Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
There are three main areas of criticism that pertain to the OCILLA provision of the DMCA: improper removal of content, ineffective counter-notice procedure, and the rise of Web2.0 and new technologies that call into question the equity and effectiveness of the safe harbor provision.
In 2001 the Electronic Frontier Foundation launched a collaborative clearinghouse for notice and takedown requests, known as Chilling Effects. [23] Researchers have been using the clearinghouse to study the use of cease-and-desist demands, primarily looking at DMCA 512 takedown notices, but also non-DMCA copyright issues, and trademark claims.
The DMCA has affected the worldwide cryptography research community, since an argument can be made that any cryptanalytic research violates, or might violate, the DMCA. The arrest of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov in 2001, for alleged infringement of the DMCA, was a highly publicized example of the law's use to prevent or penalize ...
The DMCA states four safe harbors: (a) Transitory network communications (b) System caching (c) Information storage and (d) Information location tools. [16] The last three have so called “notice & take down” rules for specificity in notice of infringement, counter-notice and put-back and liability if false notice has been given.
The DMCA is the basis for the design of the YouTube copyright strike system. [1] For YouTube to retain DMCA safe harbor protection, it must respond to copyright infringement claims with a notice and take down process. [1] YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement. [1]
In April 2013, it was reported that Universal Music Group and YouTube have a contractual agreement that prevents content blocked on YouTube by a request from UMG from being restored, even if the uploader of the video files a DMCA counter-notice. When a dispute occurs, the uploader of the video has to contact UMG.
CBS News issued a DMCA takedown notice and had the video removed from YouTube. [34] 2009: In September 2009, "Photoshop Disasters"—a blog covering egregious photo editing missteps—published a photo of a Polo Ralph Lauren ad in which the model's body was grotesquely smaller than her head.
In light of the U.S. Constitution, seizures without any opportunity for a hearing are limited to extraordinary situations, [44] but pursuant to Operation In Our Sites, others have pointed out that the government is allowed to seize a targeted domain name without any prior notice to the owner. [9]