background preloader

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Digital Millennium Copyright Act
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.[1][2] Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users. Provisions[edit] Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions[edit] Related:  Tech laws

Adobe v. One Stop Micro Citation Edit Adobe Sys. Inc. v. One Stop Micro, Inc., 84 F.Supp.2d 1086, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 2003 (N.D. Factual Background Plaintiff, Adobe Systems Inc., (“Adobe”), is the developer and publisher of various software products including Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Dreamweaver and Adobe Acrobat. Defendant, One Stop Micro, Inc. Upon learning of One Stop’s actions, Adobe filed suit, alleging that One Stop infringed its copyright, diluted and infringed its trademark, interfered with contractual relations, and violated the Lanham Act. Subsequently, Adobe filed a motion for summary judgment on these claims. Trial Court Proceedings At trial, the district court granted Adobe’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. In denying One Stop’s motion, the district court was forced to examine whether Adobe’s ORCA agreements constitute a sale, or a license of software. Despite this defense, the court found One Stop’s argument to be without merit.

Adobe Systems v. Stargate Software Citation Edit Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Stargate Software, Inc., 216 F.Supp.2d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (full-text). Factual Background Plaintiff, Adobe Systems Inc., (“Adobe”), is the developer and publisher of various software products including Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Dreamweaver and Adobe Acrobat. In conjunction with releasing its software to the general public, Adobe produces “Educational” versions of its software packages at a discount. Defendant, Stargate Systems Inc. Upon learning of Stargate's activities, Adobe set up a “trap purchase” of Educational software from the company. Trial Court Proceedings Shortly after purchasing the unauthorized copy, Adobe filed suit against Stargate for infringing Adobe's copyrights by obtaining and selling Educational versions of Adobe software without Adobe's authorization. Stargate contends that it is the rightful owner of Adobe software products and that Adobe’s claim for copyright infringement is erroneous. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

Software Licensing Agreement Software Licensing Agreements in India- General Overview Allowing an individual or group to use a piece of software is Software licensing[2]. Nearly all applications are licensed rather than sold. There are a variety of different types of software licenses. Some are based on the number machines on which the licensed program can run whereas others are based on the number of users that can use the program. Most personal computer software licenses allow you to run the program on only one machine and to make copies of the software only for backup purposes. 1.2 Genesis Of Software Licensing AgreementIn the early day’s software development focused on the creation of customized software for mainframe computers and other computers. In such market, the number of users increases by big numbers. 1.3 Types Of Software LicensesSoftware licenses can generally be fit into the following categories: proprietary licenses, free software license, open source licenses. i. ii. 3. ·Start the Installer

End-user license agreement In proprietary software, an end-user license agreement (EULA) or software license agreement is the contract between the licensor and purchaser, establishing the purchaser's right to use the software. The license may define ways under which the copy can be used, in addition to the automatic rights of the buyer including the first sale doctrine and 17 U.S.C. § 117 (freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and backup). Many form contracts are only contained in digital form, and only presented to a user as a click-through where the user must "accept". As the user may not see the agreement until after he or she has already purchased the software, these documents may be contracts of adhesion. Software companies often make special agreements with large businesses and government entities that include support contracts and specially drafted warranties. Many EULAs assert extensive liability limitations. Comparison with free software licenses[edit] Shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses [edit] Patent[edit]

Shrink wrap contract Shrink wrap contracts are license agreements or other terms and conditions of a (putatively) contractual nature which can be read and accepted by the consumer only after the consumer opens the product. The term refers to the shrinkwrap plastic wrapping used to coat software boxes, because such packaging makes it impossible for the buyer to have read the contract before completing the purchase. These contracts are not, however, limited to the software industry. Web-wrap, click-wrap and browse-wrap are related terms which refer to license agreements in software which is downloaded or used over the internet. A software license agreement is commonly called an end user license agreement (or EULA). United States[edit] The legal status of shrink wrap contracts in the US is somewhat unclear. See also[edit] References[edit] Further reading[edit]

The Microsoft way Wherein an Indian firm using pirated Microsoft software here is sued in the US by California state for using unfair trade advantage KARNO GUHATHAKURTAA favourite Bill Gates story is this. In 1998, the boss of Microsoft was talking to management students at the University of Washington to share his business philosophy. Here’s what he said then about piracy: “Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people don’t pay for the software,” he said. “Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. The company Gates co-founded appears to know how to collect all right. According to one report, the software giant is said to have filed about 80 cases in the Delhi High Court against companies using pirated Microsoft products. According to reports, CBI had carried out raids in several cities across several states. How does Microsoft get to know that a company is violating its copyright by using unlicensed software?

