Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia

DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free

DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free

However, if you've received a DMCA takedown notice targeting content you've unauthorized product licensing keys, software for generating unauthorized. In 2003, 321 Studios, of St. Charles, Mo., launched a software product called The licensing rules and DMCA put companies like 321 Studios in a quandary. Filing a DMCA complaint is the start of a pre-defined legal process. Your complaint will be reviewed for accuracy, validity, and completeness. If your complaint.

Are mistaken: DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free

Skype Multilingual Full Version Download
DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free
Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies"(PDF). Retrieved 2016-04-04.Public DomainThis article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  • ^"Federal Register

    Unintended Consequences: Fifteen Years under the DMCA

    March 2013

    This is an old and outdated copy of Unintended Consequences.

    Please visit the archive for the most recent version.

    This document collects reported cases where the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA have been invoked not against “pirates,” but against consumers, scientists, and legitimate competitors. It is updated from time to time as additional cases come to light. The latest version can always be obtained at

    1.   Executive Summary

    The “anti-circumvention” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), codified in section 1201 of the Copyright Act, have not been used as Congress envisioned. The law was ostensibly intended to stop copyright infringers from defeating anti-piracy protections added to copyrighted works.[1]

    In practice, the anti-circumvention provisions have been used to stifle a wide array of legitimate activities. As a result, the DMCA has become a serious threat to several important public policy priorities:

    The DMCA Chills Free Expression and Scientific Research.

    Experience with section 1201 demonstrates that it is being used to stifle free speech and scientific research. The lawsuit against 2600 magazine, threats against Windows 10 Pro serial [26 April 2017] Professor Edward Felten’s team of researchers, and prosecution of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov have chilled the legitimate activities of journalists, publishers, scientists, students, programmers, and members of the public.

    The DMCA Jeopardizes Fair Use.

    By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, the DMCA grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the public’s fair use rights. Already, the movie industry’s use of encryption on DVDs has curtailed consumers’ ability to make legitimate, personal-use copies of movies they have purchased.

    The DMCA Impedes Competition and Innovation.

    Rather than focusing on pirates, some have wielded the DMCA to hinder legitimate competitors. For example, the DMCA has been used to block aftermarket competition in laser printer toner cartridges, garage door openers, videogame console accessories, and computer maintenance services. Similarly, Apple has used the DMCA to tie its iPhone and iPod devices to Apple’s own software and services.

    The DMCA Interferes with Computer Intrusion Laws.

    Further, the DMCA has been misused as a general-purpose prohibition on computer network access, a task for which it was not designed and to which it is ill-suited. For example, a disgruntled employer used the DMCA against a former contractor for simply connecting to the company’s computer system through a virtual private network (“VPN”).

    2.   DMCA Legislative Background

    Congress enacted the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions in response to two pressures. First, Congress was responding to the perceived need to implement obligations imposed on the U.S. by the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty. Second (as reflected in the details of section 1201, which DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free well beyond anything the WIPO treaty required),[2] Congress was also responding to the concerns of copyright owners that their works would be widely pirated in the networked digital world.[3]

    Section 1201 contains two distinct prohibitions: a ban on acts of circumvention, and a ban on the distribution of tools and technologies used for circumvention.

    The “act” prohibition, set out in section 1201(a)(1), prohibits the act of circumventing a technological measure used by copyright owners to control access to their works (“access controls”). So, for example, this provision makes it unlawful to defeat the encryption system used on DVD movies. This ban on acts of circumvention applies even where the purpose for decrypting the movie would otherwise be legitimate. As a result, the motion picture industry maintains that it is unlawful to make a digital copy of a DVD or Blu Ray disc you own for playback on your iPad or smartphone.

    The “tools” prohibitions, set out in sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b), outlaw the manufacturing, sale, distribution, or trafficking of tools and technologies that make circumvention possible. These provisions ban both technologies that defeat access controls, and also technologies that defeat use restrictions imposed by copyright owners, such as copy controls. These provisions prohibit the distribution of software that was designed to defeat CD copy-protection technologies, for example.

    Section 1201 includes a number of exceptions for certain limited classes of activities, including security testing, reverse engineering of software, encryption research, and law enforcement. These exceptions have been criticized as being too narrow to be of use to the constituencies they were intended to assist.[4]

    A violation of any of the “act” or “tools” prohibitions is subject to significant civil and, in some circumstances, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, criminal penalties.

    3.   Chilling Free Expression and Scientific Research

    Section 1201 has been used by a number of copyright owners to stifle free speech and legitimate scientific research.

    The lawsuit against 2600 magazine, threats against Professor Edward Felten’s team of researchers, and the prosecution of the Russian programmer DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free Sklyarov are among the most widely known examples of the DMCA being used to chill speech and research. Bowing to DMCA liability fears, online service providers and bulletin board operators have censored discussions of copy-protection systems, programmers have removed computer security programs from their websites, and students, scientists and security experts have stopped publishing details of their research.

    These developments weaken security for all computer users (including, ironically, for copyright owners counting on technical measures to protect their works), as security researchers shy away from performing and/or sharing research that might run afoul of section 1201.

    Activision Shuts Down Videogame Tinkerer

    In 2011, publisher Activision released a videogame entitled “Skylanders: Spyro’s Adventure.” The main selling point of the game was that it shipped with a USB peripheral called the “Portal of Power,” which allowed users to scan RFID tags found in real-life toys (also sold by Activision) in order to unlock characters and other objects within the game. Hacker Brandon Wilson was interested in the technology used by the scanner, so he reverse-engineered the device to decrypt its protocols.[5] As soon as he posted his preliminary research online, he received a cease-and-desist letter from Activision.[6]

     Activision asserted that Wilson’s research might allow users to emulate the “Portal of Power” technology and use it to unlock game content without purchasing the physical Skylanders toys.[7] Brandon responded that he had never published any actual tools for circumventing the “Portal of Power” access controls, nor did he intend to make such tools available.[8] Nonetheless, Activision’s threat worked: Brandon removed all his research from his blog and ceased all further work on the project.[9]

    Sony Threatens Norwegian Website Gitorious

    Based in Norway, Gitorious is a platform for open-source programmers to collaborate on new projects.[10] Some projects initiated by Gitorious users involved hacking Sony’s PlayStation 3 videogame console for noncommercial, open-source works. As such, some of the projects required the use of the PlayStation 3’s root keys. Sony of America sent a letter to Gitorious invoking the DMCA and demanding that Gitorious remove these user’s projects from its site.[11] Sony also demanded the identities and private data of the users organizing the projects.[12]

    Citing a lack of resources and incentive to fight against Sony, Gitorious complied with the demand, not only removing the targeted projects but also returning an error message for any internal search requests for “playstation,” “sony” or “ps3.”[13]

    The Gitorious story demonstrates how Section 1201 can be used by domestic companies as a club to bully international websites.

    Texas Instruments Targets Calculator Hobbyists

    In 2009, Texas Instruments (TI) threatened three bloggers with legal action after they posted commentary about a hobbyist’s success in reverse engineering the TI-83 Plus graphing calculator.[14] TI’s graphing calculators contain technical measures that prevent users from installing alternative operating systems. When a hobbyist reverse engineered this system in order to help others run their own “home brew” operating systems, he wrote about it online. Three bloggers (Brandon Wilson, Tom Cross and Duncan Smith) subsequently posted their own commentary on the results. TI sent the bloggers letters threatening legal action under the DMCA. This despite the fact that there was no hint of “piracy” in the blogger’s activities; in fact, TI made the TI-83 Plus software freely avail­able in unencrypted format both online and in the calculators themselves.

    Although the bloggers initially complied with TI’s demands and removed the content, they subsequently reposted it after EFF responded to TI on their behalf.[15]

    Apple Threatens BluWiki

    In 2009, Apple threatened the free wiki hosting site BluWiki for hosting a discussion by hobbyists about reverse engineering iPods to interoperate with software other than Apple’s own iTunes. Without a work-around, iPod and iPhone owners would be unable to use third-party software, such as Winamp or Songbird, to “sync” their media collections between computer and iPod or iPhone.[16]

    The material on the public wiki was merely a discussion of the reverse engineering effort, along with some snippets of relevant code drawn from Apple software. There were no “circumvention tools,” nor any indication that the hobbyists had succeeded in their interoperability efforts. Nevertheless, Apple’s lawyers sent OdioWorks, the company behind BluWiki, a cease and desist letter threatening legal action under the DMCA.

    Bluwiki ultimately sued Apple to defend the free speech interests of its users.[17]  In response, Apple dropped its threat, and BluWiki reinstated the deleted pages.[18]

    DMCA Delays Disclosure of Sony-BMG “Rootkit” Vulnerability

    Professor J. Alex Halderman, then a graduate student at Princeton University, discovered the existence of several security vulnerabilities in the CD copy-protection software on dozens of Sony-BMG titles. He delayed publishing his discovery for several weeks while consulting with lawyers in order to avoid DMCA DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. This left millions of music fans at risk longer than necessary.[19] The security flaws inherent in Sony-BMG’s “rootkit” copy-protection software were subsequently publicized by another researcher who was apparently unaware of the legal risks created by the DMCA.

    Security researchers had sought a DMCA exemption in 2003 in order to facilitate research on dangerous DRM systems like the Sony-BMG rootkit, but the Librarian of Congress denied their request.[20] In 2006, the Librarian granted an exemption to the DMCA for researchers examining copy protection software on compact discs.[21] However, this exemption, did not protect researchers studying other DRM systems.

    In 2009, Prof. Halderman was again forced to seek a DMCA exemption in order to continue his computer security research relating to DRM systems, including the protection mechanisms used on the Electronic Arts videogame, Spore, which has been the subject of class action lawsuits alleging security vulnerabilities.[22] A narrow version of this exemption was granted in 2010.[23] However, the exemption was not renewed in 2012, leaving this research vulnerable to legal action.[24]

    SunnComm Threatens Researcher

    In October 2003, then Princeton graduate student J. Alex Halderman was threatened with a DMCA lawsuit after publishing a report documenting weaknesses in a CD copy-protection technology developed by SunnComm. Halderman revealed that merely holding down the shift key on a Windows PC would render SunnComm’s copy protection technology ineffective. Furious company executives then threatened legal action.

    The company quickly retreated from its threats in the face of public outcry and negative press attention. Although Halderman was spared, the controversy again reminded security researchers of their vulnerability to DMCA threats for simply publishing the results of their research.[25]

    Cyber-Security Czar Notes Chill on Research

    Speaking at MIT in October 2002, White House Cyber Security Chief Richard Clarke called for DMCA reform, noting his concern that the DMCA had been used to chill legitimate computer security research. The Boston Globe quoted Clarke as saying, “I think a lot of people didn’t realize that it would have this potential chilling effect on vulnerability research.”[26]

    Professor Felten’s Research Team Threatened

    In September 2000, a multi-industry group known as the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) issued a public challenge encouraging skilled technologists to try to defeat certain watermarking technologies intended to protect digital music. Princeton computer science professor Edward Felten and a team of researchers at Princeton, Rice, and Xerox took up the challenge and succeeded in removing the watermarks.

    When the team tried to present their results at an academic conference, however, SDMI representatives threatened the researchers with liability under the DMCA. The threat letter was also delivered to the researchers’ employers and the conference organizers. After extensive discussions with counsel, the researchers grudgingly withdrew their paper from the conference. The threat was ultimately withdrawn and a portion of the research was published at a subsequent conference, but only after the researchers filed a lawsuit.

    After enduring this experience, at least one of the researchers involved has decided to forgo further research efforts in this field.[27]

    Hewlett Packard Threatens SNOsoft

    Hewlett-Packard resorted to DMCA threats when researchers published a security flaw in DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free Tru64 UNIX operating system. The researchers, a loosely-organized collective known as Secure Network Operations (“SNOsoft”), received the DMCA threat after releasing software in July 2002 that demonstrated vulnerabilities that HP had been aware of for some time, but had not bothered to fix.

    After widespread press attention, HP ultimately withdrew the DMCA threat. A company statement from HP later said its letter to SnoSoft “was not consistent or indicative of HP’s policy. We can say emphatically that HP will not use the DMCA to stifle research or impede the flow of information that would benefit our customers and improve their system security.” Security researchers got the real message, however—publish vulnerability research at DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free own risk.[28]

    Blackboard Threatens Security Researchers

    In April 2003, educational software company Blackboard Inc. used a DMCA threat to stop the presentation of research on security vulnerabilities in its products at the InterzOne II conference in Atlanta. Students Billy Hoffman and Virgil Griffith were scheduled to present their research on security flaws in the Blackboard ID card system used by university campus security systems but were blocked shortly before the talk by a cease-and-desist letter invoking the DMCA.

    Blackboard obtained a temporary restraining order against the students and the conference organizers at a secret “ex parte” hearing the day before the conference began, giving the students and conference organizer no opportunity to appear in court or challenge the order before the scheduled presentation. Despite the rhetoric in its initial cease and desist letter, Blackboard’s lawsuit did not mention the DMCA. The invocation in the original cease-and-desist letter, however, underscores the way the statute has been used to chill security research.[29]

    Xbox Hack Book Dropped by Publisher

    In 2003, U.S. publisher John Wiley & Sons dropped plans to publish a book by security researcher Andrew “bunnie” Huang, citing DMCA liability concerns. Wiley had commissioned Huang to write a book that described the security flaws in the Microsoft Xbox game console, flaws Huang had discov­ered as part of his doctoral research at M.I.T.

    Following Microsoft’s legal action against a vendor of Xbox “mod chips” in early 2003, and the music industry’s 2001 DMCA threats against Professor Felten’s research team, Wiley dropped the book for fear that the book might be treated as a “circumvention device” under the DMCA. Huang’s initial attempt to self-publish was thwarted after his online shopping cart provider also withdrew, citing DMCA concerns.

    After several months of negotiations, Huang eventually self-published the book in mid-2003. After extensive legal consultations, Huang was then able to get the book published in both print and e-book form by No Starch Press.[30]

    Censorware Research Obstructed

    Seth Finkelstein conducts research on “censorware” software (i.e., programs that block websites that contain objectionable material), documenting flaws in such software. Finkelstein’s research, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, for example, revealed that censorware vendor N2H2 DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free a variety DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free legitimate websites, evidence that assisted the ACLU in challenging a law requiring the use web filtering software by federally-funded public libraries.[31]

    N2H2 claimed that the DMCA should block researchers like Finkelstein from examining its software, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. Finkelstein was ultimately forced to seek a DMCA exemption from the Librarian of Congress, who granted the exemption in both the 2000 and 2003 triennial rulemakings. The exemption, however, was not renewed in 2006, 2009, or 2012 leaving future researchers without protection DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free DMCA threats.[32]

    Benjamin Edelman has also conducted extensive research into flaws in various censorware products. Edelman’s research led to evidence used by the ACLU in its constitutional challenge to the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which mandates the use of censorware by public libraries.

