Kerbein, Glenn. "Pirate Party of the United States Official Website". Pirate Party of the United States. 22 July 2009 .

The Pirate Party of the United States's website is the most comprehensive point of reference for the US Pirate Party. The party's platform, activities and members are all found here. The site itself has a simple banner across the top with white stripes on a blue background and the US Pirate Party's emblem (a spin-off of the Swedish Party's with a star added to the sail and two ride stripes encircling it). The tabs at top navigate to more information including contacts and how to donate. The home page acts as a kind of blog to which members can post the most recent news regarding the party's activities. To the right is a list of links to Pirate Parties around the world. The US Pirate Party's platform focuses on nine different issues: The abolishment of the DMCA as a first amendment issue, the Rejection of the Concept of Online Piracy, the Right to Free Press, Patent Reform, the Right to Assemble, Copyright Reform, Government Transparency, Right to Privacy, Abolition of Digital Rights Management and Reform of Trademark. The platform definitely parallels the Swedish Party's, but there is a a very clear sense that the Party is not as strongly grounded and cohesive. The "pirate" analogy is woven into the plaform making it sound amateurish, sounding similar to an ordinary personal blog.

Many of the issues addressed could be combined as First Amendment issues, but they are each dileanated as separate problems. Compared to the Swedish Pirate Party, the US's party seems to expand to other issues (inclusion of right to assemble and the rather abstract notion that "piracy" as a term be transformed into something less negative (this might be a reaction to Lessig's point that the party will only promote piracy as a unlawful with their party name, though this seems to be a non-issue in Europe). The official site of the Pirate Party of the United States is useful in measuring the progress of the party in the United States.

This paper discusses different perverse consequences of the DMCA.  Lee says that when Congress was trying to prepare for new digital technology, it made a mistake.  When the DMCA was passed, the courts were cut out of its role.  The universal band on technology and devices that “circumvent” digital rights management technologies (DRM) leave no role for the courts.  This lack of balance has created a system for consumers with limited options. The copyright owners now completely control things like Internet streaming and playback devices.  There is even evidence of certain firms utilizing the DMCA as a means of stopping research and reverse engineering.  

The DMCA also eliminates competition.  The copyright owners and companies that issue their content have the power the lock out competitors.  Also, digital rights management technologies tend to be ineffective and do little to stop pirates.  Instead DRM technologies make it harder for people making fair use out of the copyrighted work.

The paper says that there were in fact legal happenings in play before the DMCA enactment.  These legal processes were leading to a balanced body of law that would involve the courts.  Consumer choice, fair use, and competition would not be decreased as they are with the DMCA.  The budding body of law would give rights back to the people instead of depending on the technology design.  Really, without the DMCA we would be okay.  

Lee says that people should not have to worry about coming out with a new technology and getting sued because it is illegal according to the DMCA.  That undermines the goals of copyright.  This is a key point of my paper.  This article is extremely helpful in arguing my case.  The effects of the DMCA decrease consumer rights and options.  It also stifles creativity.  No one wants to come up with new technology wondering if they’re going to get sued for it.

From a legal perspective, the DRM could significantly influence the distribution and control of information from country to country. This article in particular provides a clear overview of what the DRM system actually is and the policies it entails. Additionally, the role of copyright protection is also included in this overview of the DRM, establishing the bases for the regulatory approaches undertaken by the US and the EU. In reference to background information, DRM systems use a variety of technological protection measures to prevent digital content from being distributed without the right holders' consent. To provide secure distribution for digital content, DRM systems not only have to protect content against copying, but they must also offer a means to identify and manage content. The DRM thus strives to provide tamper-resistant hardware and software. This method of protection disables hackers and network insiders from being able to crack multiple levels of security, strengthening the protection of individual property rights'. In reference to the U.S., the U.S. congress enacted complex anticircumvention regulations as part of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. The DMCA arranges these provisions on a biplanar scheme, which includes distinguishing between technological protection measures and the protection rights of the copyright owner.

This example seems to showcase the progressive changes in protection measures taken against copyright infringement. Though dense in its offerings, this article provides a decent anthology of acts and agreements enacted in order to protect individual property rights. This anthology further demonstrates the morphing of protective technology against copyright infringement. In the context of the ACTA, the DRM seems to be desired block against piracy and the illicit transfer of information.

United States Copyright Office.  The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998: U.S. Copyright Office Summary.  United States Copyright Office.  28 November 2006. .

This is a summary of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, created by the Copyright Office. It renders the more technical language and organization of the law itself into a much more straightforward form. It definitely says something about the polarizing nature of the DMCA that the only article which I have come across without a very strong, clear viewpoint of the subject is a pure summary; as could be expected, the Copyright Office is attempting to maintain an objective viewpoint, to whatever degree possible.

The DMCA was created as a way in which copyright law could be adapted to the questions raised by digital technologies. The most controversial section of the DMCA added a Chapter 12 to Title 17 of the United States Code; this section contains the much-talked-about "anticircumvention provisions", criminalizing any attempt to break through digital copy protection (CSS encryption on DVDs, etc.). Another section of law removes any liability for online copyright violations from online service providers as long as they adhere to certain broad guidelines. There is also the possibility of application for exemptions from the DMCA for non-infringing uses which require circumvention of encryption.

My project requires a detailed knowledge of the provisions of the DMCA itself; I not only plan to quote directly from the DMCA in my project, but also to use clips appropriated from DVDs to create the project. This summary of the law is one of the most simple and concise descriptions of its provisions, without much color in the form of personal opinions.

 

United States Copyright Office.  The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998: U.S. Copyright Office Summary.  United States Copyright Office.  28 November 2006. .

