Rich Fiscus
17 Sep 2007 20:21
After reading statements made by U.S. Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters it shouldn't surprise anyone to find out that she's a self described luddite who doesn't even have a computer at home. Short of being in a coma since the law went into effect in 1998, that's the only explanation for saying "I think it did what it was supposed to do," which is what she recently told an audience at the Future of Music Policy Summit.
Just a cursory glance at recent DMCA activity finds clear evidence of organizations abusing the law's takedown provision to force the removal of material that they have no legal claim to. Last week Timothy Vernor filed a lawsuit against CAD software maker Autodesk for repeatedly sending takedown requests requiring eBay to remove his auction of a perfectly legal copy of AutoCAD. Without the DMCA they would have had to take him to court and convince a judge that the wording of their license agreement, which Vernor couldn't have even read before opening the software package, carries the legal weight to void the first sale principle which gives him the right to re-sell legally purchased copyrighted products. The first sale doctrine has proven very resilient to legal challenges, and would require much more than Autodesk's word, which is all it took to repeatedly thwart his attempts to sell the software on eBay under the DMCA. After several complaints from the software company his eBay account was suspended, stopping him from selling anything on the site for a month.
In another recent episode, Creation Science Evangelism Ministries has been sending takedown notices to YouTube over a group called Rational Response Squad of posting their copyrighted material. The fact that the group's site explicitly gives permission for anyone to copy and distribute the videos as long as they don't charge for them isn't a factor, because no proof is required for a DMCA takedown notice. Proof is only necessary if you want to defend yourself against such a claim.
Although the practices in both cases are actually violations of the DMCA, with no government oversight for takedown notices it's up to injured parties to make sure the law isn't abused. For most individuals such a lawsuit is prohibitively expensive and time consuming, making it easy for abuses to go unchecked.
In an age where intellectual property issues primarily revolve around technology, we can't afford to have copyright officials who are technologically illiterate. If you don't understand how technology works, how can you be expected to grasp the implications of copyright law?
Sources:
CNet News
AECnews.com
Wired