    In the course of his work for the ACLU, Edelman discovered that the DMCA might interfere with his efforts to learn what websites are blocked by censorware products. Because he sought to create and distribute software tools to enable others to analyze the list if it changed, Edelman could not rely on the limited DMCA regulatory exception in place at the time. Unwilling to risk civil and criminal penalties under Section 1201, Edelman was forced to sue to seek clarification of his legal rights. Unfortunately, the court found that Edelman would have to undertake the research and hazard legal reprisals in order to have standing to challenge the DMCA. The case was therefore dismissed without addressing the DMCA’s chill on research.[33]

    Dmitry Sklyarov Arrested

    In July 2001, Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov was jailed for several weeks and detained for five months in the United States after speaking at the DEFCON conference in Las Vegas.

    Prosecutors, prompted by software goliath Adobe Systems Inc., alleged that Sklyarov had worked on a software program known as the Advanced e-Book Processor, which was distributed over the Internet by his Russian employer, ElcomSoft. The DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free allowed owners of Adobe electronic books (“e-books”) to convert them from Adobe’s e-Book format into PDF files, thereby removing restrictions embedded into the files by e-book publishers.

    Sklyarov was never accused of infringing any copyright, nor of assisting anyone else to infringe copyrights. His alleged crime was working on a software tool with many legitimate uses, simply because other people might use the tool to copy an e-book without the publisher’s permission.

    Federal prosecutors ultimately permitted Sklyarov to return home, but brought criminal charges against ElcomSoft. In December 2002, a jury acquitted Elcomsoft of all charges, completing an 18-month ordeal for the wrongly-accused Russian software company.[34]

    Researchers Withhold Work on HDCP

    Following the Felten and Sklyarov incidents, a number of prominent computer security experts curtailed their legitimate research activities for fear of potential DMCA liability.

    For example, when Dutch cryptographer and security systems analyst Niels Ferguson discovered a major security flaw in Intel’s HDCP video encryption system, he declined to publish his results on his website on the grounds that he travels frequently to the U.S. and is fearful of “prosecution and/or liability under the U.S. DMCA law.”[35]

    David Wagner, a professor of computer science at the University of DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, Berkeley, also found flaws in the HDCP system, but did not publish his findings until several months after the initial discovery.[36] In light of the legal “overhead” associated with his research, Wagner ceased research on copyright protection systems.[37]

    Eventually, the HDCP system was cracked, and the master key to the system was posted anonymously to the website, among others.[38] Still, the fear experienced by these researchers was likely justified: in the wake of the crack being posted Intel sent out an angry message threatening anyone, including consumers, who used it.[39] This sort of broad threat against consumers is possible because the DMCA’s provisions apply to all consumers.  

    Intel, along with Warner Brothers, followed through on these threats, filing suit against Ohio based Freedom USA, which manufactures devices that decrypt HDCP. Among other legitimate uses, the devices manufactured by Freedom USA allow users with older electronics to connect them to new, HDMI only devices.[40]

    Scientists and Programmers Withhold Security Research

    Following the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov, Fred Cohen, a professor of digital forensics and respected security consultant, removed his “ForensiX” evidence-gathering software from his website, citing fear of potential DMCA liability. Another respected network security protection expert, Dug Song, also removed information from his website for the same reason. Mr. Song is the author of several security papers, including a paper describing a common vulnerability in many firewalls.[41]

    In mid-2001 an anonymous programmer discovered a vulnerability in Microsoft’s proprietary e-book DRM system, but refused to publish the results, citing DMCA liability concerns.[42]

    Foreign Scientists Avoid U.S.

    Foreign scientists have expressed concerns about traveling to the U.S. following the arrest of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov. Some foreign scientists have advocated boycotting conferences held in the United States, and some conference organizers have decided to hold events in non-U.S. locations. In 2001, Russia went so far as to issue a travel advisory to Russian programmers traveling to the United States.[43]

    Highly respected British Linux programmer Alan Cox resigned from the USENIX committee of the Advanced Computing Systems Association, the committee that organizes many of the U.S. computing conferences, because of concerns about traveling to the United States. He also urged USENIX to move its annual conference offshore.[44]

    The International Information Hiding Workshop Conference, the conference at which Professor Felten’s team intended to present its original SDMI watermarking paper, held its 2009 conference outside of the U.S. following the DMCA threat to Professor Felten and his team. It was not until May 2012 that the conference returned to the United States.[45]

    IEEE Wrestles with DMCA

    The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), which publishes 30 per cent of all computer science journals worldwide, has also grappled with the uncertainties created by the DMCA. Apparently concerned about possible DMCA liability, the IEEE in November 2001 instituted a policy requiring all authors to indemnify IEEE for any liabilities incurred should a submission result in legal action.[46]

    After an outcry from IEEE members, the organization ultimately revised its submission policies, removing mention of the DMCA. According to Bill Hagen, manager of IEEE Intellectual Property Rights, “The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has become a very sensitive subject among our authors. It’s intended to protect digital content, but its application in some specific cases appears to have alien­ated large segments of the research community.”[47]

    2600 Magazine Censored

    The Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes case illustrates the chilling effect that section 1201 has had on the freedom of DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free press.

    In that case, eight major motion picture companies brought DMCA claims against 2600 Magazine seeking to block it from publishing DeCSS, a software program that defeats the CSS encryption used on DVD movies. 2600 had made the program available on its web site in the course of its ongoing coverage of the controversy surrounding the DMCA. The magazine was not involved in the development of software, nor was it accused of having used the software for any copyright infringement.

    Notwithstanding the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press, the district court permanently barred 2600 from publishing, or even linking to, the DeCSS software code. In November 2001, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision.[48]

    In essence, the movie studios effectively obtained a “stop the presses” order banning the publication of truthful information by a news publication concerning a matter of public concern- an unprecedented curtailment of well-established First Amendment principles.[49]

    CNET Reporter Feels Chill

    CNET News reporter Declan McCullagh confronted the chilling effect of the DMCA firsthand. While researching a story in 2002, he found four documents on the public website of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The website disclosed that the documents contained information about airport security procedures, the relationship between federal and local police, and a “liability information sheet.” A note on the site stated that this “information is restricted to airport management and local law enforcement.” The documents were distributed in encrypted form and a password was required to open and read them.

    McCullagh obtained the passwords from an anonymous source, but did not open the documents, citing concerns that using a password without authorization might violate the DMCA.

    “Journalists traditionally haven’t worried about copyright law all that much,” said McCullagh, “But nowadays intellectual property rights have gone too far, and arguably interfere with the newsgathering process.”[50]

    Microsoft Threatens Slashdot

    In spring 2000, Microsoft invoked the DMCA against the Internet publication forum Slashdot, demanding that forum moderators delete materials relating to Microsoft’s proprietary implementation of an open security standard known as Kerberos.

    In the Slashdot forum, several individuals alleged that Microsoft had changed the open, non-proprietary Kerberos specification in order to prevent non-Microsoft servers from interacting with Windows 2000. Many speculated that this move was intended to force users to purchase Microsoft server software. Although Microsoft responded to this criticism by publishing its Kerberos specification, it conditioned access to the specification on agreement to a “click-wrap” license agreement that expressly forbade disclosure of the specification without Microsoft’s prior consent.

    Slashdot posters responded by republishing the Microsoft specification in the comments section of the site. Microsoft then invoked the DMCA, demanding that Slashdot remove the republished specifications.

    In the words of Georgetown law professor Julie Cohen, “If Microsoft’s interpretation of the DMCA’s ban on circumvention technologies is right, then it doesn’t seem to matter much whether posting unauthorized copies of the Microsoft Kerberos specification would be a fair use. A publisher can prohibit fair-use commentary simply by implementing access and disclosure restrictions that bind the entire public. Anyone who discloses the information, or even tells others how to get it, is a felon.” Slashdot refused to comply with Microsoft’s demand, and the users’ comments remain on the site.[51]

    GameSpy Menaces Security Researcher with DMCA

    Luigi Auriemma, an independent Italian security researcher, attracted the attention of GameSpy’s lawyers after publishing details on his website regarding security vulnerabilities in GameSpy’s online services, including a voice chat program, Roger Wilco, and an online game finder, GameSpy 3D. Before publishing the information, Auriemma had informed GameSpy and public security mailing lists of the weaknesses. GameSpy, however, had failed to address the vulnerabilities.

    In November 2003, GameSpy’s lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to Auriemma, threatening civil and criminal penalties under the DMCA. According DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free GameSpy, Auriemma was publishing key generators and other piracy tools, rather than simply vulnerability research.

    Whatever the merits of GameSpy’s claims, the invocation of the DMCA was likely improper in light of the fact that Auriemma resides in Italy and thus is beyond the reach of the DMCA. Nonetheless, the research has since been taken down.[52] Censors TiVo Discussion

    The specter of DMCA litigation has chilled speech on smaller web bulletin boards, as well. In June 2001, for example, the administrator of, a popular forum where TiVo digital video recorder owners discuss TiVo features, censored all discussion about a software program that allegedly permitted TiVo users to move video from their TiVos to their personal computers. In the words of the forum administrator, “My fear with this is more or less I have DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free clue what is a protected system on the TiVo box under copyright (or what-have-you) and what is not. Thus my fear for the site.”[53]

    Mac Forum Censors iTunes Music Store Discussion

    Macintosh enthusiast website Mac OSX Hints censored publication of information about methods for evading the copy protection on songs purchased from the Apple iTunes Music Store in May 2003, citing DMCA liability concerns. Songs purchased from the Apple iTunes Music Store at that time were wrapped in Apple’s “FairPlay” digital copy protection technology (Apple has since eliminated DRM for digital music downloads and music videos, but has retained it for TV show and movie downloads). As the webmaster for the site noted, even though information on bypassing the copy protection was readily available on the Internet at the time, republishing user hints on work-arounds risked attracting a DMCA lawsuit and harsh penal­ties.[54]

    4.   Fair Use DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free Siege

    “Fair use” is a crucial element in American copyright law—the principle that the public is entitled, without having to ask permission, to use copyrighted works in ways that do not unduly interfere with the copyright owner’s market for a work. Fair uses include personal, noncommercial uses. Fair use also includes activities undertaken for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research.

    Today, many forms of digital content—including e-books and video—are “copy-protected” and otherwise restricted by technological means. Whether scholars, researchers, commentators and the public will continue to be able to make legitimate fair uses of these works will depend upon the availability of tools to bypass these digital locks.

    The DMCA, however, prohibits the creation or distribution of these tools, even if they are needed to enable fair uses. As a result, fair uses have been whittled away by digital locks allegedly intended to “prevent piracy.” Perhaps more importantly, future fair uses may not be developed for restricted media, because courts will never have the opportunity to rule on them. Fair users will be found liable for “picking the lock” and thereby violating the DMCA, whatever the merits of their fair use defense.

    Copyright owners argue that these tools, in the hands of copyright infringers, can result in “Internet piracy.” But banning the tools that enable fair use punishes the innocent as much or more than the guilty.

    The DMCA provides for exemptions to the rules, but the process for obtaining DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free exemptions is expensive, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, technical and often fruitless, particularly for consumer fair uses.[55]

    Copy-protected CDs & DRM in Online Music

    “Copy-protected” CDs and digital rights management (DRM) for online music illustrate the collision between fair use and the DMCA in the music world. Although major labels abandoned CD copy-protection after the Sony-BMG “rootkit” scandal in late-2005, more than 15 million copy-protected CDs were distributed.

    Such CD copy-protection technologies interfered with the fair use expectations of music fans by inhibiting the transfer of music from CD to iPods or other MP3 players—despite the fact that making an MP3 copy of a CD for personal use qualifies as a fair use. Other fair uses impaired by copy-protection technologies include making “mix CDs” or making copies of a CD for the office or car. Unfortunately, companies that distribute tools to “repair” these dysfunctional CDs, restoring to consumers their fair use privileges, run the risk of lawsuits under the DMCA’s ban on circumvention tools and technologies.[56]

    Until 2007, authorized digital music download services also utilized DRM systems that frustrated fair use expectations, and technical restrictions remain common for subscription services.[57] And even after music download retailers like iTunes and gave up DRM, consumers who had purchased DRM-restricted files in the past continued to have difficulties as vendors like Walmart shut down the “authentication servers” without which DRM-restricted files could not be transferred to new computers.[58] In other words, rather than prevent piracy, these DRM restrictions have hurt legitimate customers long after they purchased the songs.

    Fair Use Tools Banned: DVD/Blu-Ray Copying Tools

    There are many legitimate reasons to copy DVDs. Once the video is copied to a computer, for example, lots of fair uses become possible—video creators can remix movie clips into original YouTube videos, frequent travelers can load the movie into their laptops, and DVD owners can skip the otherwise “unskippable” commercials that preface certain films.

    DMCA lawsuits targeting makers of DVD copying tools have hampered these and other fair uses. In the Universal v. Reimerdes case, discussed above, the court held that the DMCA bans DeCSS, the first of many widely available free tools for decrypting and copying DVDs. In another case, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, federal courts ordered 321 Studios’ DVD X Copy product taken off the shelves for violating the DMCA. Major movie studios also used the DMCA to sue Tritton Technologies, the manufacturer of DVD CopyWare, and three website distributors of similar software.[59]

    In October 2008, RealNetworks was forced to stop sales of DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free RealDVD software, designed to allow users to copy a DVD and store it on their hard drive. This format-shifting by RealDVD would have enabled DVD owners to create backups, organize a movie collection digitally, and watch a DVD at any time without being tied to a physical disc. Nor did RealDVD represent a “piracy” threat: RealDVD preserved the DVD’s CSS copy-protection system and added numerous additional security measures. RealNetworks also took a license from the DVD Copy Control Association to perform the necessary DVD decryption. Nevertheless, a federal court ruled in August 2009 that, even if the uses enabled by RealDVD were lawful fair uses, the DMCA forbids the distribution of tools like RealDVD.[60]

    In light of these rulings, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, movie fans, film scholars, movie critics, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, educators, librarians, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, filmmakers, video remixers, and public interest groups have been forced to ask the Librarian of Congress repeatedly for DMCA exemptions to allow the decryption of DVDs in order to enable noninfringing uses. For example, exemptions have been sought to allow movie critics to post movie clips, DVD owners to skip “unskippable” previews and commercials, and legitimate purchasers to bypass “region coding” restrictions on their DVD players. Every DVD-related request was denied in both the 2000 and 2003 triennial rulemakings.[61] In 2006, a narrow DMCA exemption was granted to allow film professors to create compilations of motion pictures for educational use in the classroom.[62]

    In 2009, educators renewed their request for an exemption that would allow film professors, media studies educators, and students to use short clips taken from DVDs for educational purposes.[63] EFF and the Organization for Transformative Works also applied for an exemption to allow remixers to extract clips from DVDs to create noncommercial remix videos.[64] While the motion picture industry endorsed a renewal of the narrow exemption for film professors, it opposed any expansion to permit other noninfringing uses of DVDs, going so far as to suggest that noninfringing users should camcord DVD clips from flat screen televisions.[65] In a major victory for remixers, educators, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, and other innovators, the Librarian of Congress finally approved the EFF’s request in 2010, and these exemptions were renewed and expanded in 2012.[66]

    Even if other exemptions are granted in the future, it is worth noting that the Copyright Office is powerless to grant an exemption to the DMCA’s “tools” ban. As a result, even if fair users succeed in obtaining a DMCA exemption, technology companies will remain reluctant to supply them with the necessary circumvention tools.

