Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999

Last updated
Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleTo amend statutory damages provisions of title 17, United States Code.
Enacted bythe 106th United States Congress
EffectiveDecember 9, 1999
Citations
Public law Pub. L. 106-160
Codification
Acts amended Copyright Act of 1976
Titles amended17 (Copyrights)
U.S.C. sections amended17 U.S.C. §§ 504(c)
Legislative history
Major amendments
None

The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is a United States law that increased the possible civil penalties for copyright infringement.

Contents

It also attempted to clear an administrative hurdle that was preventing the United States Sentencing Commission from implementing the NET Act of 1997's increased criminal penalties for similar offenses.

Details

The range of allowable statutory damages in civil actions for copyright infringement was established by a previous act as a minimum of $500 per work, and a maximum of either $20,000 or $100,000 per work, depending on whether the infringement was "willful." The new legislation increased these amounts by 50%, changing the minimum to $750, and the maximums to $30,000 and $150,000.

Rationale

When introducing an earlier version of the bill in the House of Representatives, Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) stated that widespread use of the Internet and the advent of high-capacity storage media like the DVD had the potential to worsen the problem of disregard for copyright, so increased penalties were needed to more strongly deter infringement. [1] [2]

By the turn of the century the Internet is projected to have more than 200 million users, and the development of new technology will create additional incentive for copyright thieves to steal protected works. [...] Many computer users are either ignorant that copyright laws apply to Internet activity, or they simply believe that they will not be caught or prosecuted for their conduct. Also, many infringers do not consider the current copyright infringement penalties a real threat and continue infringing, even after a copyright owner puts them on notice that their actions constitute infringement and that they should stop the activity or face legal action. [2]

This rationale was cited in the Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum case, which, among other things, unsuccessfully sought to challenge the fairness of the statutory damage range. [3]

When introducing a new version of the bill in the House, Rep. Coble stated that it "provides an inflation adjustment" in order "to provide meaningful disincentives for infringement, and to accomplish that, the cost of infringement must substantially exceed the cost of the compliance so that those who use or distribute intellectual property have incentive to comply with the law."

After the bill passed the Senate, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that the increase would help deter digital copyright infringement, especially software piracy. [4]

Related Research Articles

Music Canada is a non-profit trade organization that was founded 9 April 1963 to represent the interests of companies that record, manufacture, produce, and distribute music in Canada. It also offers benefits to some of Canada's leading independent record labels and distributors.

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, Pub. L. 109-9, 119 Stat. 218, is a federal legislative act regarding copyright that became law in the United States in 2005. The Act consists of two subparts: the Artist's Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005, which increases penalties for copyright infringement, and the Family Home Movie Act of 2005, which permits the development of technology to "sanitize" potentially offensive DVD and VOD content.

Statutory damages are a damage award in civil law, in which the amount awarded is stipulated within the statute rather than being calculated based on the degree of harm to the plaintiff. Lawmakers will provide for statutory damages for acts in which it is difficult to determine a precise value of the loss suffered by the victim. This could be because calculation of a value is impractical, such as in intellectual property cases where the volume of the infringement cannot be ascertained. It could also be because the nature of the injury is subjective, such as in cases of a violation of a person's rights. The award might serve not only as compensation but also for deterrence, and it is more likely to succeed in serving a deterrence function when the potential defendants are relatively sophisticated parties. Other functions that can be served by statutory damages include reducing administrative costs and clarifying the consequences of violating the law.

<i>BMG Music v. Gonzalez</i>

BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, was a civil case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a lower court's summary judgment that the defendant had committed copyright infringement. The decision is noteworthy for rejecting the defendant's fair use defense, which had rested upon the defendant's contention that she was merely "sampling" songs with the intention of possibly purchasing the downloaded songs in the future, which is known as "Try before you buy".

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange intellectual property that is subject to copyright law or licensing.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 is a United States law that increases both civil and criminal penalties for trademark, patent and copyright infringement. The law also establishes a new executive branch office, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER).