This is a summary of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, created by the Copyright Office. It renders the more technical language and organization of the law itself into a much more straightforward form. It definitely says something about the polarizing nature of the DMCA that the only article which I have come across without a very strong, clear viewpoint of the subject is a pure summary; as could be expected, the Copyright Office is attempting to maintain an objective viewpoint, to whatever degree possible.

The DMCA was created as a way in which copyright law could be adapted to the questions raised by digital technologies. The most controversial section of the DMCA added a Chapter 12 to Title 17 of the United States Code; this section contains the much-talked-about "anticircumvention provisions", criminalizing any attempt to break through digital copy protection (CSS encryption on DVDs, etc.). Another section of law removes any liability for online copyright violations from online service providers as long as they adhere to certain broad guidelines. There is also the possibility of application for exemptions from the DMCA for non-infringing uses which require circumvention of encryption.

My project requires a detailed knowledge of the provisions of the DMCA itself; I not only plan to quote directly from the DMCA in my project, but also to use clips appropriated from DVDs to create the project. This summary of the law is one of the most simple and concise descriptions of its provisions, without much color in the form of personal opinions.

 

This article is important to my research as it identifies the adverse effects the DMCA has had on technology industries, consumers, and scientific and academic research. My thesis aims to discuss how the Motion Picture Association labels piracy as the biggest threat to the motion picture industry and how that thinking can be seen as short-sighted and incorrect. Lack of innovation caused by technology protection measures under the DMCA is the biggest threat. This article really spells out what the DMCA has unintentionally done and will help me make my point in regards to illustrating how anti-piracy or anticircumvention measures are only fairly effective, and don't address the real problems that the MPA faces.

Author Timothy B. Lee opens the article with a quote from Robert Frost: "good fences make good neighbors" (2). It's pretty safe to say that fences are effective in establishing and maintaining private property rights. In this scenario, digital rights management, the technical measures placed on digital media such as CD's and DVD's, are the fences of intellectual property and copyright. DRM provides content owners a strict level of control not previously available under copyright law - control that hinders the creativity and free thinking that tech firms employ in order to revolutionize and expand their products. The article discusses how plenty of new technologies have allowed customers to purchase and view media in brand new ways, ways that the film studios don't always immediately condone. In the past, Hollywood has been very hesitant towards new technologies, from cable, to the VCR, to DVD's and now the internet.

In discussing the fight against piracy, the author identifies three significant actions that Hollywood and the recording industry take (or have taken) to deter and reduce the act: lawsuits, PR campaigns, and digital rights managment technology. These actions may keep someone who is not technologically informed from committing piracy, but for the most part these solutions have done little to help in the fight.

The DMCA's anticircumvention provisions have created many problems, including the unhealthy corporate misuse of the DMCA in trying to destroy competition.  Not only are competitive tech firms brushed aside under this act, but academic research has been stymied (again, by corporate bullies who don't want product flaws and misrepresentations to go public).  Under the DMCA, too much power is put in the wrong hands, hands that want only to protect their 'property' and possible financial revenues.

 

How Hollywood has been trying to disrupt disruptive innovation

online portal that tried to build an online jukebox for movies - investigate them further

I am working on creating a short video piece using clips from a number of different DVDs. By using short segments (one word or less), I plan to have the characters in the films I borrow from speak out portions of the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In this way, I will be using appropriated (and, most likely, non-DMCA-compliant) video footage to comment on the questions raised by the conflict of the DMCA and appropriation art themselves.

Newman, Jon O. EFF: Appellate Decision in Universal v. Reimerdes. Electronic Frontier Foundation. 22 November 2006. <http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/?f=20011128_ny_appeal_decision.html>.

This famous court case involved the publication of the "DeCSS" decryption program on the website 2600.com.  "DeCSS" was designed to break through the CSS encryption on DVDs.  The action of posting this program challenged the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which bans any measure of breaking through digital encryption, or any publication or distribution of any such measure. Eight film studios, including Universal, brought a suit against the operators of 2600.com, seeking to have "DeCSS" and any links to other sites containing it removed from 2600.com for violations of the DMCA.

The appeal challenged the constitutionality of the DMCA, claiming that it restricts free speech, and called for a narrow construction of its terms.  They also claimed that "is rooted in and required by both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment," and that the DMCA restricts this.  However, the appeals court found no reasoning for these claims, and upheld an earlier injunction by a lower court requiring the removal of the "DeCSS" program and any links to it.

This case is extremely important because it establishes that arguments regarding fair use and free speech are almost no match for the terms of the DMCA.  Were it not for the DMCA, I think it would definitely be easy to argue for my video project as a fair use; however, cases like this clearly state that this is no defense.  The court states that there is no constitutional requirement for a fair use standard, and that such claims cannot supersede violations of anticircumvention laws.

In Blizzard vs. BNETD, Blizzard used the DMCA to prevent open source projects from interoperating with its software. Blizzard software comes with the ability to play multiplayer games online through their Battle.net service. In order to combat piracy, Blizzard requires users of Battle.net to have valid CD keys and prevented people using the same CD Key from connecting simultaneously. A group of users enjoyed the game but disliked Battle.net due to people cheating in the games. They sought to create their own alternative, resulting in www.bnetd.org. This site gave users with Blizzard software to connect and play multiplayer games through their server. This open source project was posted on the web and other people used and modified to code for similar purposes.

In interpreting this case, the court claimed that BNETD was in violation of several provisions and was not protected by the reverse engineering for interoperability exemption. BNETD did not check to see if the user had a valid CD Key before allowing them to connect to the server. The court interpreted this as circumvention, as BNETD allowed users to experience online multiplayer games with illegal copies of Blizzard software.