    Advanced e-Book Processor and e-Books

    The future of fair use for books was DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free issue in the criminal prosecution of Dmitry Sklyarov and Elcomsoft. As discussed above, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, Elcomsoft produced and distributed a tool called the Advanced e-Book Processor, which translates e-books from Adobe’s e-book format to PDF. This translation process removed various restrictions (against copying, printing, text-to-speech processing, etc.) that publishers can impose on e-books.[67]

    The Advanced e-Book Processor allowed those who have legitimately purchased e-books to make fair uses of their e-books, uses otherwise made impossible by the restrictions of the Adobe e-book format. For instance, the program allowed people to engage in the following fair uses:

    • read the e-book on a laptop or computer other than the one on which it was first downloaded;

    • continue to access the e-book in the future, if the particular technological device for which it was purchased becomes obsolete;

    • print an e-book on paper;

    • read an e-book on an alternative operating system such as GNU/Linux (Adobe’s format works only on Macs and Windows PCs);

    • have a computer read an e-book out loud using text-to-speech software, which is particularly important for visually-impaired individuals.

    As described above, Sklyarov was arrested for his work. His alleged crime was his work on a software tool with many legitimate uses, simply because other people mightuse the tool to copy an e-book without the publisher’s permission.

    Federal prosecutors ultimately permitted Sklyarov to return home, but brought criminal charges against ElcomSoft. In December 2002, a jury acquitted Elcomsoft of all charges, completing an 18-month ordeal for the wrongly-accused Russian software company.[[68]]

    Time-shifting and Streaming Media

    As more people receive audio and video content from “streaming” Internet media sources, they will want tools to preserve their settled fair use expectations, including the ability to “time-shift” programming for later listening or viewing. As a result of the DMCA, however, the digital equivalents of VCRs and cassette decks for streaming media may never thrive.

    Start-up software company Streambox developed exactly such a product, known simply as the Streambox VCR, designed to time-shift streaming media. When RealNetworks discovered that the Streambox VCR could time-shift streaming RealAudio webcasts, it invoked the DMCA and obtained an injunction against the Streambox VCR product (years later, this ruling would come to haunt RealNetworks when it found itself the target of a DMCA lawsuit over its own RealDVD software, as described above).[69]

    The DMCA has also been invoked to threaten the developer of an open source, noncommercial software application known as Streamripper that records MP3 audio streams for later listening.[70] As of January 2013, Streamripper remains available for download.[71]

    Agfa Monotype and Fonts

    In January 2002, typeface vendor Agfa Monotype Corporation threatened a college student with DMCA liability for creating “embed,” a free, open source, noncommercial software program designed to manipulate TrueType fonts.

    According to the student: “I wrote embed in 1997, after discovering that all of my fonts disallowed embedding in documents. Since my fonts are free, this was silly—but I didn’t want to take the time to. . change the flag, and then reset all of the extended font properties with a separate program. What a bore! Instead, I wrote this program to convert all of my fonts at once. The program is very simple; it just requires setting a few bits to zero. Indeed, I noticed that other fonts that were licensed for unlimit­ed distribution also disallowed embedding…. So, I put this program on the web in hopes that it would help other font developers as well.”

    According to Agfa, the fact that embed can be used to allow distribution of protected fonts made it contraband under section 1201, notwithstanding the fact that the tool had many legitimate uses in the hands of hobbyist font developers.[72] As of January 2013, the “embed” program remains available for download on the creator’s website.[73]Agfa Monotype brought similar DMCA challenges against Adobe Systems for its Acrobat 5.0’s FreeText DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free and Forms Tool, which allowed so-called “editable embedding.” Agfa claimed that with Acrobat 5.0, the recipient of an electronic document could make use of embedded fonts to change the contents of a form field or free text annotation, thus “circumventing” the embedding bits of some of Agfa’s TrueType Fonts.

    Fortunately, in 2005, a federal court found that Adobe had not violated either section 1201(a) or section 1201(b) of the DMCA. The court noted that embedding bits do not effectively control access to a protected work and, moreover, that Acrobat 5.0 was not designed primarily to circumvent TrueType fonts.[74]

    Load-’N-Go Space-shifting

    In November 2006, movie studios used the DMCA against Load-’N-Go, a small company that loaded DVDs purchased by a customer onto the customer’s iPod. Load-’N-Go would take DVDs purchased by the customer, load them onto her iPod, and then return both the iPod and the original DVDs.

    The movie studios claimed this service violated the DMCA because creating a duplicate copy of the movie—even for personal, fair uses—circumvents the DVD’s CSS encryption. Under this theory, any individual attempting to space-shift movies from DVD to iPod or to any other digital media player is violating the DMCA. Conveniently for movie studios, this legal posture enables them to sell consumers the same movies multiple times, for multiple devices.

    After some back-and-forth in the courts, the case settled in February 2007. However, the Load-‘N-Go service has since become defunct, and the company’s website no longer exists.[75]

    5.   A threat to innovation and competition

    The DMCA has frequently been used to deter legitimate innovation and competition, rather than to stop piracy.

    For example, the DMCA has been used to block aftermarket competition in laser printer toner cartridges, garage door openers, videogame console accessories, and computer maintenance services. Until EFF obtained an exemption for jailbreaking, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, Apple relied on the DMCA to lock iPhone owners into purchasing software exclusively from Apple’s own App Store. Videogame hobbyists have been sued for trying to improve or extend the capabilities of their favorite game titles. Sony has threatened hobbyists for creating software that enables Sony’s Aibo robot dog to dance, and has sued to block software that allows gamers to play their PlayStation games on PCs.

    In each of these cases, it was legitimate competitors and innovators who suffered, not pirates.[76]

    Programmer George Hotz Sued By Sony

    Prolific hacker George Hotz, a.k.a Geohot, is well-known for being the first to successfully jailbreak Apple’s iPhone. Today, he is perhaps just as famous for his work with Sony’s PlayStation 3 and the subsequent legal battle that ensued. In early 2010, Hotz announced that he had gained hypervisor access to the PlayStation 3, allowing him to read and write to the machine’s system memory.[77] In creating his hack, Hotz had used encryption research from the failOverflow team, which had previously revealed a security exploit in the system.[78] Hotz’s intention in creating this hack was simply to satisfy his own “curiosity” and to play his own homemade games on the PlayStation 3’s hardware.[79] However, Hotz’s hack also allowed users to play pirated games on the system. Sony did not take the news well.

    Sony’s initial response to Hotz’s hack was to release a firmware update for all PlayStation 3 consoles. The update, which was mandatory for all users that wished to continue using PlayStation’s online services, removed the PlayStation 3’s “OtherOS” feature that Hotz had exploited for his hack. (Incidentally, Sony’s decision to remove the OtherOS feature led to a separate class action lawsuit initialed against Sony, which has since been dismissed.[80]) In response, Hotz released his own custom firmware, and published the root keys that would allow one to crack even the newest PlayStation 3 consoles. At that point, Sony filed suit against Hotz under both the DMCA and CFAA. The researchers at failOverflow were also targeted.

    Sony’s legal strategy in the Hotz case has been described as “scorched-earth.”[81] Not only did Sony seek to impound all “tools of circumvention” (which Sony defined to include even Hotz’s research papers), but it also subpoenaed Hotz’s PayPal, YouTube, Twitter, and other accounts.[82]  Sony also demanded to know the identities of all Internet users who had accessed Geohot’s website or YouTube videos while the jailbreak was posted. EFF filed a letter as amicus opposing this extremely broad subpoena.[83]

    Eventually, Sony dropped its case against Hotz and the failOverflow team, after Hotz promised not to hack any Sony products, discuss hacking Sony products, or link to any research related to hacking Sony products.[84] DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free Hotz has essentially been silenced, his research (and the PlayStation 3 root keys) remain readily accessible on the Internet.

    Craigslist Sues Competitors and Innovators

    Using the DMCA, Craigslist has sued several cservices that attempted to offer better ways to post ads on Craigslist. In several cases, these suits have forced the competitor to shut down, depriving consumers of a potentially useful service.

    In 2009, for example, Craigslist sued Ivan Gasov and Naturemarket, Inc., operators of the website Gasov and Naturemarket had developed software that permitted users to automatically post ads on Craigslist, and they also offered, for a fee, to post ads to Craigslist on behalf of users. The court enjoined Gasov and Naturemarket from using or selling their software and services.[85]

    Craigslist has filed numerous similar lawsuits against other services that offer automatic or easier ways to post ads, resulting in the shuttering of these services.[86]

    Apple Uses DMCA to Lock iPhone to App Store

    Apple uses technical measures backed by the DMCA to try to lock iPhone owners into obtaining software (“apps”) exclusively from Apple’s own iTunes App Store, where every app must be approved by Apple and Apple retains 30% of revenues generated by app sales. Apple also uses the DMCA to prevent iPhone owners from switching to mobile phone carriers of their choice.

    Despite Apple’s efforts, millions of iPhone owners, assisted by independent hobbyists, have “unlocked” or “jailbroken” their iPhones to use the carriers and apps of their choice. Apple, however, continues to argue that these activities violate the DMCA.[87] The negative consequences for competition and speech have been clear; witness, for example, Apple’s rejection of Google’s official Google Voice application,[88] and the rejection of apps from Nine Inch Nails[89] and South Park[90] based on “naughty language.”

    IN 2006 the Librarian of Congress granted an exemption that allowed all users to jailbreak their phones for the purposes of switching carriers. In 2009, The Copyright Office broadened the exemption to legalize all jailbreaking for handsets. In 2012, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, the EFF sought to preserve the previous exemptions, and to extend the exemption to tablets and videogame consoles.[91] The Librarian decided to preserve the exception for smartphone, but declined to extend the exception further.[92]

    Microsoft intimidates Kinect innovators, then backpedals

    In 2010, Microsoft launched a new peripheral for its Xbox 360 videogame console. Dubbed the “Kinect,” the camera-like USB device was capable of advanced voice and facial recognition, and could capture movement and sound in three dimensions. Given the Kinect’s comparatively low price, innovators immediately expressed a desire to use Kinect’s technology for projects outside the realm of videogames. However, the device was not initially compatible with any device other than the Xbox 360.

    Recognizing the true potential of the technology, Adafruit Industries created a contest, promising to pay a bounty of $1,000 to the first programmer who created an open-source driver for Kinect.[93] Such a driver would give programmers the ability to write their own programs utilizing the Kinect hardware. Microsoft did not approve of Adafruit’s contest, writing that “Microsoft does not condone the modification of its products,” and that it would “work closely with law enforcement and product safety groups to keep Kinect tamper-resistant.”[94]

    Despite this veiled DMCA threat, a brave programmer successfully wrote the necessary driver and opened the Kinect for experimentation.[95] Since then, the Kinect has been used for a staggering variety of innovative, futuristic and artistic projects, arguably creating an entirely new technology market.[96] Meanwhile, Microsoft has “done a complete 180 when it comes to hack[ing],” as one website put it.[97] Microsoft announced that it would not pursue legal action against any Kinect hackers.[98] Furthermore, Microsoft claimed that the Kinect was actually designed to be open all along; Microsoft planned to release its own version of Kinect to be used with Windows.

    DMCA Used First to Lock Cell Phones to Carriers; Then, to Hammer Phone Resellers

    American cellular phone subscribers have long suffered with phones that are artificially “locked” to a particular carrier’s network. This creates a variety of burdens for consumers, including high roaming rates when traveling (by preventing the use of prepaid SIM chips from local carriers) and barriers to switching carriers. In addition, these restrictions make locked phones harder to recycle and reuse. “Locking” phones seems particularly unjustifiable in light of the “minimum term” and “early termination fee” clauses that guarantee carriers will recoup the costs of the phones they are so fond of “giving away” to lure subscribers.

    Responding to consumer demand, phone “unlocking” services have become widespread. Unfortunately, carriers have responded by filing suit under the DMCA. Instead of being used against copyright infringers, the DMCA is being used to prop up the anticompetitive business models of cellular carriers.[99]

    At the 2006, and 2009, triennial DMCA rulemaking, the Librarian of congress granted an exemption for cell phone unlocking. Despite this exemption, however, DMCA lawsuits persisted. Tracfone, the nation’s largest independent prepaid-wireless provider, aggressively uses the DMCA to sue phone resellers who purchase and unlock Tracfone handsets. Courts have ruled in favor of Tracfone, allowing the company to continue using the DMCA as a hammer against secondary markets, instead of as a deterrent against copyright infringers.[100] In 2012, the exemption was not renewed; as of January 26, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, 2013, cell phone unlocking is once against a DMCA violation.

    Apple Ties OS X to Hardware, Targets Psystar

    Apple uses technical measures to prevent consumers from installing Apple’s OS X operating system onto computers other than those sold by Apple. When Psystar began selling cheaper PCs along with legitimately purchased copies of OS X, it ended up DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free court facing a DMCA claim by Apple.[101]

    In November 2009, a federal judge ruled in favor of Apple on the copyright issues, stating that Psystar’s computer infringed Apple’s copyright and violated the DMCA. After four years of legal battling and an affirmation from the 9th Circuit, The Supreme Court declined to review Psystar’s case.[102] Psystar has now gone out of business, although a number of smaller imitators are springing up to take its place.[103]

    Apple Threatens Real over Harmony

    In July 2004, RealNetworks announced its “Harmony” technology, which was designed to allow music sold by Real’s digital download store to play on Apple iPods. Until Harmony, the only DRM-restricted music format playable on the iPod was Apple’s own “Fairplay” format. Although the iPod plays a variety of DRM-free formats, Real wanted to ensure interoperability without having to give up DRM restrictions, and thus developed Harmony to “re-wrap” its songs using the Fairplay format.[104]

    Within days, Apple responded by accusing Real of adopting the “tactics and ethics of a hacker” and threatening legal action under the DMCA. Over the following months, the two competitors engaged in a game of technological cat-and-mouse, with Apple disabling Harmony in updates of its iTunes software and Real revising its technology to re-enable compatibility. In the words of Real’s filings before the SEC: “Although we believe our Harmony technology is legal, there is no assurance that a court would agree with our position.”[105]

    As of January 2013, the music and music videos downloaded from iTunes no longer contain DRM, although DRM is still used for downloaded movies and TV shows.[106]

    Tecmo Sues to Block Game Enhancements

    Enthusiastic fans of the videogames Ninja Gaiden, Dead or Alive 3, and Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball managed to modify their games to create new “skins” to change the appearance of characters who appear in the game (including making some characters appear nude). The modifications were add-on enhancements for the games themselves—only those who already had the games DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free make use of the skins. These hobbyist tinkerers traded their modding tips and swapped skins on a website called

    Tecmo Inc., which distributes the games, was not amused and brought DMCA claims against the website operators and tinkerers who frequented it. The suit was ultimately dismissed after the website was taken down and settlements negotiated with the site’s operators.[107]

    Nikon’s Encrypted RAW Format Blocks Adobe

    In April 2005, the creator of Adobe’s Photoshop software revealed that camera-maker Nikon had begun encrypting certain portions of the RAW image files generated by its professional-grade digital cameras. As a result, these files would not be compatible with Photoshop or other similar software unless the developers first took licenses from Nikon. In other words, by encrypting the image files on its cameras, Nikon was obtaining market leverage in the image editing software market.

