Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Nothing that old should be covered by copyright, anyway. To give safe-harbor to those hosting new works but not those works that should be in the public domain shows that out "legislators" are batshit crazy. Only a certifiable lunatic would pass laws like the ones we have on the books.
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?
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
US copyright is currently bullshit. Those songs should have been public domain for 13 years already.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Does that also mean (to be consistent) that earlier works don't get the federal copyright term extensions, so anyone can use (say) Mickey Mouse?
A court can easily decide these cases through careful construction of a three part test:
1) Does the interpretation give benefits to a corporation that is a large campaign contributor?
2) Does the interpretation give benefits to a corporation that is a large campaign contributor?
3) Does the interpretation give benefits to a corporation that is a large campaign contributor?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The only good part of the DMCA was that it applied a safe harbor protection - if you follow the law, and take stuff down when asked and don't openly solicit unauthorized content, you're safe.
But now apparently that protection doesn't apply to roughly half the things that could potentially be uploaded. So you have to manually review and approve any file, since you can't know whether it falls under DMCA safe harbor or not. Thus eliminating any potential benefit of the DMCA until 2044 or so, longer if they extend copyright durations again (so, longer).
So then, what's the point? It's a law that applies far too harsh penalties, outlaws modifying your own property if it's been magically declared a "protective measure" and is abused more than most tax loopholes. If the one reasonable bit about it has been struck down, well, I think it needs to be gone. And I'm sure Google et al. will be agreeing.
This decision is severely damaging.
I don't think it will be long now before suits are filed against most of the digital locker services to try to "catch" them with pre 1972 content.
And if they manage to shut down the file lockers, they will ramp up the courage to go after YouTube. And with it already proven that it is nearly completely impossible for YouTube to perfectly filter everything automatically, they will lose.
I have decided, and told my children to look at any music they are purchasing and make sure it is not copyrighted by UMG.
I am fine with buying digital music online, but I am not fine with giving any money to a company who supports policies that could destroy the internet.
Companies that try to pursue actions and decisions that cripple the internet are IMHO enemies of mankind.
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.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution says: "The Congress shall have Power .... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
So, it should always have been under federal jurisdiction, not state. Indeed, that should make any state laws regarding it null and void due to federal supremacy.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
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.
Yes but unless it specifically did delegate those rights to the states, then surely state laws have no standing as they infringe on Congressional powers.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Seriously, so basically, the old copyrighted works gain the extended protections of the Federal laws...BUT NOT the responsibilities and protections to the people.
Do you ever get the feeling that Congress just does what they're paid to do?
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"?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Actually, that's an ex-post-facto delegation, it doesn't show where Congress ever delegated the authority to the states in the first place, which would be necessary for the state laws to be valid. So, when you find that statute, you'll have something. Here's a head start for you, you have to find a federal statute that supercedes the first federal copyright act, the Copyright Act of 1790.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false