This case determines that plug-ins could be held responsible for their functionality when applied to pirated software. Had the plug-in been designed to bypass CD Key checks and then connect to Battle.net, the decision would make more sense. However, BNETD wrote the program to connect to their own servers, and just didn't happen to check to for a valid software copy. Holding plug-in writers accountable for license checking is a dangerous precedent. Open source developers won't want to write a plug-in if they can be sued for the misuse of their product in combination with pirated software. The right to author extensions to software and market them has been around for years before the DMCA and now has been compromised by the misuse of its provisions.

Brad Templeton summarizes the impacts of the DMCA focusing primarily on Dmitry Skylarov's case from the point of view of an eBook publisher. Dmitry Sklyarov is a Russian graduate student who made some discoveries about inadequacies of Adobe Digital Rights Management for eBooks and published a paper on it. The paper caught the eye of two groups, one a Russian software company ElcomSoft, and the other, the DEF CON electronic security conference. ElcomSoft paid Dmitry to demonstrate these weaknesses by creating a program which ElcomSoft then marketed around the world (including the United States). DEF CON honored Dmitry's work by inviting him to speak at their conference. While he was speaking at the conference, Adobe filed a complaint with the federal government about the software ElcomSoft and politely pointed out where one of the developers might be found. Mr. Skylarov was then incarcerated for weeks, and kept in the country for months before charges were dropped. Mr. Skylarov broke no law in the country in which he wrote the software but because the company whom he sold it to engaged in potentially questionable business in the United States, he was detained. Computer scientists and researchers who do work relating to Digital Rights Management and cryptography will be less likely to come to American under fear of similar treatment and prosecution, significantly hurting the research community.

Templeton's role as an eBook publisher is important as he has experience with eBooks and is financially hurt by eBook piracy, yet he still supports an open format. He's even apart of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is strongly against DRM.  He discusses the failure of DRM and the benefits of open formats. Open formats are at a greater risk than closed but also see greater sales because of their increased utility. He also points out that as long as the DMCA prevents people from cracking poorly designed locks, there is less of an incentive to design better, more secure locks, stifling developments in security research. Templeton concludes that scapegoating weak DRM on a foreign visiting scholar only hurts the interests of the consumer, the research community, and the copyright holders whom the lock is designed to protect.

Electronic Frontier Foundation. EFF: Unintended Consequences: Seven Years Under the DMCA. Electronic Frontier Foundation. 28 November 2006. .

This article tracks the continued influence of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, specifically the "anti-circumvention" provisions of Section 1201, throughout its first seven years in effect. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that the DMCA has not been used as a method of blocking piracy and devices used to perpetrate it, as Congress intended it; instead, the DMCA has become a tool for big businesses to eliminate potential competition and a blockage to fair use, creativity and technological innovations. Because the DMCA "chills free expression and scientific research... jeopardizes fair use... impedes competition and innovation... [and] interferes with computer intrusion laws", the EFF argues that circumvention must be permissible. The article also contains an exhaustive list of court cases in which the DMCA has been a key factor.

Full knowledge of the restrictions of the DMCA and a general sense of the ways in which legislation has surrounded it is absolutely vital for the creation of my project; the essential goal of my project is to make a challenge to the DMCA and the restrictions that it has placed on artists, specifically in terms of digital video.

The Wireless Alliance and Robert Pinkerton request a DMCA exemption for modifying mobile phone firmware. Their case specifically pertains to counteract the practice of cell phone locking. It is often that the only way to get a phone service carrier by purchasing a bundle with a special phone that is tied to that particular service. When switching to a new service, consumers forced into buying new (often unnecessary phones). The Wireless Alliance and Mr. Pinkerton argue that modifying cell phone software does not create unauthorized copies of the original work. It is possible that in the eyes of the law, the modified firmware might be viewed as a derivative work. However, copyright law permits users to modify purchased software (a category under which firmware falls). The Copyright office recently granted the Wireless Alliance and Robert Pinkerton the exemption.

The exemption for modifying firmware to legally join cell phone networks and carry out legal activity is one of the few cases where the decision was not in favor of the large business. One of Mr. Pinkerton's main complaints was that as he traveled often internationally due to business, it was difficult for him to find a carrier that met all his needs. He found a carrier he liked internationally and a carrier he liked locally, and wanted to modify his phone so he could connect to a different carrier while in a foreign country. The obvious extension is that DVDs with region codes would prevent someone traveling from playing a DVD in a foreign country's regioned player, and an exemption should be provided for DVDs legally purchased in a foreign country. However, the real heart of the case is not Mr. Pinkerton's travel, but needing two different services depending on the context of his work. Licensed applications for Windows and Mac OSX are common and are often embedded into the operating system directly. However, the Open Source nature of Linux distributions makes players for DRM protected media scarce and built-in functionality often impossible. If someone's business practices makes Linux a necessity, they should be permitted to modify their operating system to properly play protected media. The courts and the copyright office previously found that not being able to play content is a mere inconvenience to a consumer. This case demonstrates that the government has more sympathy for business practices hindered by the DMCA. Approaching future exemptions and cases from this angle might be the best way to counter the DMCA.

    In Chapter 5 of Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig lays out anecdotes and archetypes of all manner of piracy.  The duplication of copyrighted CDs and DVDs in foreign markets is touched upon, but one of the main salient points is his defense of Peer-to-Peer file sharing networks, the groundbreaking networks and servers which made Section 512 absolutely necessary and the rulings on which still protect YouTube from harm.

    One of Lessig’s major talking points is his attribution of the four archetypal uses of P2P networking: stealing music, sampling music before buying, access to abandonware or other copyrighted content that is no longer available by traditional means, and those who search for content that has no copyright or a Creative Commons license and is meant to be shared.

