Digital Copyright: Protecting Intellectual Property on the Internet is a 2000 book by Jessica Litman detailing the legislative struggles over the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It was widely reviewed and is generally cited as the definitive history of the DMCA's passage, as well as an exemplar of the lobbying and jockeying around passage of contemporary copyright legislation. [1] Karen Coyle noted that
this is not a law book, although it is about law. Digital Copyright is instead a social history of copyright law. It is not about the law per se but about how the technology developments of the 20th century changed how copyright law is crafted in the United States and who reaps the benefits. [2]
The publisher, Prometheus Books, described the book in its blurb:
In 1998, copyright lobbyists succeeded in persuading Congress to enact laws greatly expanding copyright owners' control over the private uses of their works by individuals. The efforts to enforce these new rights have resulted in highly publicized legal battles between established media, including major record labels and motion picture studios, and upstart Internet companies such as MP3.com and Napster. The general public is used to thinking of copyright (if it thinks of it at all) as magical and arcane, and it hasn't paid much attention as legislation to expand copyright moved through Congress. But copyright law is central to our society's information policy, and affects what we can read, view, hear, use, or learn. In this enlightening and well-argued book, law professor Jessica Litman questions whether copyright laws crafted by lawyers and their lobbyists really make sense for the vast majority of us. Should every interaction between ordinary consumers and copyright-protected works be governed by laws drafted without ordinary consumers in mind? Is it practical to enforce such laws, or to expect consumers to obey them? Most important, what are the effects of such laws on the exchange of information in a free society? Litman's critique exposes the 1998 copyright law as incoherent. She argues for commonsense reforms that reflect the way people actually behave in their daily digital interactions. [3]
The book includes an initial chapter on American copyright law (Chapter 1: "Copyright Basics"), and then the next several chapters focus on the legislative processes in US copyright law. Joseph Fogel, reviewing the book, wrote:
Litman's chapter on twentieth-century copyright law is wonderful. She criticizes negotiated copyright statutes as being unworkable. Congress, she recounts, relied upon private 'experts' to write copyright bills because the issues seemed to be the province of a very narrow slice of citizenry and thus not worthy of much of an elected official's time. [4]
Beginning with chapter 10, Litman examines the aftermath of the enactment of the DMCA. Chapter 10, "The Copyright Wars", considers the use of digital rights management in the motion picture and music industries, including DeCSS on DVDs, and the lack of widespread adoption of a similar technology on music CDs. Litman reviews Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes and related cases, and for the music industry, UMG Recordings v. MP3.com , A&M Records v. Napster, Inc. , and Recording Industry Association v. Diamond Multimedia . Comparing the industries' strategies, Litman notes,
By engaging in a scorched-earth campaign, the recording industry squandered some truly awesome assets. ... [It] ... was unwilling to commit itself to an insecure digital standard that might become entrenched. Instead, it fought about whose patented security algorithm would become the new standard, and it focused on herding all MP3 music off the Internet. [5]
Chapter 11 continues this analysis, with some reflections on the relative value of litigation versus legislation as strategies for the content industries.
In Chapter 12, "Revising Copyright Law for the Digital Age", Litman reviews the overall approach to developing copyright laws, concluding that "If we are to devise a copyright law that meets the public's needs, we might most profitably abandon the copyright law's traditional reliance on reproduction, and refashion our measure of unlawful use to better incorporate the public's understanding of the copyright bargain." [6]
In the 2006 edition, Litman included an updated foreword, which discussed in greater detail the peer-to-peer litigations that arose after the DMCA's enactment.
In 2017, Litman published a new edition of the book under a CC-BY-ND creative commons license through Maize Books. [7] The 2017 edition includes a new postscript [8] responding to some of the legal developments during the 19 years that followed Congress's enactment of the DMCA.
Napster was a peer-to-peer file sharing application. It originally launched on June 1, 1999, with an emphasis on digital audio file distribution. Audio songs shared on the service were typically encoded in the MP3 format. It was founded by Shawn Fanning, Sean Parker, and Hugo Sáez Contreras. As the software became popular, the company ran into legal difficulties over copyright infringement. It ceased operations in 2001 after losing a wave of lawsuits and filed for bankruptcy in June 2002.
