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

And it was through this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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:And it was through this

[Ashenkase]

Don't worry, in 1000 years time our genetically modified cats will have overthrown their furry shackles and will have become our feline overlords. They will be most thankful that humans have kept their historical "culture" properly archived and indexed, most notably "Cats in Sinks".

Insanity!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Kill the DMCA, then

[gman003]

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.

Severely Damaging Decison

[JWW]

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.

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.