    This is a highly utopian view of both P2P networking and the internet, but at the very least interesting to consider.  Lessig goes on to discuss drops in CD sales and later Jack Valenti’s ridiculous claims about VCRs as “tapeworms,” just waiting to drive the industry down.  If anything, the VCR and file-sharing networks both paved the way for the kind of content generation and also server networks that my final project will use and draw attention to.

The Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005 proposes greater care taken by the music industry in letting consumers know the types of digital rights management included on compact discs that they buy.  It mentions increasing consumer dissatisfaction with current DRM practices, as well as general confusion by the mass public about the majority of new innovations in DRM technology, many of which are implemented without consumer’s knowledge.

    It finds most discs to be inadequately labeled with copy-protection warnings, and assures that it is deemed deceptive and unlawful for compact discs to be sold with inaccurate advertising of their digital copyright restrictions.  In this case, certain discs with copy protection must be clearly labeled that they are not, in fact, regular audio compact discs and that they may not be able to be played in some devices capable of playing compact discs.

    This law can only serve as support for the anti-DRM movement, which would find it even easier to warn people about DRM if items such as this were clearly labeled.  This is legislation concerning a number of digital restrictions that already exist in other formats, but are being brought to light more because of a lack of implementation of these technologies at their outset.

    This section of US Copyright law outlines violations of copyright-managed systems, such as bypassing digital rights management and producing a copy of a video in another format.  This makes it illegal for consumers to bypass encryption that restricts content, for instance, to one device for purposes of moving the same content to another.  The law also includes information on the Librarian of Congress’ selection of a class of bypassable works, exemption for educational institutions, and what construes technological violation of copyright encryption.

    Section 1201 also states that no outstanding violations of this section will hinder a defendant’s fair use argument.

    This section of US Copyright law is particularly salient as in order to create my project, I will be bypassing both DVD encryption codes and any DRM embedded into the music used for the piece.

    These are both clear violations of Section 1201.  However, were my project ever to come under copyright scrutiny, I would hope to find protection under this violation being carried out within an academic institution, for purposes of parody, and creating a transformative video which falls neatly under fair use exemption.

    This is also important because for the vast majority of videos on YouTube that contain copyrighted content owned by major corporations, that content has been captured from a source which implemented digital rights management, and thus the uploaders have infringed upon Section 1201.

Alan Cox states in the Felten case many of the speculated impacts of the DMCA and its enforcement. Cox is a Red Hat Linux (an open source operating system) developer residing in the United Kingdom. His statement includes a resignation letter to Usenix (a group that encourages foreign researchers to speak in the United States). In this letter, he tells all foreign software developers to avoid visiting and speaking at the United States until the “DMCA mess is resolved.”

This comes as a direct result of the Dmitry Sklyarov case. He fears that foreign researchers can be jailed for research in security and cryptology they performed in their own countries if it is viewed to be a DMCA violation in the United States. The DMCA prevents security experts from pointing out bad protection algorithms and only increases the profitability of the “businesses of the incompetent.” Without the ability of experts to point out and discuss bad algorithms, copyrighted material protected by these algorithms are exposed to hacking.

He further notes that the DMCA will not prevent people from discussing ways to break algorithms for illegal uses. His experience is that the “bad guys share their knowledge and act without regards to laws.” It's only the people aiming to increase the strength of computer security that will be silenced. The DMCA only helps pirates win in the end. Cox also claims that what the DMCA would prevent him from saying regarding inspecting computer security systems in the United States would be considered negligent in the United Kingdom.

From Cox's statement, the DMCA hurts the United States software development community in two main ways. It prevents international researchers from speaking, for fear of prosecution of their research or activities in other countries. It also means that the block of the DMCA will hinder US researchers from discussing decryption methods and our own security will be weakened when compared to the advances made by other countries who are able to have these discussions.

The courts' decision in “MPAA vs. 2600” prevented journals from writing articles about Digital Right Management that divulge methodology. After “DVD Jon's” deCSS program (which breaks the encryption on DVDs) began circulation, 2600 had an article in print and online which detailed the algorithm and decryption codes used in breaking the CSS encryption. The MPAA filed suit under the trafficking provision of the DMCA, claiming that 2600 was distributing a program which would contribute to breaking DVD encryption. 2600 claimed that this inhibits free speech. As a technical journal which specializes in computer encryption and decryption algorithms , it needed to be able to provide the details to its readers. The magazine complied with the injunction to remove the algorithm from their site but began to participate in what they referred to as “electronic civil disobedience” by encouraging others to post the algorithm and then provided links to these sites.

The court determined that both posting and linking were not protected by the first amendment. They determined that while there is a part of code which is speech, there is also a non-speech component which can be banned under the anti-circumvention clause. Exemptions are provided for reverse engineering and cryptography. However, these exemptions only extend to the cryptographers and the reverse engineers directly. Publishing their results is not considered an exemption. The consequence of this decision is that to prevent lawsuits, technical journals will likely avoid discussion of Digital Rights Management. For example, discovery of important security flaws would not be published because it might hint as to how to break the encryption. Understanding the flaws of the current generation however is essential to enhancing security for in the future. Development of future security methods have continued to be crippled by the DMCA, due to the limited scope of the exemptions.

