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 anti-circumvention provisions in Section 1201 of the DMCA have seen some challenges in the courts but which have generally been upheld. While initially the challenges were focused on clear applications to software-based access control products, some cases considered how the DMCA also extended to hardware-based access controls.
Ozimals filed a DMCA takedown notice to Linden Research, the makers of Second life, claiming that Amaretto's horse infringed on their bunnies and demanding their removal. Consequently, Amaretto responded with a counter-DMCA notice and applied to the court for a temporary restraining order to forbid Linden Research from removing their virtual ...
17 U.S.C. § 512 of the DMCA grants safe harbor (immunity) to service providers that follow the DMCA's takedown procedure. [6] The plaintiff sent counter notices to defendants that he alleged were complete except for minor errors due to his dyslexia. [4]
Lenz in turn sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting that the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA, and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. [3]
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.
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]