The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA) was a proposed law in the United States that directly challenges portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and would intensify Federal Trade Commission efforts to mandate proper labeling for copy-protected CDs to ensure consumer protection from deceptive labeling practices. It would also allow manufacturers to innovate in hardware designs and allow consumers to treat CDs as they have historically been able to treat them.
Ripping is extracting all or parts of digital content from a container. Originally, it meant to rip music out of Commodore 64 games. Later, the term was used to extract WAV or MP3 format files from digital audio CDs, but got applied as well to extract the contents of any media, including DVD and Blu-ray discs, and video game sprites.
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.
The United States The Digital Transition Content Security Act was a bill introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican, on December 16, 2005. The bill was backed by Democratic Rep. John Conyers.
Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, was a lawsuit involving an archive of Diebold's internal company e-mails and Diebold's contested copyright claims over them. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic provided pro bono legal support for the non-profit ISP and the Swarthmore College students, respectively.
Jessica Litman is a leading intellectual property scholar. She has been ranked as one of the most-cited U.S. law professors in the field of intellectual property/cyberlaw.
The "Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing United States Entrepreneurship Act of 2007" was a proposed United States copyright law that would have amended Title 17 of the U.S. Code, including portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to "promote innovation, to encourage the introduction of new technology, to enhance library preservation efforts, and to protect the fair use rights of consumers, and for other purposes." The bill would prevent courts from holding companies financially liable for copyright infringement stemming from the use of their hardware or software, and proposes six permanent circumvention exemptions to the DMCA.
Micropublishing is used in three senses:
The Copyright and Information Society Directive 2001 is a directive in European Union law that was enacted to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty and to harmonise aspects of copyright law across Europe, such as copyright exceptions. The directive was first enacted in 2001 under the internal market provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP) by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the “Betamax case”, is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs, cannot be liable for contributory infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market, as it created a legal safe haven for the technology.
Digital rights management (DRM) is the management of legal access to digital content. Various tools or technological protection measures (TPM) like access control technologies, can restrict the use of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works. DRM technologies govern the use, modification and distribution of copyrighted works and of systems that enforce these policies within devices. DRM technologies include licensing agreements and encryption.
Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.
The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA) is a United States Copyright law that grants owners of a copyright in sound recordings an exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.” The DPRA was enacted in response to the absence of a performance right for sound recordings in the Copyright Act of 1976 and a fear that digital technology would stand in for sales of physical records. The performance right for sound recordings under the DPRA is limited to transmissions over a digital transmission, so it is not as expansive as the performance right for other types of copyrighted works. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), enacted in 1998, modified the DPRA.
Music piracy is the copying and distributing of recordings of a piece of music for which the rights owners did not give consent. In the contemporary legal environment, it is a form of copyright infringement, which may be either a civil wrong or a crime depending on jurisdiction. The late 20th and early 21st centuries saw much controversy over the ethics of redistributing media content, how much production and distribution companies in the media were losing, and the very scope of what ought to be considered piracy – and cases involving the piracy of music were among the most frequently discussed in the debate.
The Digital Future Coalition (DFC) was a US-based copyright advocacy organization established in 1995. Founded by leading scholars and activists in the library and public interest world, DFC was a precursor to organizations like Public Knowledge and the Library Research Coalition. The organization emerged from a round table of legal scholars and library associations members convened by Peter Jaszi in fall of 1995 to review the Clinton Administration's White Paper on Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure, authored by Bruce Lehman. That White Paper proposed a variety of new legislative approaches within copyright, generally broadening its scope and reach, and the roundtable discussion brought forward the notion of establishing a lobbying group to counter the commercial copyright interests' lobbying groups.
RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311, was a copyright law case of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, over the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and whether those provisions are violated by a service that enables Internet users to circumvent the copyright protection controls used by a streaming platform.