321 Studios is a company that produces a software program that can be used to back up DVDs. 321 claims that their product does not violate the DMCA because it has substantial non-infringing uses. The beginning of the document gives technical background on what a DVD is and how CSS encryption works. It also gives information on the companies involved in the lawsuit. 321 Studios filed the suit to prove that their software does not violate copyright law. Next, the document presents the legal standards for a motion of summary judgment, a motion to dismiss and rule 56(f). The first part of the discussion looks at recent, related cases (Elcom and Corley) involving the DMCA. The next section examines the wording of the DMCA and how one is liable under the act. Next is the Studios’ argument as to how CSS is a valid form of encryption and is protected by the DMCA. The court agrees with the Studios despite 321’s point that it is not an effective lock because decryption keys are widely available on the Internet. The following section outlines the arguments as to why 321’s software violates the DMCA. 321 argues that they circumvent the encryption within the law of the act because their software only works on original DVDs and the people who purchase these have the right to break the CSS. The court rejects this argument, citing a previous case (Corley). The next parts of the argument are about 1201 (b)(1). 321 claims that CSS only prevents access to, not copying of, DVDs, so they are not in violation of the DMCA. The court says that 321 misunderstands the statute and they are in violation because they sell a product that breaks encryption. 321 also argues that they are not in violation because the main use of their software has nothing to do with the DMCA or breaking CSS because it can be used to copy DVDs in the public domain. 321 also claims they do not circumvent CSS because they use a licensed key to unlock the encryption. The court rules that the part of the program that breaks the CSS is in violation of the DMCA. The court also finds that 321 is in violation of the DMCA in the way it markets its software and because it is made primarily to circumvent encryption. The court also says that the DMCA does not violate 321’s freedom of speech and first amendment rights or exceed Congress’ power. The court refers to the cases it cited earlier in the brief in this part of the discussion. The court orders an injunction against 321’s software. The last sections deal with the counterclaims and smaller issues of the lawsuit.
This case is another example of companies, in this case motion picture studios, using the DMCA to control a market. The case looks at the DMCA and is one that argues about its constitutionality. The court uses precedents like Corley in its ruling in favor of the DMCA, saying the law is constitutional and it is within the powers of Congress. This case is one of the earlier cases regarding DMCA and control, and since it deals directly with the DMCA, it is an example that goes against my thesis. The court, here, clearly decides a case using the DMCA and does not find issues with it as an act. It allows the studios to maintain the control over DVDs that they want. The DMCA is used to help and monopoly.

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.

United States Copyright Office.  The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998: U.S. Copyright Office Summary.  United States Copyright Office.  28 November 2006. <http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf>.

This is a summary of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, created by the Copyright Office. It renders the more technical language and organization of the law itself into a much more straightforward form. It definitely says something about the polarizing nature of the DMCA that the only article which I have come across without a very strong, clear viewpoint of the subject is a pure summary; as could be expected, the Copyright Office is attempting to maintain an objective viewpoint, to whatever degree possible.

The DMCA was created as a way in which copyright law could be adapted to the questions raised by digital technologies. The most controversial section of the DMCA added a Chapter 12 to Title 17 of the United States Code; this section contains the much-talked-about "anticircumvention provisions", criminalizing any attempt to break through digital copy protection (CSS encryption on DVDs, etc.). Another section of law removes any liability for online copyright violations from online service providers as long as they adhere to certain broad guidelines. There is also the possibility of application for exemptions from the DMCA for non-infringing uses which require circumvention of encryption.

My project requires a detailed knowledge of the provisions of the DMCA itself; I not only plan to quote directly from the DMCA in my project, but also to use clips appropriated from DVDs to create the project. This summary of the law is one of the most simple and concise descriptions of its provisions, without much color in the form of personal opinions.

John Gilmore looks at the effect the lack of open standards has hurt the digital author not associated with major studios. He discusses several examples, such as Apple's iDVD and Sony's MiniDisc format. He is legally unable to copy his brother's wedding using the MiniDisc format, even though he holds the copyright because it assumes that he's trying to pirate content. With iDVD, he comments on Apple's marketing, which states that “the major consumer applications for recordable DVD will be home movie editing and storage and digital photo storage” and not potential fair-uses like time-shifting digital content. He further points out Apple is not offering authors the ability to encrypt their own copyrighted films and materials. If copy protection is so essential to protecting the copyright holders intellectual property, why isn't readily available to all copyright holders?

Where copy protection goes wrong is that it takes away rights from the new digital author and monopolizes the protections of them for only a select few. Competing open DRM formats have begun to emerge to fill this gap. However, a young filmmaker needs to ensure that his video is as compatible as possible. He now has the choice between protecting his work but preventing it from being played on DVD players that don't support the new open formats (most of them), or exposing his work to piracy.

Gilmore's arguments shows a strong legitimate need for an open source developers to develop applications that might be in violation of the DMCA. An open source application might expose certain algorithms and codes, and even development of a closed source application would likely require breaking encryption at some point in the product's development.  The courts and the copyright office generally use the phrase “mere inconvenience” and wave their hands at demonstrated harm to consumers not being able to access their digital content.  However, requiring young authors to get picked up by a major licensed company in order to receive protection can hardly be so easily ignored.  The best solution to lowering the barrier of entry for copyright protection is through an open source DRM standard that either is adopted by major players or at least cocurrently supported with their proprietary technologies.

The consequences of the the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have hindered developments in computing by putting unnecessary blocks on academic researchers, journalists, and especially open source software developers. However, the limits on developing and trafficking code that circumvents copy protection has harmed copyright holders on the whole more than it has helped. In order to ensure strong and fair protection for copyright holders, an open standard Digital Rights Management solution should be developed and adopted.

Electronic Frontier Foundation. EFF: Digital Video Restrictions. Electronic Frontier Foundation. 22 November 2006. <http://www.eff.org/IP/digitalvideo/>.

