Talk:Digital Millennium Copyright Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Senate Vote Date correct?

The sidebar page lists the date of the Senate vote as being in September 17 1998, but the introduction of the article and the link to the Senate legislative history page says it was May 14, 1998.... What gives?

Washington Post Votes Database: S.2037 as amended; Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 says Date/time: May 14, 1998, 5:51 p.m. 71.162.141.213 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] streaming of radio stations over the Internet is also impaired by the DMCA

streaming of radio stations over the Internet is also impaired by the DMCA. For example: No playing an artist twice in a row. No pre-announce of songs. No Program Director of a radio station. especially in a major market, is going to alter his programming to fit such restrictions.

[edit] This article isn't NPOV

This article isn't NPOV. It delivers things in a persuasive style, and only presents one side of the story. First step, balance the anti-DMCA exrefs with some pro-DMCA exrefs. Wikipedia is NOT about propaganda.

Vacuum 18:03, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
The routine uses aren't usually noteworthy - it's generally agreed that enforcing copyrights is good. It's the interesting uses and cases which merit individual mention, not the mundane and obvious ones. It's pretty unlikely that Congress intended to stop people from teaching robotic dogs new tricks, so it's noteworthy when the DMCA is used to achieve that result. The article inevitably will, and should, cover the cases where the law is applied in unexpected ways and discussions of cases where copyright holders have tried to go beyond what the law provides for and had their arguments rejected. Still, if you'd like to document some mundane cases where everyone thinks that a use of the DMCA is obviously right, feel free. I've written a couple of takedown notices and responded to some infringement claims. They don't merit mentioning here because they aren't notable and don't illustrate anything intersting. I support the DMCA, so don't take this as a comment from someone who opposes it. Jamesday 01:11, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"it's generally agreed that enforcing copyrights is good". While your statment is correct, I would still have to disagree. Your statment ignores the first camp (below).
There are three camps:
  1. There is a vocal minority of Americans which would take issue with this statment.

  2. In the middle, the majority of Americans have little or no knowlege of copyright and simply adapt their views on copyright based on what they are taught by the corporate media: copyright is good. These Americans, the overwhelming majority, feel violations of copyright are theft because the media told them it is theft.

  3. On the other side, there is a larger minority of people (larger than the minority who are against copyright) who are more familiar with copyright law than the average American and want copyright because it protects the monopoly on their intellectual property, or feel that violations of copyright is bad because it is stealing, like the majority of Americans.
  1. What about those who understand copyright and agree that it is good policy? Not because it protects their own material, but because it allows economic activity in fixed expression--a multi-billion dollar industry?
This is a broad simplification, like Jamesday statment: "it's generally agreed that enforcing copyrights is good" but I think it is correct.
Copyright Term Extension Act "cover(s) the cases where the law is applied in unexpected ways and discussions of cases where copyright holders have tried to go beyond what the law provides for and had their arguments rejected" it should be merged into this article. Travb 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] violation of anti-trust require someone purchase second product?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a violation of anti-trust to require someone to purchase a second product once they've bought another. Would the Lexmark case fall into this catagory? --Guest

Correct. See Tying (commerce). Specifically it runs afoul of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case of International Salt Co. v. United States is especially interesting. Frotz661 02:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] missing material

The last time I checked this article, it contained a list of court cases and even some decisions illuminating the actual effects (for good or ill, depending on viewpoint) of this law. All of this material seems to have been delected. Was this vandalism or ...? The Talk page doesn't much illuminate, and before I go trolling through the page history attempting to figure it out, I thought I'd post a question. That material was valuable and I think it should have been retained if accurate (I never did the legal research to check!). Can't see why it should have been deleted.

  • Are you referring to the examples on the DMCA 1201 page? - Redjar 00:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
And those are now at WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, at least in part - some useful detail was removed in the copy which was done, though additional useful material was also added. I changed the section titles back to their original full form instead of the short forms because in each case the short forms mentioned the least significant part of the portions pointed to. The first didn't mention bringing a vast array or works into US copyright protection while the second didn't mention the primary purpose, which was to protect OSPs. The WIPO portion is no longer at DMCA 1201 because section 1201 was only the least significant portion of that act, not all of it. Jamesday 01:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] European Union

On March 10, 2004 the European Union passed a "DMCA on steroids" which is very similar to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

"DMCA on steroids" is unencyclopedic (I'll change that). Was that a directive, a regulation? What is its exact reference? This sounds very fuzzy. David.Monniaux 14:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be this, it appears, but I don't see a reference. Another article. I don't see a specific name that we can pin to it, though, or a link to the text of the resolution. The article on the EU Copyright Directive might also be of interest. —Simetrical (talk) 03:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To do

This article fails to mention the White Paper (the report of President Clinton's Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights), titled Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure. I think the White Paper is important enough to have its own article, too. It was written by a prominent entertainment industry lobbyist who had been appointed chair of this committee and a number of Federal bureaucrats -- other constituencies were excluded. The White Paper amounted to a recording and motion picture industry wish list, and this industry got most of what they wanted in the DMCA. So there's an important history that's left out of the article.Bryan 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me add, too, that I think there needs to be a section that explains why the DMCA is so controversial. I do not mean that the article should take sides! The DMCA is controversial -- that is a fact about which there is little controversy. Such a section would help explain why reform has been proposed. Bryan 17:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
"Scientology is one of the first organizations to make use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In June of 1999, Scientology used the controversial law to force AT&T Worldnet to reveal the identity of a person who had been posting anonymously to alt.religion.scientology with the pseudonym of "Safe". The organization also used the same law to force the Google search engine to erase its entries on the popular anti-Scientology Web site Operation Clambake in March 2002, though the entry was reinstated after Google received a large number of complaints from Internet users." Scientology_vs._the_Internet
Maybe the article should mention this is some way. --165.155.128.134 17:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
All the contoversy is over at Copyright Term Extension Act. This article should be merged to reflect the controversy.Travb 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs some major restructuring and fleshing out. The section listing the various Titles is fine, but it is followed by random sections that jump back and forth between anti-circumvention issues and takedown issues. These are totally separate matters and ought to be organized accordingly. Put all the stuff about exemptions and controversy with regard to anti-circumvention law under the rubric of Title I, and put the example of a takedown notice (NOT a takedown "provision") under Title II. We could use a more fleshed out explanation of the whole notice-counternotice procedure, as well as a discussion of the penalties provided for misuse. Cmnewman 06:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merging with: Copyright Term Extension Act

Please see Talk:Copyright Term Extension Act Travb 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "POV accusation"

User:Brighterorange wrote:

"spam or not, the movie is for sale, not actually available yet, and obviously POV. I think it was added as self-promotion"

Two important questions to you User:Brighterorange:

  • If the movie is not available yet, how do you know it is POV if you have never seen it?
  • What is your evidence it is self-promotion? Or is this speculation only?

Why not simply write: "The movie appears not to conform to my own POV, so therefore I don't want it on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wikipage." This is much more genuine than stating the movie is POV when you have never seen it, and accusing the person who added this link of self-promotion with no evidence.

A cursory glance of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wikipage shows no controversy at all about the bill. This ignores the controversial history of the bill. There were two sides to this bill, one supported it, and one did not support it. By its very nature, there were two POV with this bill.

I think you are confusing POV and controversy. Wikipedians are supposed to write and submit verifable information in a non-POV, encyclopedic manner, avoiding weasel words, etc. This does not mean that Wikipedians are barred from adding links or verifable opinions about a controvery. This movie link is controversial and explains one side of two or more sides of the controversy over the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This is one point of view, but it is explaining one side of the controversy. Again, Wikipedians are supposed to write and submit verifable information in a non-POV, encyclopedic manner, avoiding weasel words, etc. adding controversial links which explain one point of view of two sides of a controversy does not violate wikipedia POV policy.

If you look at any controversial wikisite, a good wikisite has two sides presented in both the text and in the links provided. This is not POV by its nature, this is explaining two sides of a controversial matter.