The role played by Microsoft in getting California to sue Indian textile manufacturers for unfair competition: Is it losing faith in the Delhi High Court? | Spicy IP Carrying on from my earlier post on California’s outrageous attempt to sue an Indian textile manufacturer for allegedly using pirated software back in India, I have finally found a copy of the complaint filed by the California’s Attorney General in Los Angeles. The complaint can be accessed over here and I think it should receive an award for being the most vague piece of legal drafting and I’ll explain why. The root of this litigation, as mentioned in the complaint, is a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Microsoft before the Delhi High Court against Pratibha Syntex Ltd., the Indian textile manufacturer named before the Californian court. The lawsuit filed by Microsoft appears to have been your standard Microsoft lawsuit, which a ghost post has described so eloquently over here. On the basis of an investigator’s report, the Delhi High Court granted Microsoft an ex-parte discovery order allowing Microsoft to carry out an inspection of Pratibha Syntex’s computers. 59. 60.

Microsoft awarded Punitive Damages in Software Piracy Case: Autodesk, Inc. & Another vs Mr. Prashant Deshmukh & Others | Spicy IP (Image taken from here)Facts of the case: Autodesk, Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1”) is a renowned U.S.-based design software and digital content company, providing design software to professionals, has several authorized resellers in India and also claims to be the owner of various trademarks in India, including AUTODESK and AutoCAD. Microsoft Corporation, (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2”) owns software such as Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office and is almost a household name regarding computer peripherals. Issues: Whether the defendants are guilty of having infringed the copyright and trademark right associated with the software that belong to the plaintiffs? Regarding the issue of punitive damages in matters of piracy and infringement, reference was made to precedents such as Time Incorporated v.

Copyright infringement Intellectual property violation Copyright infringement (colloquially referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement. Copyright infringement disputes are usually resolved through direct negotiation, a notice and take down process, or litigation in civil court. Estimates of the actual economic impact of copyright infringement vary widely and depend on many factors. Terminology[edit] This was taken further in the case MPAA v. "Piracy"[edit] "Theft"[edit] "Freebooting"[edit] Legal[edit]

Almost All Torrents and File Sharing sites banned in India - Cyber Kendra - Latest Hacking News And Tech News This is not the good news for the Indian users that Indian Government have banned almost all the file sharing and torrents site last day. With the order of Delhi High Court the steps have been proceeded, because Multi Screen Media PVT Ltd, a Sony Entertainment Television filed a complaint with the High Court about the copyright issue of ongoing FIFA World Cup 2014 broadcasts and its downloading links. After watching the broadcast in number of Streaming sites, Sony have asked Indian Court to order the local ISP to block the users access to various sites. On the list of blocked site there were more than 450+ sites which contains Google services and Kim Dotcom's also. has been on the topic since before the matches even started, asking companies to have their employees ready at any time if they are to request the takedown of an illegal stream. This is one of the biggest banned applied by the Indian Government, due to which about half of the internet service is not available.

Microsoft Files Copyright Infringement Case Against KK Software Microsoft Files Copyright Infringement Case Against KK Software CRN, Jan 18, 2013 The company has claimed damages of Rs 5.71 crore; Delhi High Court has directed KK Jha and other defendants to disclose details of their assets Microsoft has filed a copyright case against Kamlesh Kumar Jha, the owner of New Delhi-based KK Software Solutions, and other defendants for allegedly indulging in software piracy and counterfeiting Microsoft products, in the Delhi High Court for permanent injunction and damages. The company in a statement said that in the civil case filed last month, it has claimed a loss of Rs 5.71 crore, which is the value of the illegal and infringing Microsoft software seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during the raids carried out at the premises of the defendants in December 2009, following a criminal complaint filed by Microsoft. Also read: Microsoft Terminates Associate Distributorship of KK Software Solutions

Court Orders Damages in Software Piracy Case Facts Court Proceedings Decision Comment The recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Microsoft Corporation v Yogesh Papat, which involved software piracy, has confirmed the Indian judiciary's resolve to tackle IP matters. IP theft was, until recently, perceived as a petty white-collar crime owing to its economic milieu. However, it has finally been separated from other criminal offences - this perception had prejudiced the Indian judiciary and enforcement agencies, with the prevalent notion being that criminal offences are much more serious than IP offences. Facts This case concerns the infringement of copyright in software and notably the interpretation of Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act 1957. The defendant did not appear before the court, so the proceedings took place ex parte. Generally when software is sold the purchaser is given a licence agreement setting out the permissible terms of use for the software. Court Proceedings Decision Comment Endnotes

India To Ban Internet Porn? While the ubiquitous presence of pornographic content on the internet is just another fact of life to the average internet user, two petitions that seek to restrict internet porn in India have been steadily gaining traction in media circles: In a petition currently pending before the Supreme Court of India, an Indore-based lawyer – Kamlesh Vaswani – argues that pornography greatly harms contemporary Indian society. It is said that the internet allows access to extremely graphic, violent and brutal forms of pornography that in turn lead to the commission of aggravated sexual offences against women and children, and a host of statistics are cited in support of this fact. Mr. Vaswani feels that existing provisions within the Information Technology Act meant to keep internet porn in check fail to do so, since the Act is primarily meant to promote e-commerce and e-governance. In the United States, the legal treatment of pornography tends to be rather liberal.