 

As could be expected from an article written by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this article was firmly opposed to DRM and DMCA restrictions. It gives a general overview of the ways in which digital video technologies are encrytped, and accuses Hollywood of using "scrambling, down-rezzing, and a host of other restrictions" for purposes that have nothing to do with their originally stated intent, the prevention of piracy. Most of the article is occupied by a listing of the ways in which DRM is used on a different digital video technologies, from DVDs to cable TV; each of these descriptions also lists "Why It's Bad" and the ways in which the EFF is planning to fight the restrictions. At the bottom of the web page, there is even a listing of ways in which Hollywood is attempting to expand restrictions on video technologies, from to filling in the "analog hole" to blocking the creation of unrestricted video outputs; each of these newer techniques also has a listing of the ways that the EFF is fighting against it.

This sort of information will definitely be very important to my project, as the project itself relys on avoiding DRM to use clips from DVDs. Although it is, at the moment, rather easy (albeit illegal) for anyone with certain technical knowledge to bypass the CSS encryption on a DVD, expanding control over these technologies (as Hollywood seeks to do) could definitely make it nearly impossible in the future. This could have many consequences for the creation of appropriation art pieces; I think it would be interesting to judge how a project such as the one that I am working could be created if Hollywood does get its way.

Sun's DreaM White Paper outlines the current flaws with current DRM standards and their proposed solution, a marriage of the open source philosophy and Digital Rights Management.  They also outline the potential for the future of DRM outside of media content protection.  Sun's paper explains the flaws of the proprietary based systems currently in place.  By tying up content with proprietary DRM protection, the same content must be purchased whenever a different device is chosen.  A standardized format would ensure cross-platform capability, much in the same way that the CSS allows for flexibility across different licensed DVD players.

Current proprietary systems attempt “security through obscurity.”  The algorithms are often weak and prone to cracking, and simply hopes that no one will figure out the keys.  Opening the format has the benefits of criticism.  Everyone will be allowed to debate the merits and the strengths of the systems, as well as offer suggested improvements, ensuring that the open DRM will be the strongest.

It also suggests that an open standard can expand the market for DRM.  While the market was generated by media content providers, Sun envisions that the needs of businesses and health care will far outweigh the media companies.  Securely protecting business documents and health records is a need that DRM will logically be extended too.

The modularity of the architecture allows for adaptability with future technologies and compatability across multiple formats.  While this system has its skeptics in groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it has received some backhanded complements from scholars like Lawrence Lessig, stating that if you have to DRM, you want Sun's version.

Sun's DReaM architecture is a strong example of how opinion source development can be used to help copyright holders and consumers by encouraging technological development.

This article examines the failures of the DMCA triennial rulemaking at protecting consumers from exploitation.  The evaluation of exemptions to the DMCA every three years is the acts “fail safe” measure to prevent consumers’ rights that copyright law gives them.  However, the article argues that this fails and congress needs to rethink the DMCA.  The exemptions to the DMCA can only be on reasons why someone can circumvent the technology, not on methods of circumvention.  These exemptions are also extremely limited in their scope, thus the general public will rarely fall under the exemptions.  It is also extremely hard for the average consumer to lobby for an exemption to the DMCA.  It is a long process that involves extensive legal work and heavy burdens outlined by the Copyright Office.  The article continues to outline the extensive process of participating in the 2006 exemption process.  This serves to demonstrate that this is not an easy task for a general member of the public to undertake.  One generally needs extensive legal and technical expertise. The Copyright Office is also very strict about their requirements in regards to evidence, further complicating the exemption process and alienating the average consumer.  The matter gets worse because of the Copyright Office’s refusal to exempt anything if unprotected formats still exist.  The Copyright Office also does not care about the effects of DRM on legal activities.  They regard things as “mere” inconveniences.  Consumer activities are also not important to the Copyright Office.  The Copyright Office also assumes that the copyright holders would withhold technology from the free market if DRM did not exist.  All of this demonstrates how the Copyright Office places consumers at the bottom of the food chain.  The next section of the article looks at the effects of the DMCA on fair use.  The article argues that fair use is there not only for the consumers, but also as a way for the courts to regulate copyright law in terms of new technology.  The DMCA blocks the court from looking at fair use and prevents people from acting in ways that they legally could under the 1976 Copyright Act.  In an age of new technology, it was once the responsibility of the courts to assess fair uses of new technology and media, but now this is ruled by the DMCA.  The Copyright office is essentially making decisions that Congress gave the courts the power to decide.   The article accuses the Copyright Office of being backward looking as opposed to forward looking, as copyright intended.  The last section of the article gives suggestions of what should be done in order to remedy these problems with the DMCA.
    This article is an example of how the DMCA actively denies consumers rights afforded to them by copyright.  The DMCA does not consider the consumer like copyright law does.  It looks past them as “mere inconveniences” and favors larger companies and content holders.  This shows how the DMCA works more for larger interest and denies the founding principles of progress that are embedded in copyright law.  The DMCA has changed the face and nature of copyright and has the potential to go further.   

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 case is the appeal of the suit that The Chamberlain Group, INC. brought against Skylink Technologies, INC over garage door remote controls. Chamberlain claims that Skylink Technologies violated the DMCA because they manufactured a remote that can open garaged doors made by Chamberlain that use a “rolling-code” technology. Chamberlain filed suit against Skylink for both copyright and patent infringement, stating that the Skylink device is a “circumvention device” that goes around a code and thus violates the Circumvention of Copyright Protected System section of the DMCA. Chamberlain argues that the DMCA states: “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” The rolling code feature in the Chamberlain garage door openers is a computer program that changes the code that allows a person to open the garage door. The Skylink device does not use this code; rather it circumvents it and allows the door to be opened. This rolling code is copyrighted and Chamberlain asserts that the Skylink garage door opener circumvents this code, and therefore violates the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA. Skylink’s model 39 garage door opener simulates the rolling code used in Chamberlain’s models. However, the court did not agree with Chamberlain and ruled in favor of Skylink. The court decided that Chamberlain could not prove that Skylink developed the model 39 in order to circumvent the rolling code technology and that the model has little commercial value outside of this purpose. The model 39 can work with other garage door units, not only Chamberlains garage doors with rolling code security. The court concludes that the DMCA does not provide new property rights. The court claims that Chamberlain did not show how access provided by the model 39 transmitter constitutes infringement.
This case deals with aftermarkets and monopolies. Universal remote controls for garage doors are often purchased as replacements or backups to the devices included with the garage door on initial purchase. The aftermarket for these devices then becomes a lucrative market for those who provide replacement garage door openers. Skylink makes universal remotes that work with many different brands and models of garage doors. Chamberlain, a major garage door manufacturer sells replacement remotes for its products. However, Skylink cuts into Chamberlain’s aftermarket profits with its universal remotes. The DMCA protects circumvention of any copyrighted work, such as the rolling code in Chamberlain’s claim. However, this case is more than just a copyright infringement case, because it has larger significance in the marketplace. If Chamberlain had been able to win their case and make the model 39 illegal because of DMCA infringement, it would then give them more control of the aftermarket by taking away the competition of universal remotes. This case is an example of how companies are turning to copyright and the DMCA in order to give themselves control of a market. Copyright is being used to help give companies a monopoly in the area of the market that they want to control. I will use this case as an example of a company trying to exploit the DMCA in order to control a market.  It shows how copyright law is exploited by a manufacturer and then put into place by the courts.  The major point is that the courts do not find anything wrong in the DMCA, just a lack support by the plaintiff.  This shows that the DMCA is still open for exploitation, and this trend will continue.

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.

This article argues that the DMCA instead of serving public interest and content holders. The author claims the DMCA exploits consumers and their legal purchases and he offers alternatives to the act. The author questions if the DMCA will really help create a “global digital on-line marketplace for copyrighted works” or if it just a slow response by Congress to the digital age. He also asks if the new marketplace will be beneficial to the consumer or to the companies who try to take advantage of the DMCA. The author looks at archival use and the first sale doctrines. He argues that the DMCA renders these provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 moot. One cannot make archival copies of a DVD because to break the encryption violates the DMCA. The second part of the paper analyzes the 2001 report done by the Copyright Office on the DMCA. Most people interviewed for the report found that the DMCA limits the concept of the first sale doctrine that has been a part of copyright since 1909. The problems come with encryption and the regional coding of DVDs. The argument is that the DVD encryption that will only allow DVDs to play on licensed players limits the first sale doctrine and was a reason that people would not buy DVDs. This is thus, a way in which consumers are exploited and forced to buy licensed DVD players. The author argues that the commercial rights are restricted not by market forces that are natural, rather by the manufacturers. The report issued by the Copyright Office calls the arguments against the DMCA “without merit.” The DMCA disallows any secondary markets. The paper then turns to archival copying and critiques how the DMCA prevents this legal right under federal law. The next section of the article is case studies that further examine the claims the author makes against the DMCA. The first one is about the first sale doctrine. The example is when Linux users cracked the CSS encoding on DVDs so they could play on a Linux platform, which was followed by a lawsuit led by Universal. This case set the precedent that non-infringing uses for breaking encryption was not a defense against the DMCA. The next case is about video game archiving. Here, one example is given of a suit where the copier for archival purposes lost and one where archiving won. The difference was the proof of other non-infringing commercial uses of the copying mechanism. The third example is another court case that violated the DMCA in creating a technology to circumvent copy protection. The third example in this section deals with criminal charges for breaking encoding on an Internet book. The last case study deals with taping TV shows. This section questions the future of TV with the possibility of copy-protecting HDTV broadcasts. These examples show that copyright is no longer for the good of the people, and rather helps create monopolies under the DMCA. The article also claims that the case studies show the fallacies in the Copyright Office’s report and that things like the first sale doctrine and archival copying are in jeopardy because of the DMCA. The last section of the paper proposes the author’s possible alternatives to the act.
This article demonstrates how the DMCA creates a new business model through copyright. Copyright does not function as it once did; rather, the new provisions of the DMCA make copyright law an avenue to monopoly. This article proves that the nature of copyright has changed and the things that are no longer allowed under the DMCA give a virtual monopoly to the content owners and manufacturers. This is the beginning of companies turning to copyright to corner or break into a new market.  I will use this paper as evidence for how the nature of copyright has changed and it is being used as a means to monopolize a market rather for the good of the people, as it was intended. 

This is a news item that discusses a rumor that had been going around the Internet around fall of 2005. It was regarding a possible DRM (Digital Rights Management) measure for which Sony had acquired a patent. The belief immediately became that this technology would have been incorporated into the upcoming Sony Playstation 3 video game console.

Sony, because of its extensive activity in the courtrooms has garnered somewhat of a reputation for being DRM fanatics. However, when this rumor began to spread, it created an intense wave of negative backlash to Sony and perhaps to the DRM argument itself. The rumor in question was that the Playstation 3 console would have a technology that would leave a type of electronic signature on each new game disc that was placed in the machine. From that point on, the game disc would be playable on that machine and only that machine. The implications of that would have been enormous. People would not be able to loan games to their friends. Rental outlets would not be able to carry Playstation 3 games. If one were in a situation where the console needed to be replaced, that person’s entire library of games would be unplayable. And it would be the complete elimination of the used game market.