I see on the first histrory page alone that four people have added back this link: myself, 71.214.106.153 three times,[1] [2] [3] user:H2g2bob [4], 24.152.152.151, [5] and the user who added it orginally. I know consensus is important to wikipedia. This shows that three people support the view that it is NPOV. In almost all cases, you have deleted this link, repeatedly, with no explanation on the talk page.

A cursory look at any controversial site shows two sides to the argument. Look at the external links on Wal-mart, Business Plot, or Fox news, three that immediatly come to mind, and one of hundreds of examples on wikipedia.Travb 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure, I'm happy to discuss this on the talk page. To answer your questions:
  • If the movie is not available yet, how do you know it is POV if you have never seen it?
Well, I watched the trailer, and it is pretty obvious given the people involved. What you say after you ask this question seems to confirm it. Being POV certainly doesn't necessarily make it inappropriate for Wikipedia, but it is a point against it.
  • What is your evidence it is self-promotion? Or is this speculation only?
The link was added by anonymous IP addresses whose edit histories consist solely (or at least mainly) of adding this same link to related articles. [6] The movie is also a commercial product. Both are hallmarks of linkspam.
The DMCA is definitely controversial and there's no problem with having descriptions of the two sides of the debate. Please create such sections if you believe they are lacking.
Aside from being self-promotion and (probably) POV, the link is pretty useless given that you can't watch or even order the movie yet. So I feel pretty strongly that the link doesn't belong, for several reasons.
You have your facts about the history of the link wrong; other than yourself I have only seen it being added by anonymous contributors. Several other editors, including those with substantial and diverse edit histories, have also removed it. The history speaks for itself. I'd say there is strong consensus among established editors that the link should not be present. In truth, I find the accusation that I am trying to push my own POV somewhat offensive (and also way off base because I totally oppose the DMCA and indeed have recieved lawsuit threats under it), but I suppose I can't blame you based on my edit summaries calling the addition spam. But this is as clear a case of linkspam as I have ever seen, and I have seen many. Comments welcome. — brighterorange (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete it. You make an excellent case. I was wrong. You were right.
I won't loss any sleep over it. I have never watched the trailer. i think you are right, this firm does a lot of spam, I actually apologized to the person who deleted it yesterday,[7] after reverting some of their edits, it is obvious looking over his deletions that there is a spammer adveritising this same site.[8] I had a tiny bit of doubt when I wrote this message, and you just confirmed it completly.
I trust your judgement.
I apologize for jumping to conclusions and thinking you are a despised "self-appointed volunteer copyright policeman" as I usually call them here, or a "copyright nazi" which I call them elsewhere when Wikipedia:civility is not an issue. Sorry I am wrong.Travb 06:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks trav! No problem. Just remember that it is a great practice of one's commitment to NPOV to remove POV even when he agrees with it. Happy editing. — brighterorange (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full text of the DMCA

Not sure if anyone wants to link to the full text in the article anywhere. For now, I'm just going to link it in External Links. If you are going to link, I suggest you note that it's a PDF. The size is 321k, so that shouldn't be a problem, even for us on 49.2 kbps connections. PDF here. --SheeEttin 14:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, seems it's already there. Didn't see it. --SheeEttin 14:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examplar of DMCA

It should be useful to provide more examplars of DMCA that an author has to fill in and send to the provider or any concerned company. I added an simple examplar that I used in my job in the frame of Project LUXORION -Thierry.

This is confused terminology. This is an example of a DMCA takedown notice. Perhaps some industries or communities use the term "a DMCA" to refer to a DMCA takedown notice, but this terminology should be cleaned up and, probably, the example should be moved to another article about DMCA takedown notices or notice/takedown procedures more generally. Schoen 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote of House Representatives?

Maybe my USA civics is a little hazy, but doesn't the House as well as the Senate have to vote by majority to pass legislation before it's brought before the President to be signed into law? What was the voting record for Representatives in the House on the DMCA bill? 71.162.141.213 02:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the House and Senate are dominated by a few very powerful people who are nearly impossible to get rid of. For instance, I'm in California which has two of the most odious senators: Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. When these two came up in turn for reelection, they lost by large margins in most of the counties. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego are the bullies that run California and give it its laughinstock reputation. Most of the votes for these two come from those places and so they win the elections. Frotz661 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International response to the DMCA?