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

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.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1926, are generally considered public domain.

Copyright infringement Intellectual property violation

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law 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.

Recording Industry Association of America Trade organization representing the recording industry in the U.S.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a trade organization that represents the recording industry in the United States. Its members consist of record labels and distributors, which the RIAA says "create, manufacture, and/or distribute approximately 85% of all legally sold recorded music in the United States". The RIAA headquarters is in Washington, D.C.

In the case of Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum, record label Sony BMG, along with Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Records, Arista Records, and UMG Recordings, accused Joel Tenenbaum of illegally downloading and sharing files in violation of U.S. copyright law. It was only the second file-sharing case to go to verdict in the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) anti-downloading litigation campaign. After the judge entered a finding of liability, a jury assessed damages of $675,000, which the judge reduced to $67,500 on constitutional grounds, rather than through remittitur.

Digital Economy Act 2010 United Kingdom legislation

The Digital Economy Act 2010 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act addresses media policy issues related to digital media, including copyright infringement, Internet domain names, Channel 4 media content, local radio and video games. Introduced to Parliament by Lord Mandelson on 20 November 2009, it received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. It came into force two months later, with some exceptions: several sections – 5, 6, 7, 15, 16(1)and 30 to 32 – came into force immediately, whilst others required a statutory instrument before they would come into force. However some provisions have never come into force since the required statutory instruments were never passed by Parliament and considered to be "shelved" by 2014, and other sections were repealed.

<i>Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc</i>

Arista Records, LLC v. LAUNCH Media, Inc., 578 F.3d 148, is a legal case brought by Arista Records, LLC, Bad Boy Records, BMG Music, and Zomba Recording LLC alleging that the webcasting service provided by LAUNCH Media, Inc. ("Launch") willfully infringed BMG's sound recording copyrights. The lawsuit concerns the scope of the statutory term “interactive service” codified in 17 U.S.C. § 114, as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA"). If the webcasting service is an interactive service, Launch would be required to pay individual licensing fees to BMG's sound recording copyright holders; otherwise, Launch only need to pay “a statutory licensing fee set by the Copyright Royalty Board.”

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i>

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007

The Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007, or S.2317, was a bill proposed in the 110th session of the United States Congress that would strengthen intellectual property laws in the United States by amending titles 17 and 18 of United States Code as well as the Trademark Act of 1946. It was written by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and co-sponsored by John Cornyn (R-TX) and Arlen Specter (D-PA). Primarily, the bill would allow the Department of Justice to press civil charges against file-sharers and award restitution to the copyright owner. This is the third time similar legislation has gone through the United States Senate without passing.

<i>Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</i>

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum is the appeals lawsuit which followed the U.S. District Court case Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum, No. 07cv11446-NG.

Criminal copyright laws prohibit the unacknowledged use of another's intellectual property for the purpose of financial gain. Violation of these laws can lead to fines and jail time. Criminal copyright laws have been a part of U.S. laws since 1897, which added a misdemeanor penalty for unlawful performances if "willful and for profit". Criminal penalties were greatly expanded in the latter half of the twentieth century, and those found guilty of criminal copyright infringement may now be imprisoned for decades, and fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.

<i>Copyright Modernization Act</i>

An Act to amend the Copyright Act, also known as Bill C-11 or the Copyright Modernization Act, was introduced in the House of Commons of Canada on September 29, 2011 by Industry Minister Christian Paradis. It was virtually identical to the government's previous attempt to amend the Copyright Act, Bill C-32. Despite receiving unanimous opposition from all other parties, the Conservative Party of Canada was able to pass the bill due to their majority government. The bill received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012 becoming the first update to the Copyright Act since 1997.

References

  1. 1999  Congressional Record, Vol. 145, Page  H6798 (August 2, 1999)
  2. 1 2 "Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 - Report [to accompany H.R. 1761]" (PDF).
  3. "Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al. v. Joel Tenenbaum - Order" (PDF). 2012-08-23. Retrieved 2012-09-10.
  4. Congressional Record.