibility and printer toner cartridges.  The DMCA is also used by videogame companies to disallow compatibility and prevent their games from being played on other platforms.  The sixth section of the paper deals with computer intrusion laws and how they are “displaced” by the DMCA.  This section uses a court case to show that even though this exists, this is the one thing that the courts are beginning to regulate.  The paper concludes that the DMCA takes copyright too far by disallow standard practices that are legal under regular copyright law.  The threat that the DMCA will be stretched farther with time also exists.  
I will use this paper for the examples it gives of how the DMCA functions against the intentions behind copyright law.  I will also use it as a starting point and further research some of the examples it provides.  The paper gives a good, clear analysis of the major issues of the DMCA and shows how it is being used as a means of exploitation rather than as copyright law.  The DMCA violates the principles that copyright was founded on.

    This article is a guide to how DRM controls the market place.  The article shows how music services that consumers pay for give their customers less than they promise because of copy protection and the DMCA.  The guide explains the restrictions of various music services and how the services cover these up through marketing.  The first service is iTunes.  Even though you purchase the music through Apple, iTunes can change the DRM whenever they want, thus they can change and limit what you can do with music that you own.  Apple also limits first sale, backing up, remixing, player compatibility and format conversion.  Even though you own the song, the DMCA allows Apple to control the music that you purchase and restrict your uses of it.  
Microsoft’s “Play for Sure” claims that Windows Media Player’s DRM allows you to choose your music and devices.  However, there are still severe restrictions because of DRM.  There are very few players that are compatible to play with the WMA DRM format.  If you want to use a player that does not support WMA content, you have to repurchase your library of music.  Even though Microsoft markets their DRM as user friendly and non-restrictive, it is more to make DRM a norm than the truth of the matter.
RealNetworks markets their services as compatible with any MP3 playing device.  This in fact is not true, because music purchased through RealNetworks only plays on devices that support their DRM or the WMA format, thus limiting the players that the songs can be played on and restricting use of their music. RealNetworks, like iTunes, limits the number of times you can burn a song as well as the number of backup copies that can be made.  They reserve the right to modify their DRM and what it controls.  RealNetworks also does not allow reselling or remixing songs purchased through them.
Napster 2.0 advertises itself as a service that allows you to have all the music you want in anyway that you want it.  It offers three services and all charge more for uses that were once free.  Napster Unlimited allows you access to all the music you want until you stop paying the monthly fee.  You also have to pay if you want to put it on a device, which can only be one that supports WMA.  It also costs money to burn it.  The DRM restrictions can change, you can only backup a limited amount of times and burning is restricted.
    I will use this article as an example of how companies use DRM to exploit the music market place.  Each service limits the music they sell so that it can only be used with products that they license.  They also limit what a person can do with the music, even things that are traditionally acceptable under copyright law such as making back up copies and the first sale doctrine.  This article shows how the DMCA changes traditional copyright laws and allows companies to exploit their customers.

This article explains the DMCA as well as looks at current challenges to the act as well as relevant court cases. The first section of the article outlines the history of the DMCA and how it came to be. The DMCA added six new sections and two chapters to the 1976 Copyright Act. The anti-circumvention clauses prevent people from copying copyright protected works and from trading methods to circumvent copyright protection. These provisions are more for the content industries than the ISPs. This first section prohibits breaking any kind of encryption or copy-protection the second and third sections prohibit the trafficking of any methods or devices that break or circumvent copy-protection that controls access or targets use of the copyrighted material. The article then goes on to talk about the developments of the anti-circumvention laws. The author states that courts have not gone beyond protecting the content industry’s products beyond their original scope. This prevents durable goods markets from monopolizing their industry. The author gives example of the Lexmark v. Static Control Components (SCC) case. This is a case where Lexmark tried to prevent the sale of third party refurbished toner cartridges that could be used with Lexmark printers. The chips that SCC developed allow the third party cartridges to interact with Lexmark’s copyrighted software. The court ruled against Lexmark and established important DMCA liability precedents. The copyrighted work must first of all qualify as protectable and there has to be a security device that protects copying without permission. The author then moves to the constitutionality of the DMCA, again citing relevant court cases that have challenged the act. The third part of the article then addresses the safe harbor portions of the DMCA, which were put in place for the ISPs. This section begins with a background and description of the safe harbor provisions. The next section of the article provides information about notice requirements and provides court examples. The Hendrickson v. Amazon.com case is used to show the responsibilities of each side in using the safe harbor rules and infringement notices. The next section looks at threshold eligibility and again uses a court case to help define this part of the DMCA. The last two sections of the article look at how safe harbor is not the only refuge that ISPs have when it comes to copyright infringement as well as cease-and-desist letters and how they work with ISPs and the DMCA.
This article is important in defining the anti-circumvention and safe harbor parts of the DMCA. It helps provide an understanding to laws that are very complicated in their wording. It also shows legal challenges to the DMCA. The Lexmark case is an example of a hardware company using software to try and monopolize its segment of the industry. Lexmark would profit greatly if its cartridges were the only ones that could be used with its printers. The court, however, stopped Lexmark by ruling that its program was not covered under the DMCA because it left other avenues to accessing its software open. A company tried to use the DMCA as a way to profit in an aftermarket, using copyright law to profit rather than the reasons the law was created, and was stopped by the courts.  I will use this article not only as background information for my paper as well as an example of how the courts have to regulate companies so they do not exploit the DMCA and copyright in order to monopolize a market.