Fortunately for consumers, and Sony itself, “rumor” is exactly what it was. Sony recently made it very public that the rumor was not true. Perhaps it was a competitor who started this since interest in the Playstation 3 seemed to drop for a time due to the backlash. However, the patent for the supposed technology itself does indeed exist. It would not exist if there were not a desire by some to incorporate it. It is no secret that Game Makers have been attempting to exercise control of not only the intellectual property aspect of their software, but also its physical format. If the other video game consoles also adopted these measures, you would more than likely see alternatives such as acquisition of the games as downloads through their respective online features. Perhaps such a measure would have been tempting to Game Makers who saw the benefits of phasing out physical copies of their games as a way to cut production costs and maintain tighter control over its distribution. Cases involving the reverse-engineered production of Emulators were ruled as a fair use because the physical extraction of the object code stimulated activity for the public good. To be aware of how easily their work can be infringed (in their eyes anyhow), there is no denying that this is the ideal direction in which the industry would like to lead. It would be their proverbial check against the blows that have been dealt to them in unsuccessful litigation.

This is a journal article, which is a comprehensive look at the Video Game Emulation debate. Its layout is filled with loads of historical facts and analyzes the nuances of the debate in several chapters according to each aspect. In spite of the heavy loaded nature and its plethora of facts and technical data, it does all of this to arrive at a conclusion regarding the suggestions of the authors towards finding an amicable way to solve the legal disputes surrounding copyright infringement.

Its argument is not established early on in the article, but it lays the groundwork for it by setting the debate itself into context. It begins by explaining exactly why there is a need in the first place for the emulators and how the emergence of these have only been magnified by the rise of the Internet and peer-to-peer networking. Then it devotes some chapters to examining the methodology and technical data that brought the emulators about. The economic ramifications are also discussed, at which point the direction moves towards the points of views of both sides of the debate. Several cases are cited examining the potential legality or illegality of the practice. Finally, it arrives at its conclusion, which gives the authors’ strategy for issues.

The argument given is quite adamantly against an RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) type of attempt at simply eliminating the emulation community through endless litigation and bullying tactics. It also makes the case that Game Makers should embrace emulators by recognizing the consumer need and actually meeting that need themselves instead of persecuting the individuals from the outside who have taken the initiative to do it for them. Moreover, the claim is made that customer loyalty would be recaptured. The support of backwards compatibility among gaming consoles is another major suggestion placating consumer ennui and possibly extending the longevity of the product itself. A plethora of statistics is also given to solidify its points.

So what does all of this have to do with Copyright Law, specifically related Video Games? Much of it does, and much of it is technical data and statistics that is, perhaps inconsequential to the legal debate itself. Ultimately, the article serves as a well-researched cornucopia of information about the subject. The overarching theme of this is how legality is either upheld or circumvented in the industry. Piracy and copyright law go hand in hand. The arguments made by the authors are conventional ones, views more than likely anyone outside of a Game Developer’s office would hold. However, its methodology is very precise. It cites information in a very unbiased way and allows the reader to make up his/her own minds. This results in a very different experience for individual readers, yet at the same time brings the debate into the frame of mind that it wants. While probably more fact and data-oriented than the casual reader may care to stand, it accomplishes what it sets out to do in a very efficient way.

Reverse engineering is a common practice among those tech-savvy enough who wish to extract the source code from software or hardware. Even under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), such a practice is considered a fair use as long as the individual can demonstrate that they have legitimate interest in it such as being a game developer who wants to use it to create some kind of transformative work. However, this particular case, a 2006 appeal, brings to front the exception that negates this defense.

Davidson & Association (better known as Blizzard) are a software company who have developed many popular PC Video Games (Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft, World of Warcraft.) Blizzard provides means for game players to play against one another through a specialized server whom authorized purchasers of their games are provided. This access is carefully safeguarded through a process involving an End User License Agreement (EULA) and a Terms of Use Agreement (TOU). These agreements are prompted to users before installation and applicable to this case, they strictly prohibit reverse engineering of any kind with their software.

This brings us to the defendants, Internet Gateway. In spite of these agreements, they reverse-engineered Blizzard software to create a type of emulator called the Bnetd Project, which was a namesake nod to “Battle.net,” the name of Blizzard’s server. The Bnetd software allowed users to run the online features of official Blizzard software on servers that they created themselves, in essence, bypassing Battle.net. The fair use defense of Bnetd failed even on the merits of its own arguments. What perhaps was its main defense was that Bnetd still required the official Blizzard software to operate. It may have been an argument on the possible lack of effects it would have on the market, but at the same time, it allowed potential pirated copies to enjoy benefits that would have otherwise remained exclusive to paying customers. The onus was on them to demonstrate how their software could provide legitimate non-infringing uses.

Indeed the law agrees that simply providing the means to commit infringement does not constitute infringement itself. However, no other use could be justified seeing as Bnetd existed only for the single purpose of infringing on the Blizzard licensing agreements. The standards for finding a fair use simply did not apply in this instance. The significance of this case is its demonstration of the power of the EULA and TOU. The court did uphold them as valid enforceable contracts and even went so far as to point out that Blizzard had placed the agreements on the outside packaging of the software, which also guaranteed a full refund within 30 days if the purchaser did not wish to comply.

In relation to the overall scope of Video Game Copyright Issues, you begin to see with this case where the old loopholes loose their luster when put to applicable standards which force infringing parties to reveal the underlying motive behind what they do. It may not necessarily be nefarious, but the ambiguity of copyright law was designed to create an atmosphere of innovation and creativity. If you are being honest with yourself and find that your motives are not quite so altruistic, then the concession may need to be on your part.