    Adobe cited the prospect of a DMCA claim as one reason why it was unwilling to reverse engineer the format to facilitate interoperability, despite the fact that intrepid programmers were able to break the encryption through reverse engineering. Nikon and Adobe ultimately negotiated an agreement, an option that may not be practical for smaller software developers in the future.[108]

    StorageTek Attempts to Block Independent Service Vendors

    StorageTek sells data storage hardware to large enterprise clients. It also sells maintenance services for its products. Custom Hardware is an independent business that repairs StorageTek hardware. In an effort to eliminate this competitor in the maintenance services market, StorageTek sued under the DMCA, arguing that Custom Hardware had circumvented certain passwords designed to block independent service providers from using maintenance software included in the StorageTek hardware systems. In other words, StorageTek was using the DMCA to ensure that its customers had only one place to turn for repair services.

    A district court granted a preliminary injunction against Custom Hardware. More than a year later, a court of appeals vacated the injunction, holding that where there is no nexus with copyright infringement, there can be no DMCA claim. Although this was a victory for competition, it illustrates the ways in which the DMCA continues to be used to impede competition, rather than prevent piracy.[109]

    Lexmark Sues Over Toner Cartridges

    Lexmark, the second-largest laser printer maker in the U.S., has long tried to eliminate the secondary market in refilled laser toner cartridges. In January 2003, Lexmark employed the DMCA as a new weapon in its arsenal.

    Lexmark had added authentication routines between its printers and cartridges explicitly to hinder aftermarket toner vendors. Static Control Components (SCC) reverse-engineered these measures and sold “Smartek” chips that enabled refilled cartridges to work in Lexmark printers. Lexmark then used the DMCA to obtain an injunction banning SCC from selling its chips to cartridge remanufacturers.

    SCC ultimately succeeded DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free getting the injunction overturned on appeal, but only after 19 months of expensive litigation while its product was held off the market. The litigation sent a chilling message to those in the secondary market for Lexmark cartridges.[110]

    Chamberlain Sues Universal Garage Door Opener Manufacturer

    Garage door opener manufacturer Chamberlain Group invoked the DMCA against competitor Skylink Technologies after several major U.S. retailers dropped Chamberlain’s remote openers in favor of the less expensive Skylink universal “clickers.” Chamberlain claimed that Skylink had violated the DMCA because its clicker bypassed an “authentication regime” between the Chamberlain remote opener and the mounted garage door receiver unit. On Chamberlain’s logic, consumers would be locked into a sole source not only for replacement garage door clickers, but virtually any remote control device.

    Skylink ultimately defeated Chamberlain both at the district court and court of appeals, but only after many months of expensive litigation. In the words of the court of appeals, Chamberlain’s use DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free the DMCA was nothing less than an “attempt to leverage its sales into aftermarket monopolies.”[111]  Now, Chamberlain attempts to limit the use of third party remotes through convoluted “legaleze” printed in its owner’s manual.[112]

    Microsoft uses DMCA as Counterclaim for Antitrust Lawsuit

    Datel, Inc. produces third-party accessories for every major videogame console, including Microsoft’s Xbox 360.[113] As with all third-party manufacturers, Datel must engineer its accessories so that they will be compatible with the chosen first-party console; this frequently requires reverse engineering or other hacking. In 2009, Microsoft issued a mandatory firmware update for all Xbox 360 consoles connected to the Internet: this update had no effect on Microsoft’s own memory cards, but rendered Datel’s memory cards completely unusable.[114] Datel sued Microsoft for antitrust violations; Microsoft counterclaimed by accusing Datel of violating the DMCA.

    It is difficult to imagine a clearer case of the DMCA being used to stifle competition than was the case here. Microsoft forced consumers to purchase its own memory cards and then used the DMCA to attack legitimate competitors. The EFF filed an amicus brief in support of Datel, arguing that the DMCA was not designed to DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free used to hobble competition and user choice.[115] The case ultimately settled in 2012, but third-party memory cards remain incompatible with the Xbox 360.[116]

    Sony Sues Connectix and Bleem

    Sony used the DMCA to sue competitors who created emulation software that permits gamers to play PlayStation console games on PCs. In 1999, Sony sued Connectix, the maker of the Virtual Game Station, a PlayStation emulator for Macintosh computers. Sony also sued Bleem, the leading vendor of PlayStation emulator software for Windows PCs and Sega’s Dreamcast console.

    In both cases, Sony claimed DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free competitors had violated the DMCA by engaging in unlawful circumvention, even though courts have recognized that the development of interoperable software DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free a fair use under copyright law. Because courts have suggested that the DMCA trumps fair use, however, the DMCA has become a new legal weapon with which to threaten those who rely on reverse engineering to create competing products.[117]

    Neither Connectix nor Bleem were able to bear the high costs of litigation against Sony and eventually pulled their products off the market.

    Sony Threatens Aibo Hobbyist

    Sony has also invoked the DMCA against a hobbyist who developed custom “dance moves” for his Aibo robotic “pet” dog. Developing these new routines for the Sony Aibo required reverse engineering the encryption surrounding the software that manipulates the robot. The hobbyist revealed neither the decrypted Sony software nor the code he used to defeat the encryption, but he freely distributed his new custom programs. Sony claimed that the act of circumventing the encryption surrounding the software in the Aibo violated the DMCA and demanded that the hobbyist remove his programs from his website.

    Responding to public outcry, Sony ultimately permitted the hobbyist to repost some of his programs (on the understanding that Sony retained the right to commercially exploit the hobbyist’s work). Nevertheless, Sony discontinued the Aibo robot in 2006.[118] This incident illustrated Sony’s willingness to invoke the DMCA in situations with no relationship to “piracy.”[119]

    Sony Attacks PlayStation “Mod Chips”

    Sony has sued a number of manufacturers and distributors of “mod chips” for alleged circumvention under the DMCA. In doing so, Sony has been able to enforce a system of “region coding” that raises significant anticompetitive issues.

    “Mod chips” are after-market accessories that modify Sony PlayStation game consoles to permit games legitimately purchased in one part of the world to be played on a games console from another geographical region. Sony complains that mod chips can also be used to play pirated copies of games. As noted above, it is hard to see why an independent vendor of a product with legitimate uses should have to solve Sony’s piracy problems before entering the market.

    Sony sued Gamemasters, distributor of the Game Enhancer peripheral device, which allowed owners of a U.S. PlayStation console to play games purchased in Japan and other countries. Although there was no infringement of Sony’s copyright, the court granted an injunction under the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, effectively leaving gamers at the mercy of Sony’s region coding system.

    Interestingly, courts in Australia, recognizing the anticompetitive and anticonsumer ramifications of Sony’s region coding system, came to a different conclusion under that country’s analog to the DMCA. In Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment, the High Court of Australia held in 2005 that the regional access coding on Sony PlayStation computer games as implemented by the PlayStation console did not qualify for legal protection, as it did not prevent or inhibit copyright infringement.

    Sony, like all vendors, is free to attempt to segregate geographic markets, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. If it does so, however, it should have to bear its own costs for the effort, rather than relying on the DMCA, which Congress plainly did not enact to trump the usual legal regimes governing parallel importation.[120]

    US Government Prosecutes Importers and Distributors of “Mod Chips”

    In addition to Sony’s attempts to go after manufacturers and distributors of “mod chips,” the US government has undertaken criminal prosecutions of "mod chip" importers and distributors. In 2007, as part of “Operation Tangled Web,” officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with assistance from representatives of the software industry, raided 32 locations in 16 states, seeking evidence of the importation of “mod chips” from China.[121]

    Although little information about the case has emerged, in 2012 the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio indicted 10 people in connection with the case.[122] At least one defendant, William Silvius, charged with violating the DMCA for selling “mod chips,” had his indictment upheld by the courts.[123]

    Ironically, these indictments went forward as the Copyright DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free was considering extending the jailbreaking exception to game consoles, which would legitimize the sale and manufacture of “mod chips,” Unfortunately, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, the Copyright Office declined to extend this exemption beyond phone handsets in its 2012 ruling.

    Blizzard Sues

    Vivendi-Universal’s Blizzard Entertainment video game division brought a DMCA lawsuit against a group of volunteer game enthusiasts who created software that allowed owners of Blizzard games to play their games over the Internet. The software, called “bnetd,” allowed gamers to set up their own alternative to Blizzard’s own service.

    Blizzard has a policy of locking in its customers who want to play their games over the Internet—it’s the servers or nothing. Although access to Blizzard’s servers is free, the hobbyists decided to create bnetd to overcome difficulties that they had experienced in attempting to use The bnetd software was freely distributed, open source, and noncommercial.

    Blizzard filed suit in St. Louis to bar distribution of bnetd, alleging that the software was a “circumvention device” prohibited by the DMCA. According to Blizzard, the bnetd software could be used to permit networked play of pirated Blizzard games. The developers never used the software for that purpose, nor was that the purpose for which the software was designed.

    It is hard to see why a competitor should have to solve Blizzard’s piracy problem before it can offer innovative products for legitimate owners of Blizzard games. Nevertheless, Blizzard prevailed on its DMCA claim, and the bnetd developers ceased distributing the software.[124]

    Apple Harasses Inventive Retailer

    When Other World Computing (OWC), a small retailer specializing in Apple Macintosh comput­ers, developed a software patch in 2002 that allowed all Mac owners to use Apple’s iDVD software, they thought they were doing Macintosh fans a favor. For their trouble, they got a DMCA threat from Apple.

    Apple’s iDVD authoring software was designed to work on newer Macs that shipped with internal DVD recorders manufactured by Apple. OWC discovered that a minor software DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free would allow iDVD to work with external DVD recorders, giving owners of older Macs an upgrade path. Apple claimed that this constituted a violation of the DMCA and requested that OWC stop this practice immediately. OWC obliged.

    Rather than prevent copyright infringement, the DMCA empowered Apple to force consumers to buy new Mac computers instead of simply upgrading their older machines with an external DVD recorder.[125] Eventually, Apple released iDVD version 6.0 in 2006, which featured full compatibility with external DVD recorders.[126]

    Macrovision Sues Sima for Digitizing Analog Video

    In April 2006, hardware manufacturer Sima Products was forced to stop selling various video enhancing products that digitized analog signals from DVD players and VCRs. Wielding the DMCA, Macrovision argued that DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free analog-to-digital video enhancements circumvented Macrovision’s analog copy protection (ACP).

    Macrovision’s ACP functions by inserting noise into the vertical blanking intervals found in analog video signals. This noise is not displayed on a television set, but it does degrade the recording made by most analog VCRs. Sima’s products simply convert the analog signal into a digital signal, which eliminates additional noise in the blanking intervals, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free then converts the signal back to analog. This video enhancement allows consumers to harness digital techniques to make up for a weakness in VCR analog technology, a weakness which could come from age or distortion as well as from techniques like Macrovision’s.

    ACP does not prevent digital copies. Moreover, when a digital copy is made, Macrovision’s ACP does not survive. Accordingly, Sima’s products were not “circumventing” anything by performing its analog-to-digital conversion.

    Macrovision, nevertheless, was able to convince the court that Sima had violated the DMCA. This unfortunate result indicates that the DMCA can be manipulated to push obsolete analog copy protection systems onto new technology innovators.[127] Although Sima appealed the ruling, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, it subsequently settled with Macrovision before the appeal was heard.

    Blizzard Blocks World of Warcraft Glider

    Blizzard, makers the popular online role-playing game World of Warcraft (WoW), sued MDY Industries, the developer of a program which enables WoW characters to continue playing even when the user is away from her computer. These “bot” programs help reduce the time that a user must otherwise spend to progress in the game. MDY’s product, known as “Glider,” proved to be very popular with WoW players, selling about 120,000 units.[128]

    The district court ultimately ruled against MDY on Blizzard’s DMCA claims, finding that Glider circumvented technical measures used by Blizzard to control access to copyrighted materials stored on the WoW gameservers.[129] The Ninth Circuit agreed, and entered a permanent injunction against MDY to prevent future § 1201(a)(2) violations.[130]

    This ruling is troubling because it suggests that software vendors DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free deploy mechanisms that monitor user behavior and rely on the DMCA to prevent users from “hiding” from these mechanisms. While the prospect of WoW players “cheating” by using Glider may not elicit much sympathy, this precedent could be used to stymie other kinds of innovation among software “add-ons.”  

    Car Product Design Company Attempts to Suppress Competition with the DMCA and a EULA

    In March 2008, car product design company XPEL Technologies filed suit against American Filter Film Distributors, a rival who provides services for car paint and window film protection. Among a slew of other claims, XPEL alleged that American Filter violated the DMCA by using “Capture” software to copy product images from the XPEL website and distribute the image and product to other auto dealers. XPEL argued the DMCA was violated because (1) the XPEL website is protected by an end-user license agreement (EULA), (2) American Filter clicked that they agreed to the EULA, and (3) the EULA is a technological measure which effectively controls access to the copyrighted design works on XPEL’s website. This was the first case where a “click-thru” EULA has been put forward as an access control protected by the DMCA.

    The court rejected a motion to dismiss the DMCA claim, and the parties subsequently settled the case in October 2008.[131] DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free remains to be seen whether other plaintiffs follow XPEL’s lead in trying to rely on a EULA as an “access control” under the DMCA.

    6.   DMCA Shoulders Aside Computer Intrusion Statutes.

    The DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions have also threatened to displace “computer intrusion” and “anti-hacking” laws, something that Congress plainly never intended.

    State and federal statutes already protect computer network owners from unauthorized intrusions. These include the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Wiretap Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and a variety of state computer intrusion statutes. These statutes, however, generally require that a plaintiff prove that the intrusion caused some harm in order to bring a civil suit. The DMCA, in contrast, contains no financial damage threshold, tempting some to use it in place of the statutes that were designed to address computer intrusion.

    Some courts have taken steps to rein in this particular misuse of the DMCA, ruling that the use of authentic usernames and DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free to access computers cannot constitute circumvention, even if done without the authorization of the computer owner.[132] Until more judicial precedents are on the books, however, the improper use of the DMCA as an all-purpose computer intrusion prohibition will continue to muddy the waters for lawyers and professionals.

    Disgruntled Company Sues Former Contractor For Unauthorized Network Access

    In April 2003, an automated stock trading company sued a former contract programmer under the DMCA, claiming that his access to the company’s computer system over a password-protected virtual private network (VPN) connection was an act of circumvention.

    Pearl Investments had employed the programmer to create a software module for its software system. In order to complete the work remotely, the programmer used a VPN to connect to the company’s computers. Although the contractor created a very successful software module for the company, the relationship turned frosty after the company ran into financial difficulties and terminated the contractor’s contract.

