DMCA Safe Harbor May Not Apply To Old Copyrighted Works

tlhIngan writes "On Tuesday, the New York appellate court denied Grooveshark the DMCA safe harbor protection on songs like Johnny B. Goode. What happened was due to an oddity in the law, the DMCA does not apply to state-licensed copyrighted works (those copyrighted before February 15, 1972). What happened was Congress overhauled copyright law to make it a Federal matter, but all works prior to that date still come under common-law and state statutes. The end result is that Grooveshark does not have DMCA safe harbor protection for older works and may be sued for copyright infringement (barring other agreements, e.g., UMG and YouTube), even though they fully comply with the DMCA otherwise, taking down copyrighted materials. Grooveshark is a "music locker" service allowing users to upload music for others to listen to."

Comments

Slashdot Copyright Overload

[Covalent]

It seems to me that every day there is a copyright story here at /. I am not complaining - I think our copyright system needs a major overhaul. But perhaps it's time for a new sub-header. Maybe split yro into copywrong and tinfoilhat?

Re:Slashdot Copyright Overload

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because there are basically two kinds of new stories (in reality itself; it's not a /. thing) these days: tech advances, and government attempting to prevent tech advances. You're right that the latter category does mostly consist of copyright stuff. Let's not all forget patents or terrorism overreaction (HOWTO be a Terrorist-Mandated-Policy Compliant Terroree), etc.

Re:And it was through this

[Aguazul2]

that corporations denied us access to our culture.

You might see music as a "product", but it's been a cultural output since the beginning of time.

When I ran the anti-corrupt CD campaign for the UK Campaign for Digital Right (now defunct), the group with the most interesting complaint were the archivists. They have the responsibility to archive our culture for future generations. All the DRM and physical protections and ill-conceived laws make their job increasingly difficult. If corporations have their way, maybe in 1000 years this will indeed be seen as a Dark Age because nothing readable/accessible of our corporate-sponsored culture survived. Just cat videos.

Re:LOL "music locker"

[dyingtolive]

I'm confused, help me out here:

So your argument is that businesses, no matter how great an empire they happen to be, that cannot adapt to the changing of the times will crumble under a superior model employed by lighter and faster moving competitors?

I can follow that argument. The source of my confusion is that you are applying it to the wrong side of the fence.

Dastar v. Fox

[tepples]

I'm pretty sure that Mickey Mouse is a trademark, not a copyright. This might mean that anyone could release Fantasia, but only Disney could create a new work.

So you're claiming that Disney could use a "reverse passing off" theory under the Lanham Act. My understanding of the finding of the Supreme Court in Dastar v. Fox is that a trademark cannot be used to extend the term of any of the exclusive rights under copyright in a work.

Interesting! DMCA is a sword with many edges.

[Sloppy]

US Code Title 17 section 1201(a)(1)(A) says "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" and then goes on to commit other atrocities against the people and industry. Am I to understand that this court has just said that works copyrighted prior to 1972-02-15, would not count as "works protected under this title"?