Hullo, we are about to adopt a DMCA in Australia.

  • As with many nations around the world it comes as a compulsory prerequisite for a trade negotiation with the USA.
  • It is presented to Australians as a not negotiable with only small exemptions being open for negotiation.
  • I feel it is time that people around the world worked together to table an alternative copyright act to the international treaty table.
  • It feels like a good project for campaigns.wiki because as bloggers and wiki folk we understand the benefits of an open peer to peer community.

All the best. lucychili 22:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

wtf? so put it on campaigns - and anyway it's more negotiable than you seem to think - america gets more from an fta than we do Danlibbo 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] exemptions every three years?

If exemptions are made every three years, shouldn't there have been exemptions in 2000 and 2003? The 2003 exemptions are described [9]. I, however, can't find a link discussing the 2000 exemptions. Since the DMCA was passed in 1998, they should exist, shouldn't they? TerraFrost 05:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there were rulemakings in 2000 and 2003. The exemptions from the rulemaking only LAST for 3 years, though, so 2000 and 2003 have expired. 2006 included 6 exemptions, 3 of which were slightly modified carryovers from earlier rulemakings, and 3 of which were new. Some of the 2003 and 2000 exemptions were NOT carried over. At any rate, 2006 is the only current set of rulemakings. 2000 and 2003 should be listed only for historical curiosity, and should be clearly noted as not current law. Personally, I would argue to not include them, since it might confuse people, but I've clarified the entry to explain that 2000 and 2003 aren't valid. A "history of the DMCA anticircumvention exemptions" might be an interesting article, since there's interesting backstory in why the Copyright Office rejects some exemptions, claim that others aren't needed, and so on, but I think including the expired exemptions in this article would merely confuse people and be unnecessary to the article. --LQ 13:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
People who only read half the article are liable to get confused, anyway. Such people could skip to the Criticisms section of Wikipedia and perhaps conclude, based on reading that alone, that no one likes Wikipedia or uses it.
In any event, I can't find a link describing the 2000 exemptions... any ideas? TerraFrost 15:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia comparison isn't really apt. Legislative and rulemaking situations regularly revise and tinker with language and replace language, and it's a very different thing to (a) describe what the law is, and (b) describe the history of the law. The detailed regulatory history is very interesting, but to me, it seems a little beyond the scope of a general article on the DMCA. As I said, in an article that specifically looks at the anticirc provisions, then it would be appropriate. Here, it seems like too much specificity for the general reader who wants to read about the DMCA. And it's not scaleable, because these rulemakings are going to go on, and on, and on. So, I think just including the current rulemakings, and a link to some more detailed description of the process would be the best way to handle it.
That said, I put in a paragraph describing what happened in the 2000 and 2003 rulemakings and how those rules were expired (filtering), renewed but edited (obsolete access controls -> obsolete dongles). Other folks can look at it and weigh in with their thoughts. At some point I will break it out into a separate article. --LQ 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Crook

Michael Crook redirects here... yeah, I get the joke... but, shouldn't Michael Crook have his own page at this point for being a well-known, notorious complete ass that he is??? Cowicide 08:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penalties for noncompliance not included in article

Most articles discussing legislation include the range of penalties for non-compliance; this one does not. I don't have the background to do a good assessment of the act; however, if someone who is familiar with it could include a section on this, it would be very much appreciated by this reader - that was actually what I came to this article to find out. Thanks. Risker 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding references/sources tag

I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as a reliable source here, but this doc from the EFF might help with the referencing/sourcing of information in the marked section. http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php --Jhaagsma 11:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hackers

This Act has been used against hackers who broke into corporate networks and copied emails, has it not? Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example of DMCA Takedown Provision

This section doesn't seem to present a criticism at all, I suggest it be removed or modified to show a point. --Muna (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the section, if somebody wants to restore it, they can find it on my talk page. --Muna (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)