    The company sued the contractor when it discovered the contractor’s VPN connection to the its sys­tem, claiming electronic trespass, as well as violations of computer intrusion statutes, the CFAA, and the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions. Pearl claimed that it had withdrawn the authorization it had previously given to the contractor to access its system through the password-protected VPN and that the VPN connection was therefore unauthorized. The Court rejected the company’s electronic trespass and CFAA claims due to lack of evidence of any actual damage done. Even though the second server was not being used by the programmer at the time, and its hard drive had been accidentally wiped, the court agreed with Pearl that the existence of the VPN was a prohibited circumvention of a technological protection measure that controlled access to a system which contained copyrighted software.[133]

    At the subsequent trial, the jury found that the contractor did not violate the DMCA, although the jury did award Pearl Investments $54,000 on other grounds.[134]

    The website run by RMG Technologies provided tickets to events that were likely to sell out quickly on Ticketmaster. RMG allegedly used software to quickly make bulk purchases of tickets from Ticketmaster, circumventing the limit of four tickets per customer, in order to re-sell the tickets for profit.

    Ticketmaster brought suit under the DMCA, the CFAA, the Copyright Act, breach of contract, and under California’s criminal code governing computer crimes. On a motion for preliminary injunction, the court found that Ticketmaster was likely to succeed on its DMCA, Copyright Act, and breach of contract claims; however, Ticketmaster would not have been able to prevail on the CFAA claim. (The court found it did not need to address the claim under California’s criminal code.)

    This ruling illustrates how the DMCA has shouldered aside computer intrusion statutes like the CFAA. Because the CFAA requires that Ticketmaster prove it suffered $5,000 in damages during one year, whereas the DMCA contains no financial damage threshold, Ticketmaster was able to succeed under the DMCA while failing under the CFAA.[135]

    The DMCA was not intended for this purpose. The DMCA was designed to protect copyrighted works, not ticket vendors. Although the defense made both these arguments,[136] the court nevertheless ruled in favor of Ticketmaster on the DMCA claim.[137]

    Cable Provider Blocks Cable Digital Filters

    In addition to computer intrusion statues, the DMCA may also be starting to shoulder aside penal statues in other industry areas.

    In August 2008, cable provider CoxCom Inc. successfully forced Jon and Amy Chaffee, and their one employee, to stop selling cable digital filters at computer trade shows. These low-frequency digital filters blocked pay-per-view charges from being sent to cable companies, thus giving users free pay-per-view. Not surprisingly, the court granted summary judgment against the Chaffees for violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act, a statute specifically enacted to address theft of cable services to protect the economic viability of cable operators and cable programmers. However, the court also ruled that the Chaffees violated the DMCA.

    The DMCA argument is DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free the Chaffees’ low-frequency filters circumvent CoxCom’s pay-per-view billing mechanism, allegedly a “technological measure” that controls access to copyrighted works. If a billing mechanism has become a “technological measure” within the meaning of the DMCA, it is troubling to think what else may qualify.[138]

    7.   Conclusion

    Years of experience with the “anti-circumvention” provisions of the DMCA demonstrate that the statute reaches too far, chilling a wide variety of legitimate activities in ways Congress did not intend. As encrypted software finds its way into an increasing number of devices—from phones to tablets to cars—it is likely that the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions will be applied in further unforeseen contexts, hindering the legitimate activities of innovators, researchers, the press, and the public at large.

    [1] For examples of Congress’ stated purpose in enacting the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, see 144 Cong. Rec. H7093, H7094-5 (Aug. 4, 1998); Senate Judiciary Comm., S. Rep. 105-190 (1998) at 29; Judiciary Comm., H. Rep. 105-551 Pt 1 (1998) at 18; House Commerce Comm., H. Rep. 105-551 Pt 2 (1998) at 38.

    [2] See WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act and Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act: Hearing on H.R. 2281 and H.R. 2280 before the House Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Prop., 105th Cong., 1st sess. (Sept. 16, 1997) at 62 (testimony of Asst. Sec. of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Bruce A. Lehman admitting that section 1201 went beyond the requirements of the WIPO Copyright Treaty).

    [3] For a full description of the events leading up to the enactment of the DMCA, see Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright 89-150 (2000).

    [4] See Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regula­tions Need to be Revised, 14 Berkeley Technology L.J. 519, 537-57 (1999), available at

    [5] Brandon Wilson, Skylanders portal documentation (Oct. 27th, 2011 6:35 PM),

    [6] Russell Holly, Activision Delivers Cease And Desist To Skylanders Tinkerer, Geek (Dec. 28, 2011 2:48 PM),

    [7] Letter from Mark DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. Mayer, Mitchel Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, to Brandon L. Wilson (Oct. 26, 2011), available at

    [8] See Letter from Brandon L. Wilson to Mark E, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. Mayer, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, available at (last visited June 12, 2012).

    [10] About Gitorious, Gitorious, (last visited June 12, 2012).

    [11] Christian Johansen, Gitorious receives DMCA takedown notice from Sony, Gitorious (Feb. 2, 2011 1:41 PM),

    [14] Dan Goodin, Texas Instruments Aims Lawyers at Calculator Hackers, The Register (Sept. 23, 2009),

    [15] Letter from EFF to Texas Instruments (Oct. 13, 2009), available at; Link to content:

    [16] Robert McMillan, Apple is Sued after Pressuring Open-Source iTunes Project, PC World (Apr. 29, 2009),

    [17] Katie Marshal, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, Apple Sued for Threatening Wiki Host Over iTunes Code, Apple Insider (Apr. 27, 2009),

    [18] Thomas Clayburn, Apple Drops Complaint Against BluWiki, Information Week (Jul. 22, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, 2009), http://www.infor­

    [19] Comment of Edward Felten and J. Alex Halderman, RM 2005-11 – Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, Dec. 1, 2005, 6-7, available at (accessed via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine).

    [20] Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights in RM 2002-4, Oct. 27, 2003, 87-89, available at

    [21] Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 71 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,477 (Nov. 27, 2006), available at

    [22] Comments of Prof. J. Alex Halderman, available at

    [23] Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works, U.S. Copyright Office, (last visited May 30, 2012) (exempting video games from section 1201(a) liability in certain circumstances, such as when circumvention is used solely to find security vulnerabilities in the software).

    [24] See Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 77 Fed. Reg. 208 (Oct. 26, 2012) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 201), available at

    [25] John Borland, Student Faces Suit Over Key to CD Locks, CNET News (Oct. 9, 2003),; Declan McCullagh, SunnComm Won’t Sue Grad Student, CNET News (Oct. 10, 2003), DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free,

    [26] Jonathan Band, Congress Unknowingly Undermines Cyber-Security, San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 16, 2002, available at; Hiawatha Bray, Cyber Chief Speaks on Data Network Security, Boston Globe, October 17, 2002.

    [27] Pamela Samuelson, Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science, 293 Science 2028, Sept. 14, 2001; Letter from Matthew Oppenheim, SDMI General Counsel, to Prof. Edward Felten, April 9, 2001, available at; Felten, et al. v. RIAA, et al., EFF, (last visited Jan. 10, 2013).

    [28] Declan McCullagh, Security Warning Draws DMCA Threat, CNET News (July 30, 2002),; Kim Zetter, HP, Bug-Hunters Declare Truce, PCWorld (Aug. 9, 2002 3:00 pm),

    [29] John Borland, Court Blocks Security Conference Talk, CNET News (April 14, 2003),

    [30] David Becker, Newsmaker: Testing Microsoft and the DMCA, CNET News (April 15, 2003),; Seth Schiesel, Behind a Hacker’s Book, a Primer on Copyright Law, N.Y. Times (July 10, 2003),; See Hacking the Xbox, No Starch Press, (last visited Jan. 14, 2013).

    [31] Mainstream Loudoun v. Bd. of Trs., 24 F.Supp.2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998), available at

    [32] Jennifer 8. Lee, Cracking the Code of Online Censorship, N.Y. Times (July 19, 2001),; Transcript of Hearing in Copyright Office Rulemaking Proceeding RM 2002-04, April 11, 2003, 11, 31, available at; Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technolo­gies, 71 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,477 (Nov. 27, 2006), available at (listing "Other Exemptions Considered, But Not Recommended”); Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works, Copyright Office, (last visited Jun. 13, 2012).


    [33] In Legal First, ACLU Sues Over New Copyright Law, ACLU (July 25, 2002),; See also Edelman v. N2H2 Inc., No. 02-CV-11503-RGS (D. Mass. Apr. 7, 2003).

    [34] Lawrence Lessig, Jail Time in the Digital Age, N.Y, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. Times, July 30, 2001, at A7, available at; Lisa Bowman, Elcomsoft Verdict: Not Guilty, CNET News (Dec. 17, 2002), DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free,

    [35] Niels Ferguson, Censorship in Action: Why I Don’t Publish My HDCP Results, Aug. 15, 2001, (accessed via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine); Niels Ferguson, Declaration in Felten v. R.I.A.A., EFF (Aug. 13, 2001),; DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free M. Bowman, Research­ers Weigh Publication, Prosecution, CNET News (Aug. 15, 2001), DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free,

    [36] See Sara Robinson, Awaiting DMCA Clarification, Researchers Proceed Cautiously, SIAM News, Volume 35, Number 1, available at

    [37] See id.; E-mail from David Wagner, Professor of Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley, to Declan McCullagh (Nov. 25, 2002 21:56), available at

    [38] HDCP Master Key, (last visited June 13, 2012).

    [39] David Kravets, Intel Threatens to Sue Anyone Who Uses HDCP Crack, Wired (September 17, 2010),

    [40] Warner Brothers And Intel Sue Company Over HDCP Circumvention Device, Digital Digest (Dec. 21, 2012, 6:29 PM),

    [41] Robert Lemos, Security Workers: Copyright Law Stifles, CNET News (Sept. 6, 2001),

    [42] Wade Roush, Breaking Microsoft’s e-Book Code, MIT Technology Review (Nov. 1, 2001),

    [43] Jennifer 8 Lee, Travel Advisory for Russian Programmers, N.Y. Times, Sept. 10, 2001, at C4, available at

    [44] Alan Cox, Declaration in Felten v, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. RIAA, EFF (Aug. 13, 2001),

    [45] Will Knight, Computer Scientists Boycott US Over Digital Copyright Law, NewScientist (July 23, 2001, 5:42 PM),; Previous Information Hiding Venues, 14th Information Hiding Conference, (last visited May 30, 2012).

    [46]IEEE to Revise New Copyright Form to Address Author Concerns, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (April 22, 2002), (accessed using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine); Will Knight, Controversial Copyright Clause Abandoned, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, NewScientist (April 15, 2002),

    [47] IEEE Drops Reference to DMCA in Revised Authors' Copyright Form, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, (accessed using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine).

    [48] Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d. 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), available at, aff’d sub nom. Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), available at

    [49] Carl S. Kaplan, Questioning Continues in Copyright Suit, N.Y. Times (May 4, 2001),; Simson Garfinkel, The DVD Rebellion, MIT Technology Review  (July 1, 2001),; Xenia P. Kobylarz, DVD Case Clash—Free Speech Advocates Say Copyright Owners Want to Lock Up Ideas; Encryption Code is Key, S.F. Daily J., May 1, 2001.

    [50] Declan McCullagh, Will This Land Me in Jail, CNET News (Dec. 23, 2002),

    [51] Julie Cohen, Call it the Digital Millennium Censorship Act – Unfair Use, The New Republic Online (May 23, 2000), (accessed via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine); Link to specifications: Hemos, Kerberos, PACs And Microsoft's Dirty Tricks, SlashDot (May 2, 2000 03:33PM), (comments section).

    [52] Robert Lemos, GameSpy Warns Security Researcher, CNET News (Nov. 13, 2003, 3:29 PM),; See also CodeWarrior, Luigi Auriemma finds bugs in Gamespy- DMCA invoked, Dmusic (Nov. 12, 2003 9:26PM)

    [53] Lisa M. Bowman, TiVo Forum Hushes Hacking Discussion, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, CNET News (June 11, 2001, 3:15 PM),

    [54] Regarding Hints on Evading iTunes Store Copy Protection, Mac OS X Hints (May 7, 2003 11:29 AM),

    [55] EFF, DMCA Triennial Rulemaking: Failing the Digital Consumer (2005), available at

    [56] Rep. Rick Boucher, Perspective: Time to Rewrite the DMCA, CNET News (Jan. 29, 2002),; Dan Gillmor, Entertainment Industry’s Copyright Fight Puts Consumers in Cross Hairs, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 12, 2002; Jon Healey & Jeff Leeds, Record Labels Grapple with CD Protection, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, L.A. Times, Nov, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. 29, 2002, at C1; John Borland, Copy-blocked CD Tops U.S. Charts, CNET News (June 17, 2004),

    [57] The Customer Is Always Wrong: A User’s Guide to DRM in Online Music, EFF,­tomer-always-wrong-users-guide-drm-online-music (last visited Jan. 14, 2013). For information on online music vendors abandoning DRM, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, see Tim Anderson, How Apple is Changing DRM, The Guardian (May 15, 2008),

    [58] Mark Hefflinger, Walmart to End Support for DRM-Wrapped Songs in October, Digital Media Wire (June 1, 2009),

    [59] Matthew Mirapaul, They’ll Always Have Paris (and a Scholarly Web Site), N.Y. Times (March 16, 2002),; Lisa Bowman, Hollywood Targets DVD- Copying Upstart, CNET News (Dec. 20, 2002),; Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Tritton Technologies Inc., No. CV 03-7316 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept.17, 2003); 321 Studios v. MGM, 307 F.Supp.2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004), available at­ar_case?case=8541119834567462882).

    [60] Real Networks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Ass’n, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, 641 F. Supp. 2d 913, 942 (N.D. Cal., 2009), available at

    [61] Copyright Office, Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights in RM 2002-4, 109-26 (2003), available at

    [62] Statement of the Librarian of Congress Relating to Section 1201 Rulemaking, Copyright Office (Nov. 27, 2006),

    [63] Comments of Renee Hobbs, Peter Decherney, Library Copyright Alliance, available at

    [64] Comments of EFF and OTW, available at

    [65] Jacqui Cheng, MPAA: Teachers Should Videotape Monitors, Not Rip DVDS, Ars Technica (May 7, 2009),

    [66] 2009 DMCA Rulemaking, Electronic Frontier Foundation, (last visited June 7, 2012); Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 77 Fed. Reg. 208 (Oct. 26, 2012) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 201), available at DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free US v. ElcomSoft & Sklyarov FAQ, EFF (Feb. 19, 2002, 2:35 PM),

    [68] Lisa DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, Elcomsoft Verdict: Not Guilty, CNET News (Dec. 17, 2002),

    [69] RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., No. C99-2070P, 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2000), available at

    [70] Cease and desist letter from Kenneth Plevan on behalf of to John Clegg, developer of Streamripper, April 26, 2001, available at

    [71] Welcome to Streamripper, Streamripper, (last visited Jan. 10, 2013).

    [72] Tom Murphy, embed: DMCA Threats, Truetype embedding-enabler: DMCA threats, (accessed via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine) (last visited Jan. 14, 2013); Cease and desist letter from Agfa to Tom Murphy, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free at

    [73] SeeTruetype embedding-enabler, (last visited Jan. 10, 2013).

    [74] See Agfa Monotype Corp. v. Adobe Sys., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (N.D. Ill. 2005), available at

    [75] Eric Bangeman, MPAA Sues Over DVD-to-iPod Service, Ars Technica (Nov. 17, 2006),; Fred von Lohmann, Movie Studios Sue to Stop Loading of DVDs onto iPods, EFF Deep Links blog (Nov. 16 2006),; See Greg Sandoval, Movie studios sue DVD-to-iPod service, CNET News (Nov 17, 2006 3:30 PM),

    [76] Others have also recognized the anti-competitive effects of the DMCA. See Timothy B. Lee, Circumventing Competi­tion: The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, CATO Policy Analysis, no. 564, Mar. 21, 2006, available at

    [77] Jonathan Fildes, PlayStation 3 'hacked' by iPhone cracker, BBC (Jan, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. 25, 2010),

    [78] George Hotz, Geohot Releases dePKG – Firmware Package Decrypter, PSXScene (Dec. 30, 2010), (accessed via the Internet aAchive’s Wayback Machine).

    [79] Fildes, supra note 80.

    [80] In re Sony PS3 Other OS Litig., 828 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

    [81] David Kravets, Sony Settles PlayStation Hacking Lawsuit, Wired (Apr. 11, 2011),

    [82] Corynne McSherry & Marcia Hofmann, Sony v. Hotz: Sony Sends A Dangerous Message to Researchers -- and Its Customers, FF (Jan. 19, 2011),

    [83] Letter from Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation, to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, United States District Court, Northern District of California, (Feb. 24, 2011), available at

    [84] Corynne McSherry, Sony v. Hotz Ends With a Whimper, I Mean a Gag Order, FF(Apr. 12, 2011),

    [85] Craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc., 694 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

    [86] See, e.g., Craigslist, Inc., v. Mesiab, No. C 08–05064 CW (N.D. Cal. 2010); Craigslist, Inc., v. Kerbel, No. C–11–3309 EMC (N.D. Cal. 2012); Craigslist, Inc. v. Hubert, 278 F.R.D. 510 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Craigslist, Inc. v. Branley, No. 11–3545 SC (N.D. Cal. 2012).

    [87] David Kravets, Apple v. EFF: The iPhone Jailbreaking Showdown, Wired (May 2, 2009),

    [88] Jason Kincaid, Apple is Growing Rotten to the Core: Official Google Voice App. Blocked from App Store, TechCrunch (Jul. 27, 2009),

    [89] Chris Matyszczyk, Apple Rejects Nine Inch Nails iPhone Apps Update, CNET News (May 2, 2009),

    [90] Fred von Lohmann, Another iPhone App Banned: Apple Deems South Park App ‘Potentially Offensive, EFF Deep Links blog (Feb. 17, 2009),

    [91] SeeRulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works, Copyright Office, (last visited Jun. 13, 2012).

    [92] See Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 77 Fed. Reg. 208 (Oct, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. 26, 2012) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 201), DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, available at

    [93] Daniel Terdiman, Bounty offered for open-source Kinect driver, CNET News (Nov. 4, 2010 12:50 PM),

    [95] WE HAVE A WINNER – Open Kinect driver(s) released – Winner will use $3k for more hacking – PLUS DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free additional $2k goes to the EFF!, Adafruit (Nov. 10, 2010 2:51 PM),

    [96] Rob Walker, Freaks, Geeks and Microsoft: How Kinect Spawned a Commercial Ecosystem, The New York Times (May 31, 2012),

    [98] Kinect for Windows: Overview, Microsoft, (last visited June 12, 2012).

    [99] Jennifer Granick, Free the Cell Phone!, Wired (Sept. 30, 2005),; Reply Comments of the Wireless Alliance, Copyright Office, Docket No. RM-2005-11, available at

    [100] David Kravets, Ruling Allows Cell Phone Unlocking, but Telco Sues Anyway, Wired (Aug. 8, 2007), For cases brought by Tracfone against phone resellers see, e.g. TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Dixon, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (ruling in favor of TracFone), availableat; TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. GSM Group, Inc. 555 F.Supp.2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (ruling in favor of TracFone by denying defendant motion to dismiss), available at; TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. SND Cellular, Inc., 715 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (awarding TracFone statutory damages in the amount of $11,370,000 under the DMCA).

    [101] Gregg Keizer, Apple Adds DMCA Charge to Lawsuit Against Psystar, ComputerWorld (Nov. 30, 2008),

    [102] Josh Lowensohn, Supreme Court Denies Psystar's Appeal In Mac Clone Case, CNET News (May 14, 2012 8:25 PM),

    [103] Gregg Keizer, Judge’s Ruling Puts Legal Nail in Psystar’s Coffin, ComputerWorld (Nov. 14, 2008),; David Winograd, Psystar Is Dead. Long Live Quo Computer, TUAW (Sep. 10, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, 2010 9:00AM),

    [104] Real has since abandoned DRM for its music download service. See Brian Heater & Chloe Albanesius, Update: Rhapsody DRM-Free Music Targets iTunes, PC Magazine (June 30, 2008),,2817,2324184,00.asp.

    [105] Matt Hines, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, “Stunned” Apple Rails Against Real’s iPod Move, CNET News (July 29, 2004),’Stunned’+Apple+rails+against+Real’s+iPod+move/2100-1041_3-5288378.html; Real Reveals Real Apple Legal Threat, Macworld UK (Aug. 10, 2005),; RealNetworks 10-Q filing (May 2005), DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, available at

    [106] Macworld Staff, iTunes Store and DRM-free music: What you need to know, Macworld (Jan. 7, 2009),

    [107] Kevin Poulsen, Hackers Sued for Tinkering with Xbox Games, SecurityFocus (Feb. 9, 2005),

    [108] Michael R. Tompkins, Nikon Encrypts RAW File Data, Imaging Resource (Apr. 20, 2005),; Declan McCullagh, Nikon’s Photo Encryption Reported Broken, CNET News (Apr. 21, 2005),

    [109] Fred von Lohmann, DMCA Used to Stymie Competition … Again, EFF Deep Links blog (Nov. 4, 2005),; Storage Technology v. Custom Hardware Engineering, 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005), available at

    [110] Declan McCullagh, Lexmark Invokes DMCA in Toner Suit, CNET News (Jan. 8, 2003),; Lexmark v. Static Control Components, 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004), available at

    [111] Steve Seidenberg, Suits Test Limits of Digital Copyright Act, NAT’L L. J. (Feb. 7, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, 2003),; Chamberlain Group v, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. Skylink Technologies, 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed.Cir.2004), available at

    [112] Mike Masnick, Losers Of Garage Door DMCA Case Try To Use Legaleze To Lock Up Your Garage Door Openers Anyway, TechDirt (Dec. 18, 2009 6:35 PM),

    [113] Ben Doernberg, Microsoft Argues that Third-Party Peripherals are Illegal, Public Knowledge (Jun. 23, 2011)

    [114] Mike Masnick, Microsoft Still Claiming That It Can Use The DMCA To Block Competing Xbox Accessories, TechDirt (Jun. 21, 2011 7:20 AM),

    [115] See Brief Of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation And Public Knowledge In Support Of Datel’s Motion For Summary Judgment at 3, Datel Holdings Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 09-cv-5535 (N.D. Cal 2011), available at

    [116] Microsoft, Datel Settle Lawsuits, Gamepolitics (Jan. 4, 2012),

    [117] Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need to be Revised, 14 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 519, 556 (1999)available at; Testimony of Jonathan Hangartner on behalf of Bleem, Library of Congress, Hearing on DMCA, Stanford University, May 19, 2000, at 221-28, available at

    [118] John Borland, Sony Puts Aibo to Sleep, CNET News (Jan. 26, 2006 5:11 PM),

    [119] David Labrador, Teaching Robot Dogs New Tricks, Scientific American (Feb. 12, 2002),

    [120] Barry Fox, Sony PlayStation Ruling Sets Far-Reaching Precedent, New Scientist (Feb. 22, 2002, 12:14 PM),; Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. v. Gamemasters, 87 F.Supp.2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 1999), available at; Stevens v Kabu­shiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment, [2005] HCA 58 (Oct. 6, 2005), available at

    [121] Feds' Mod Chip Raid Ended a $2.5 Million Piracy Operation, (Nov. 24, 2008),

    [122] Zachary Knight, After Four Years Feds Finally Get Aroung to Prosecuting Ten Mod Chip Sellers, TechDirt (May 2, 2012, 10:02 AM),

    [123] U.S. v. Silvius, No. 1:12CR172, slip. op. (N. D. Ohio Nov. 21, 2012), available at,5&as_vis=1)

    [124] Davidson & Assoc. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005); Howard Wen, Goes To War, Salon (April 18, 2002),; Blizzard v. BNETD, EFF, (last visited Jan, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. 14, 2013).

    [125] Declan McCullagh Apple: Burn DVDs—and We’ll Burn You, CNET News (Aug, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. 28, 2002),

    [126] Tony Smith, How to Get iDVD to Work with an External Burner, EHow Tech, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free (last visited June 7, 2012) (“With the release of iDVD 6.0, as part of iLife '06, Apple finally included the often-requested ability to burn DVDs to an external CD drive.”).

    [127] See Macrovision v. Sima Prod. Corp., No. 2006-1441, 2006 WL 1063284 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2006), reh’g denied, 2006 WL 1472152 (S.D.N.Y May 26, 2006), appeal dismissed 219 Fed. Appx. 997 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2007); Nate Anderson, Digitizing Video Signals Might Violate the DMCA, Ars Technica (Aug. 16 2006),; Fred von Lohmann, Another DMCA Misuse: Macrovision v. Sima, EFF Deep Links blog (Aug. 15 2006),

    [128] Dan Goodin, Blizzard Awarded $6m in WoW Bot Case, Register Hardware (Oct. 1, 2008),

    [129] MDY Industries, LLC. V. Blizzard Ent., Inc., 616 F. Supp. 2d 958, 966 (D. Ariz. Jan 28, 2009), available at

    [130] MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm't, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, 954 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended on denial of reh'g (Feb. 17, 2011), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh'g, 09-15932, 2011 WL 538748 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2011).

    [131] XPEL Technologies Corp. v. American Filter Film Distributors, No. SA08-CA0175-XR, 2008 WL 3540345 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2008); Rebecca Tushnet, Design, Dastar, (registration) dates and the DMCA, Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B)log (Aug. 17 2008),

    [132] See Egilman v. Keller & Heckman LLP, 401 F.Supp.2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005), available at; I.M.S. Inquiry Mgt, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. Systems v. Berkshire Info. Systems, 307 F.Supp.2d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), available at

    [133] Pearl Investments LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc., DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, 257 F. Supp. 2d 326 (D.Me., Apr. 23, 2003), available at Iobit Malware Fighter 6.5.0 Key Archives Pearl Investments, LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc., 324 F. Supp. 2d 43, 45 (D. Me. 2004), available at 

    [135] Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“. . because [Ticketmaster] has not quantified its harm as required by the statute or even attempted to show what portion of the harm is attribut­able to [RMG], the Court cannot find that [Ticketmaster] has affirmatively shown that its harm caused by [RMG] exceeds the $ 5,000 minimum. Thus, the CFAA claim does not provide a basis for a preliminary injunction.”), available at

    [136] Id. ”), available at

    [137] Seeid.; Randall Stross, Hannah Montana Tickets on Sale! Oops, They’re Gone, N.Y. Times (Dec. 16, 2007),

    [138] CoxCom, Inc, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. v. Chaffee, 536 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 2008) (affirming CoxCom, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, Inc. v. Chaffee, No. CA05-107S, 2007 WL 1577708 (D.R.I. May 41, 2007)).

    Источник: []

    IT@Cornell Home

    Software Piracy

    Software piracy is the unauthorized duplication, distribution, or use of computer software--for example, making more copies of software than the license allows, or installing software licensed for one computer onto multiple computers or a server.

    Copying software is an act of copyright infringement and is subject to civil and criminal penalties. It's illegal whether you use the copied software yourself, give it away, or sell it. And aiding piracy by providing unauthorized access to software or to serial numbers used to register software can also be illegal.

    If Cornell finds out about it from an employee or student, the matter is usually handled within the university. Cornell Information Technologies, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, University Audit, University Counsel, and the Judicial Administrator often work together to resolve software copyright infringement problems.

    Software copyright infringement violates numerous Cornell policies, including:

    Discipline ranges from a reprimand to dismissal from the university, depending on the severity of the violation.

    If illegal software is reported to a software publisher or piracy watchdog group--and this has happened, legal action could be brought against Cornell and the individuals involved. At a minimum, the university would have to prove that it had resolved the problem, which typically requires an intensive software audit within a very short timeframe. Other sanctions could include substantial monetary damages or exclusion from discount pricing and volume licensing programs.


    If those extra copies are used on university-owned computers, the harm could be great. Software publishers take piracy very seriously, and they have been in touch with Cornell. The university and the individuals involved could be held liable for large monetary damages. Cornell could also lose its eligibility for discount pricing on software.

    In the larger picture, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, copying cheats the publisher and everyone who uses the software. It makes software more costly and denies the publisher the sales it needs (and earned) to improve software and finance new projects. In 1997, software piracy cost New York State more than $860 million in lost wages, tax revenue, and retail sales, according to a Microsoft study.


    Violations are reported more often than you might think, through honest employees and students, routine software audits, technology support professionals, network administrators, software publishers, and piracy watchdog groups.

    Your work computer is university property. So is your connection to the Internet via the campus network. Cornell is Opera Browser English V. v7.0 WITH Java crack serial keygen to making sure that its computers run legally licensed software, and that its network is not supporting software copyright infringement in any form.

    Scenarios that get people into trouble

    My co-workers are copying software, but I don't want to be a tattletale and I'm worried about losing my job. What should I do?

    Report their actions. By staying silent, you'd violate Cornell's Standards of Ethical Conduct (University Policy 4.6) and could face disciplinary action yourself.

    That policy will protect you from your co-workers and anyone else who might be upset by your honesty: "The university will not tolerate retaliation toward or harassment of employees who report actual or possible violations. The identity of individuals providing information concerning possible violations, including fraud, will be protected within legal limits."

    So tell your technology support professional DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free administrative managers what is happening, in as much detail as you can. If that seems awkward or inappropriate, contact University Audit (607-255-9300), University Counsel (607-255-5124), or Cornell Information Technologies (607-254-3584). When students are involved, notify the Judicial Administrator (120 Day Hall, 607-255-4680).

    Our software budget wasn't big enough this year. Can we make copies for now and buy enough for everyone next year?

    No. Unless otherwise stated in the software license, the only copy you can legally make is one archival backup of the original installation disks or CD, to be used only if the original ones fail.

    Ease the pressure on your budget by using Cornell's software license agreements and volume-discount programs (see the Software Licensing Services website) to acquire Microsoft, Adobe, FileMaker, SPSS, SAS, and other products. Also, check The Cornell Store's educational pricing. When shopping outside Cornell, ask for educational and volume-discount pricing.

    I just started this job, and I'm using the former employee's computer. How do I know if my software is legal?

    Ask the technology support professional in your office or department. This person will know what software is site-licensed and what software has been purchased and can remove anything else.

    I'm the new technology support provider for 50 people, and the record-keeping here has been pretty bad. How should I go about verifying all this software?

    Compile as many purchase orders, receipts, vendor reports and license agreements as possible. (Original disks and manuals are usually not adequate proof.) Match these against the number of computers using the software, and purchase new licenses and/or software to cover the difference.

    Then follow University Audit's suggestions for better record-keeping. Institute a departmental strategy for acquiring software and designate a person to oversee purchasing and installation. Keep all proofs of purchase (e.g., purchase orders, receipts, license agreements) and maintain an inventory of the equipment the software is installed on. Remove all software from equipment that is being discarded, sold, or donated.

    When my computer was delivered, it had software installed on it. Is this software already legally licensed?

    Yes, if it was obtained through Tech Connect or Procurement Services.

    If your computer came from another source, review the licenses and documentation to verify the software's legitimacy. If you're buying a used computer, all installed software should come with license agreements, registration, and original installation disks and manuals. Remove any software that you DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free verify.

    I require my students to use certain software for assignments. Since I'm using it for educational purposes, I can give them copies, right?

    No. DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free there's little chance that the "fair use" argument could be applied to DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free the way it can to printed materials--it's generally impossible to install and use only a small piece of a software product.

    Better ways to keep costs down for your students: Look into getting a volume discount or site license from the software publisher (check the Software Licensing Services website first). Find out whether the software is or could be installed in a college or departmental computer lab.

    I'm trying to decide which software package to buy. Can I install my co-workers' software just to try it, if I remove it right after I'm done?

    No. There's a widespread myth that you can use software for 24 hours without penalty. The truth is the software would be illegal the moment you installed it. Arrange to use your co-workers' computers instead. Or ask the software publisher for a trial version.

    If Cornell has a site license for something, does that mean we can copy it to as many computers as we want?

    Not necessarily. Each site license states who may use the software, where and for what purpose. Within those restrictions, a site license allows unlimited use. Most of Cornell's site licenses permit Cornell faculty and staff to install the DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free on their university computers; a few include home computers and student-owned computers as well.

    To check the terms of a site license, go to the Software Licensing Services website, find the product of interest and read "Type of License" and "Critical Restrictions."

    Can I put Cornell site-licensed software on a computer Cornell doesn't own -- for example, my home computer?

    Usually not. Most of Cornell's site licenses are restricted to university- or student-owned computers. Check the Software Licensing Services website for the particulars.

    I work at home sometimes. Can I copy software from my work computer to my laptop or home computer, since I won't be using both at the same time?

    Some software publishers allow this use; others don't. Read the license agreement, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. Some examples: If you purchased Microsoft Office, Publisher, Project, or FrontPage through certain Microsoft agreements, the license permits you to install a second copy on one laptop or home computer to use for work-related purposes. If you have an Adobe product at work, you can install a second copy on one laptop or home computer, but the product cannot be used on both computers at the same time.

    A friend recommended some great software, but the publisher is out of business. Would it be OK to get a copy from my friend?

    No. All software is copyright-protected, and the copyright is enforceable for 95 years, no matter what. Your best bet is to ask the copyright holder for written permission to copy the software. The U.S. Copyright Office can be helpful in locating the current copyright holder. Search the records yourself, or pay a small fee to have it done. IObit Malware Fighter Pro Crack Incl License Key/Code Download have lots of old software sitting around. Can we give it away to schools or charities? Or sell it?

    Probably, if it's DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free software you later upgraded. For instance, when you buy a Windows 98 upgrade, the license to the older version is voided, meaning no one else can use it. If you buy the full Windows 98 package instead, you could give away or sell your older version.

    In short, you can give away or sell software you are no longer using in any form. If the software is university-owned, review Policy 3.9 (Capital Assets) first. To legally transfer the software, provide the license agreement, registration, original installation disks (or CDs), and manuals, and remove all copies of the software from your computers.

    I'm leaving Cornell. Do I have to get rid of any software on my home computer?

    You must remove university-owned software, including all Cornell site-licensed software. Also, if you had software at work that allowed you to install a second copy at home, you must remove that second copy. The one exception is the Mac operating system--Cornell's site license allows you to keep this software.

    You do not have to remove software that you bought, with your own funds, at an educational discount. If you upgrade that software, however, you will have to pay the full price for the upgrade (rather than the educational price).

    Источник: []
    Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • ^Wired
  • ^"ACP". Archived from the original on 2010-03-27. Retrieved 2010-07-12.
  • ^"Vertical blanking interval".
  • ^"Analog Off". Archived from the original on 2010-06-27. Retrieved 2010-07-12.
  • ^"Another DMCA Misuse: Macrovision v. Sima". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 15 August 2006.
  • ^"Analog Hole". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2013-01-13.
  • ^"First Indictment Under Digital Millennium Copyright Act Returned Against Russian National". Archived from the original on October 17, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
  • ^
  • Источник: []

    DMCA Policy

    New Relic (“New Relic”) respects the intellectual property rights of others and expects its users to do the same. In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, the text of which may be found on the U.S. Copyright Office website at New Relic will respond expeditiously to claims of copyright infringement committed using the New Relic service and/or the New Relic website (the “Site”) if such claims are reported to New Relic’s Designated Copyright Agent identified below.

    DMCA Notice of Alleged Infringement

    If you are a copyright owner, authorized to act on behalf of one, or authorized to act under any exclusive right under copyright, please report alleged copyright infringements taking place on or through the Site by completing the DMCA Notice of Alleged Infringement and delivering it to New Relic’s Designated Copyright Agent. Upon receipt of Notice as described below, New Relic will take whatever action, in its sole discretion, it deems appropriate, including removal of the challenged content from the Site.

    DMCA Notice of Alleged Infringement (“Notice”)

    1. Identify the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed, or - if multiple copyrighted works are covered by this Notice - you may provide a representative list of the copyrighted works that you claim have been infringed.
    2. Identify the material or link you claim is infringing (or the DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free of infringing activity) and to which access is to be disabled, including at a minimum, if applicable, the URL of the link shown on the Site or DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free exact location where such material may be found.
    3. Provide your company affiliation (if applicable), mailing address, telephone number, and, if available, email address.
    4. Include both of the following statements in the body of the Notice:
      1. “I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the copyrighted material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (e.g., as a fair use).”
      2. “I hereby state that the information in this Notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that I am the owner, or authorized to act on behalf of, the owner, of the copyright or of an exclusive right under the copyright that is allegedly infringed.”
    5. Provide your full legal name and your electronic or physical signature.

    Deliver this Notice, with all items completed, to New Relic’s Designated Copyright Agent:

    Copyright Agent

    New Relic Inc.

    188 Spear Street, Suite 1200

    San Francisco, CA 94105

    DMCA Counter Notice to Alleged Infringement

    A party that has received notice from New Relic that its content will be removed or blocked by New Relic in response to a DMCA Notice of Alleged Infringement may provide a counter notice under the DMCA to New Relic. If you believe that the content that New Relic has removed or blocked is not infringing or that you have the legal rights to use the content, you may provide the counter notice with the information described below. Upon receipt of the counter notice, New Relic will take whatever action, in its sole discretion, it deems appropriate, including not reinstating the challenged content to the Site. 

    Please provide the following information for a DMCA Counter Notice: 

    (1) Identify the copyrighted work that was removed and where it had been located. 

    (2) A statement under penalty of perjury that you believe in good faith that the allegedly infringing matter was removed as a result of mistake and that the content is not infringing. The body of the counter notice should contain a representation of one of the following statements, depending on the basis for which you are providing the counter notice:

    I hereby state under the penalty of perjury that I have a good faith belief that: 

    1. the disputed use of the copyrighted material is authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (e.g., as a fair use); or 
    2. I legally own the copyrighted material.

    (3) Your name, address, and phone number. 

    (4) A statement that you consent to U.S. federal district court jurisdiction in: (a) DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free jurisdiction where the person who provided notification of alleged infringement is located and (b) San Francisco, California. 

    (5) A statement that you consent to service of process from: (a) the person who provided notification of the alleged infringement and (b) New Relic. 

    (6) Your full legal name and physical or electronic signature.

    Deliver this Notice, with all items completed, to New Relic’s Designated Copyright Agent above.

    Repeat DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free Policy

    New Relic does not condone infringement of intellectual property rights and treats repeat reports of infringement seriously. New Relic reserves the right to revoke or terminate access of any user that New Relic has determined to be a “repeat infringer” of the intellectual property rights of others. New Relic reserves the right to set the criteria for which it will determine whether a user constitutes as a repeat infringer under the context and circumstances. If a “repeat infringer” is defined by law, New Relic will adopt that legal definition as its minimum standard.  

    Without waiving or limiting New Relic’s right to determine what constitutes a “repeat infringer,” New Relic will consider any person, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, which includes any entity, for which New Relic receives three (3) or more Notices a repeat infringer. New Relic will evaluate all relevant facts and circumstances in its determination to potentially terminate or restrict access of the repeat infringer. New Relic does not waive any right to pursue any remedy at law or DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free equity against any persons violating intellectual property rights. 

    Updated: November 15, 2021

    Источник: []
    Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies". Retrieved 2016-01-26.
  • ^"Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies"(PDF). Federal Register. October 26, 2018. Retrieved December 28, 2020.Public DomainThis article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  • ^"Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies"(PDF). United States Copyright Office. October 21, 2021. Retrieved October 29, 2021.
  • ^"Section 1201 Study". U.S. Copyright Office. 2015.
  • ^"Docket Browser: Request for Public Comments: Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Access to Copyrighted Works".
  • ^David Oster (March 4, 2016). "Initial Comments - David Oster".
  • ^Allan R. Adler; Benjamin S. Sheffner (April 1, 2016). "Reply Comments of: Association of American Publishers, Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America".
  • ^Dennis E. Meissner; Nancy Beaumont (February 18, 2016). "Comments Of The Society Of American Archivists".
  • ^Kyle Wiens (March 3, 2016). "Comments of iFixit".
  • ^Harley Geiger (March 3, 2016). "Rapid7, Bugcrowd, & HackerOne Joint Comments to US Copyright Office Section 1201 Study".
  • ^Andrew F. Sellars (March 3, 2016). "Comment of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School".
  • ^ ab"Section 1201 of Title 17"(PDF).
  • ^Steve Noble (February 25, 2016). "Initial Comments - Learning Disabilities Association of America".
  • ^Stanley Pierre-Louis; Ben Golant; Steven K. Englund (March 3, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, 2016). "Initial Comments - Entertainment Software Association".
  • ^Stanley Pierre-Louis; Ben Golant; Steven K. Englund (April 1, 2016). "Reply Comments - Entertainment Software Association".
  • ^Catherine R. Gellis (February 16, 2015). "Initial Comments - R Street Institute".
  • ^Emily Feltren (February 26, 2016). "Initial Comments - American Association of Law Libraries".
  • ^Christian Troncoso (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments - BSA The Software Alliance".
  • ^Jessica L. Simmons; Steven J. Metalitz (March 2, 2016). "Reply Comments - Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers".
  • ^Jessica L. Simmons; Steven J. Metalitz (March 30, 2016). "Reply Comments - Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers".
  • ^Jonathan Band; Jessica Sebeok (March 6, 2016). "Comments Of The Association Of American Universities, The American Council On Education, The Association Of Public And Land-Grant Universities, And Educause On Section 1201 Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act".
  • ^Terry Hart (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments - Copyright Alliance 1201 Study Comments final".
  • ^Keith Kupferschmid (April 1, 2016). "Reply Comments - Copyright Alliance 1201 Study".
  • ^Eugene H. Spafford; Paul Hyland (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments - ACM US Public Policy Council".
  • ^Christopher A. Mohr (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments of the Software and Information Industry Association".
  • ^Christopher A. Mohr (April 1, 2016). "Reply Comments of the Software and Information Industry Association".
  • ^Bruce H. Turnbull; David Jonathan Taylor (March 3, 2016). "Joint Comments Of The Dvd Copy Control Association And The Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator, Llc".
  • ^Dave Green (March 3, 2016). "Initial Comments - Microsoft Corporation".
  • ^Morgan Reed (March 3, 2016). "ACT Comments re USCO Sec 1201 Study v4".
  • ^Raza Panjwani; Charles Duan; Kerry Sheehan (March 4, 2016). "Section 1201 Comments for Copyright Office".
  • ^Kerry Maeve Sheehan; Raza Panjwani; John Bergmayer; Charles Duan (April 2, 2016). "Reply Comments of Public Knowledge".
  • ^Jill Ingrassia (April 1, 2016). "Reply Comments of AAA (American Automobile Association)".
  • ^Section 1201 of Title 17: A report of the Register of Copyrights - United States Copyright Office, June 2017
  • ^Mihet, Harry (2002). "Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley: The Constitutional Underpinnings of Fair Use Remain an Open Question". Duke Law & Technology Review. 1 (1): 1–11.
  • ^Sieber, Albert (2003). "The Constitutionality of the DMCA Explored: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley & (and) United States v. Elcom Ltd". Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 18 (7): 7–42.
  • ^ abBarker, Diane M. (2005). "Defining the contours of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: The growing body of case law surrounding the DMCA". Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 20 (1): 47–63.
  • ^Sapp, Heather A. (2005). "Garage Door Openers and Toner Cartridges: Why Congress Should Revisit the Anti-circumvention Provisions of the DMCA". Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal. 3: 135–163.
  • ^"Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US". WebTVWire. 2006-09-12. Retrieved 2006-10-12.
  • ^Sandoval, Greg (2009-08-11). "RealNetworks loses critical ruling in RealDVD case". Retrieved 2011-11-12.
  • ^"Viacom sues Google over YouTube clips". 2007-03-13. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
  • ^Viacom Int'l Inc., et al., v. YouTube, Inc., et al., Nos. 07-Civ-2103 (LLS), 07-Civ-3582 (LLS) Opinion and Order (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010).
  • ^Sandoval, Greg (June 23, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, 2010). "Google defeats Viacom in landmark copyright case". cnet news. U.S. Retrieved June 23, 2010.
  • ^Davis, Wendy (April 6, 2012). "Appeals Court Gives Viacom Second Shot at YouTube". U.S, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. Retrieved April 7, 2012.
  • ^Delaney, Kevin J. (June 29, 2006). "Veoh Faces Copyright Suit, A Test of Web Video". The Wall Street Journal.
  • ^Ali, Rafat (2006-06-28). "Test For Web Video? Veoh Faces Copyright DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. paidContent. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
  • ^"Transcoding Is Not A Crime, Says Court In Veoh Porn Case". TechCrunch. 2008-08-27. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
  • ^"Content sharing company Qlipso buys Veoh" (Apr 9, 2010) Athena Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
  • ^"UMG v. Veoh: victory has never been so pyrrhic" (Dec 22, 2011) Engadget, Newstex
  • ^Cheng, Jacqui (2007-09-13). "Autodesk sued for $10 million after invoking DMCA to stop eBay resales". Retrieved 2011-11-12.
  • ^Lee, Timothy B. (2008-05-23). "Court smacks Autodesk, affirms right to sell used software". Retrieved 2011-11-12.
  • ^Anderson, Nate (2010-09-10). "Yes, you own it: Court release holds EULAs, digital resale". Retrieved 2011-11-12.
  • ^Egelko, Bob (August 20, 2008). "Woman can sue over YouTube clip de-posting". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-08-25.
  • ^Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
  • ^Grady, John F. (27 July 2011). "Memorandum opinion"(PDF). Court rule in favour of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Retrieved 21 November 2011.
  • ^Samuels, Julie P.; Higgins, Parker (6 August 2012). "myVidster: A Victory for Innovation and a Vote for Sensible Copyright Law". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 8 August 2012.
  • ^Ouellette v. Viacom, Dist, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. Court, D. Montana (2011)
  • ^Sony follows up, officially sues Geohot and fail0verflow over PS3 jailbreak. Nilay Patel, Engadget (2011-01-12). Retrieved on 2011-02-16.
  • ^"Sony/Hotz settlement details surface".
  • ^"Sony and PlayStation 3 jailbreaker George Hotz settle out of court".
  • ^Van der Sar, Ernesto. "WordPress Wins $25,000 From DMCA Takedown Abuser",, March 5, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, 2015
  • ^Carolyn Dalton; Antoine Aubert (6 March 2009). "Google submission on TCF Draft ISP Copyright Code of Practice". Archived from the original(PDF) on 20 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-14.
  • ^Keall, Chris (16 March 2009). "Google piles into S92". National Business Review. Archived from the original on 25 September 2017. Retrieved 26 September 2017.
  • ^Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban (2005). "Efficient Process or 'Chilling Effects'? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Summary Report"(PDF). Retrieved 2017-07-16.
  • ^"Google submission hammers section 92A". New Zealand PCWorld. 2009-03-16. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
  • ^Cobia, Jeffrey (2008). "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Takedown Notice Procedure: Misuses, Abuses, and Shortcomings of the Process". Minnesota Journal of Law Science & Technology. 1: 391–393 – via DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free Online.
  • ^Banerjee, Anirban; Faloutsos, Michalis; Bhuyan, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, Laxmi (2008-04-24). "The P2P war: Someone is monitoring your activities". Computer Networks. 52 (6): 1272–1280. CiteSeerX doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2008.01.011.
  • ^Kravitz, David (September 4, 2009). "File Sharing Lawsuits at a Crossroads, After 5 Years of RIAA Litigation". Wired. Retrieved December 30, 2020.
  • ^Stone, Brad (June 5, 2008). "The Inexact Science Behind D.M.C.A. Takedown Notices". The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2020.
  • ^Researchers Could Have Uncovered Volkswagen's Emissions Cheat If Not Hindered by the DMCA

    DMCA Takedown Policy

    Welcome to GitHub's Guide to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, commonly known as the "DMCA." This page is not meant as a comprehensive primer to the statute. However, if you've received a DMCA takedown notice targeting content you've posted on GitHub or if you're a rights-holder looking to issue such a notice, this page will hopefully help to demystify the law a bit as well as our policies for complying with it.

    (If you just want to submit a notice, you can skip to "G. Submitting Notices.")

    As with all legal matters, it is always best to consult with a professional about your specific questions or situation. We strongly encourage you to do so before taking any action that might impact your rights. This guide isn't legal advice and shouldn't be taken as such.

    What Is the DMCA?

    In order to understand the DMCA and some of the policy lines it draws, it's perhaps helpful to consider life before it was enacted.

    The DMCA provides a safe harbor for service providers that host user-generated content. Since even a single claim of copyright infringement can carry statutory damages of up to $150,000, the possibility of being held liable for user-generated content could be very harmful for service providers. With potential damages multiplied across millions of users, cloud-computing and user-generated content sites like YouTube, Facebook, or GitHub probably never would have existed without the DMCA (or at least not without passing some of that cost downstream to their users).

    The DMCA addresses this issue by creating a copyright liability safe harbor for internet service providers hosting allegedly infringing user-generated content. Essentially, so long as a service provider follows the DMCA's notice-and-takedown rules, it won't be liable for copyright infringement based on user-generated content. Because of this, it is important for GitHub to maintain its DMCA safe-harbor status.

    The DMCA also prohibits the circumvention of technical measures that effectively control access to works protected by copyright.

    DMCA Notices In a Nutshell

    The DMCA provides two simple, straightforward procedures that all GitHub users should know about: (i) a takedown-notice procedure for copyright holders to request that content be removed; and (ii) a counter-notice procedure for users to get content re-enabled when content is taken down DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free mistake or misidentification.

    DMCA takedown notices are used by copyright owners to ask GitHub to take down content they believe to be infringing. If you are a software designer or developer, you create copyrighted content every day, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. If someone else is using your copyrighted content in an unauthorized manner on GitHub, you can send us a DMCA takedown notice to request that the infringing content be changed or removed.

    On the other hand, counter notices can be used to correct mistakes. Maybe the person sending the takedown notice does not hold the copyright or did not realize that you have a license or made some other mistake in their takedown notice. Since GitHub usually cannot know if there has been a mistake, the DMCA counter notice allows you to let us know and ask that we put the content back up.

    The DMCA notice and takedown process should be used only for complaints about copyright infringement. Notices sent through our DMCA process must identify copyrighted work or works that are allegedly being infringed. The process cannot be used for other complaints, such as complaints about alleged trademark infringement or sensitive data; we offer separate processes for those situations.

    A. How Does This Actually Work?

    The DMCA framework is a bit like passing notes in class. The copyright owner hands GitHub a complaint about a user. If it's written correctly, we pass the complaint along to the user. If the user disputes the complaint, they can pass a note back saying so. GitHub exercises little discretion in the process other than determining whether the notices meet the minimum requirements of the DMCA. It is up to the parties (and their lawyers) to evaluate the merit of their claims, bearing in mind that notices must be made under penalty of perjury.

    Here are the basic steps in the process.

    1. Copyright Owner Investigates. A copyright owner should always conduct an initial investigation to confirm both (a) that they own the copyright to an original work and (b) that the content on GitHub is unauthorized and infringing. This includes confirming that the use is not protected as fair use. A particular use may be fair if it only uses a small amount of copyrighted content, uses that content in a transformative way, uses it for educational purposes, or some combination of the above. Because code naturally lends itself to such uses, each use case is different and must be considered separately.

      Example: An employee of Acme Web Company finds some of the company's code in a GitHub repository. Acme Web Company licenses its source code out to several trusted partners. Before sending in a take-down notice, Acme should review those licenses and its agreements to confirm that the code on GitHub is not authorized under any of them.

    2. Copyright Owner Sends A Notice. After conducting an investigation, a copyright owner prepares and sends a takedown notice to GitHub. Assuming the takedown notice is sufficiently detailed according to the statutory requirements (as explained in the how-to guide), we will post the notice to our public repository and pass the link along to the affected user.

    3. GitHub Asks User to Make Changes. If the notice alleges that the entire contents of a repository infringe, or a package infringes, we will skip to Step 6 and disable the entire repository or package expeditiously. Otherwise, because GitHub cannot disable access to specific files within a repository, we will contact the user who created the repository and give them approximately 1 business day to delete or modify the content specified in the notice, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. We'll notify the copyright owner if and when we give the user a chance to make changes. Because packages are immutable, if only part of a package is infringing, GitHub would need to disable the entire package, but we permit reinstatement once the infringing portion is removed.

    4. User Notifies GitHub of Changes. If the user chooses to make the specified changes, they must tell us so within the window of approximately 1 business day. If they don't, we will disable the repository (as described in Step 6). If the user notifies us that they made changes, we will verify that the changes have been made and then notify the copyright owner.

    5. Copyright Owner Revises or Retracts the Notice. If the user makes changes, the copyright owner must review them and renew or revise their takedown notice if the changes are insufficient. GitHub will not take any further action unless the copyright owner contacts us to either renew the original takedown notice or submit a revised one. If the copyright owner is satisfied with the changes, they may either submit a formal retraction or else do nothing. GitHub will interpret silence longer than two weeks as an implied retraction of the takedown notice.

    6. GitHub May Disable Access to the Content. GitHub will disable a user's content if: (i) the copyright owner has alleged copyright over the user's entire repository or package (as noted in Step 3); (ii) the user has not made any changes after being given an opportunity to do so (as noted in Step 4); or (iii) the copyright owner has renewed their takedown notice after the user had a chance to make changes. If the copyright owner chooses instead to revise the notice, we will go back to Step 2 and repeat the process as if the revised notice were a new notice.

    7. User May Send A Counter Notice. We encourage users who have had content disabled to consult with a lawyer about their options, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. If a user believes that their content was disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification, they may send us a counter notice. As with the original notice, we will make sure that the counter notice is sufficiently detailed (as explained in the how-to guide). If it is, we will post it to our public repository and pass the notice back to the copyright owner by sending them the link.

    8. Copyright Owner May File a Legal Action. If a copyright owner wishes to keep the content disabled after receiving a counter notice, they will need to initiate a legal action seeking a court order to restrain the user from engaging in infringing activity relating to the content on GitHub. In other words, you might get sued. If the copyright owner does not give GitHub notice within 10-14 days, by sending a copy of a valid legal complaint filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, GitHub will re-enable the disabled content.

    B. What About Forks? (or What's a Fork?)

    One of the best features of GitHub is the ability for users to "fork" one another's repositories. What does that mean? In essence, it means that users can make a copy of a project on GitHub into their own repositories. As the license or the law allows, users can then make changes to that fork to either push back to the main project or just keep as their own variation of a project. Each of these copies is a "fork" of the original repository, which in turn may also be called the "parent" of the fork.

    GitHub will not automatically disable forks when disabling a parent repository. This is because forks belong to different users, may have been altered in significant ways, and may be licensed or used in a different way that is protected by the fair-use doctrine. GitHub does not conduct any independent investigation into forks, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. We expect copyright owners to conduct that investigation and, if they believe that the forks are also infringing, expressly include forks in their takedown notice.

    In rare cases, you may be alleging copyright infringement in a full repository that is actively being forked, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. If at the time that you submitted your notice, you identified all existing forks of that repository as allegedly infringing, we would process a valid claim against all forks in that network at the time we process the notice. We would do this given the likelihood that all newly created forks would contain the same content. In addition, if the reported network that contains the allegedly infringing content is larger than one hundred (100) repositories and thus would be difficult to review in its entirety, we may consider disabling the entire network if you state in your notice that, "Based on the representative number of forks I have reviewed, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free, I believe that all or most of the forks are infringing to the same extent as the parent repository." Your sworn statement would apply to this statement.

    C. What about Circumvention Claims?

    The DMCA prohibits the circumvention of technical measures that effectively control access to works protected by copyright. Given that these types of claims are often highly technical in nature, GitHub requires claimants to provide detailed information about these claims, and we undertake a more extensive review.

    A circumvention claim must include the following details about the technical measures in place and the manner in which the accused project circumvents them. Specifically, the notice to GitHub must include detailed statements that describe:

    1. What the technical measures are;
    2. How they effectively control access to the copyrighted material; and
    3. How the accused project is designed to circumvent their previously described technological protection measures.

    GitHub will review circumvention claims closely, including by both technical and legal experts. In the technical review, we will seek to validate the details about the manner in which the technical protection measures operate and the way the project allegedly circumvents them. In the legal review, we will seek to ensure that the claims do not extend beyond the boundaries of the DMCA. In cases where we are unable to determine whether a claim is valid, we will err on the side of the developer, and leave the content up. If the claimant wishes to follow up with additional detail, we would start the review process again to evaluate the revised claims.

    Where our experts determine that a claim is complete, legal, and technically legitimate, we will contact the repository owner and give them a chance to respond to the claim or make changes to the repo to avoid a takedown, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. If they do not respond, we will attempt to contact the repository owner again before taking any further steps. In other words, we will not disable a repository based on a claim of circumvention technology without attempting to contact a repository owner to give them a chance to respond or make changes first. If we are unable to resolve the issue by reaching out to the repository owner first, we will always be happy to consider a response from the repository owner even after the content has been disabled if they would like an opportunity to dispute the claim, present us with additional facts, or make changes to have the content restored. When we need to disable content, we DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free ensure that repository owners can export their issues and pull requests and other repository data that do not contain the alleged circumvention code to the extent legally possible.

    Please note, our review process for circumvention technology does not apply to content that would otherwise violate our Acceptable Use Policy restrictions against sharing unauthorized product licensing keys, software for generating unauthorized product licensing keys, or software for bypassing checks for product licensing keys. Although these types of claims may also violate the DMCA provisions on circumvention technology, these are typically straightforward and do not warrant additional technical and legal review. Nonetheless, where a claim is not straightforward, for example in the case of jailbreaks, the circumvention technology claim review process would apply.

    When GitHub processes a DMCA takedown under our circumvention technology claim review process, we will offer the repository owner a referral to receive independent legal consultation through GitHub’s Developer Defense Fund at no cost to them.

    D. What If I Inadvertently Missed the Window to Make Changes?

    We recognize that there are many valid reasons that you may not be able to make changes within the window of approximately 1 business day we provide before your repository gets disabled. Maybe our message got flagged as spam, maybe you were on vacation, maybe you don't check that email account regularly, or maybe you were just busy. We get it. If you respond to let us know that you would have liked to make the changes, but somehow missed the first opportunity, we will re-enable the repository one additional time for approximately 1 business day to allow you to make the changes. Again, you must notify us that you have made the changes in order to keep the repository enabled after that window of approximately 1 business day, as noted above in Step A.4. Please note that we will only provide this one additional chance.

    E. Transparency

    We believe that transparency is a virtue. The public should know what content is being removed from GitHub and why. An informed public can notice and surface potential issues that would otherwise go unnoticed in an opaque system. We post redacted copies of any legal notices we receive (including original notices, counter notices or retractions) at We will not publicly publish your personal contact information; DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free will remove personal information (except for usernames in URLs) before publishing notices. We will not, however, redact any other information from your notice unless you specifically ask us to. Here are some examples of a published notice and counter notice for you to see what they look like. When we remove content, we will post a link to the related notice in its place.

    Please also note that, although we will not publicly publish unredacted notices, we may provide a complete unredacted copy of any notices we receive directly to any party whose rights would be affected by it.

    F. Repeated Infringement

    It is the policy of GitHub, in appropriate circumstances and in its sole discretion, to disable and terminate the accounts of users who may infringe upon the copyrights or other intellectual property rights of GitHub or others.

    G. Submitting Notices

    If you are ready to submit a notice or a counter notice:

    Learn More and Speak Up

    If you poke around the Internet, it is not too hard to find commentary and criticism about the copyright system in general and the DMCA in particular. While GitHub acknowledges and appreciates the important role that the DMCA has played in promoting innovation online, we believe that the copyright laws could probably use a patch or two—if not a whole new release. In software, we are constantly improving and updating our code. Think about how much technology has changed since 1998 when the DMCA was written. Doesn't it just make sense to update these laws that apply to software?

    We don't presume to have all the answers. But if you are curious, here are a few links to scholarly articles and blog posts we have found with opinions and proposals for reform:

    GitHub doesn't necessarily endorse any of the viewpoints in those articles, DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free. We provide the links to encourage you to learn more, form your own opinions, and then reach out to your elected representative(s) (e.g, in the U.S. Congress or E.U. Parliament) to seek whatever changes you think should be made.

    Источник: []
    DMCA Policy > New Released Software Serial Keys Free

    Notice: Undefined variable: z_bot in /sites/ on line 111

    Notice: Undefined variable: z_empty in /sites/ on line 111

  • Comments

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *