Class Notes (837,487)
United States (325,080)
PUBPOL 373 (27)
Frey (27)
Lecture 1

PUBPOL 373 Lecture 1: November 22nd Reading Notes
Premium

4 Pages
48 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Public Policy Studies
Course
PUBPOL 373
Professor
Frey
Semester
Spring

Description
November 22 Reading Notes: Digital Rights Management: Encryption and Mechanical Controls  No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title  Librarian of Congress shall examine o The availability for use of copyrighted works o The availability for use of works for nonprofit archival preservation, and educational purposes o The impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. o The effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works  No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, etc. that: o Is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a protected work o Has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a protected work o Is marketed for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a protected work  Reverse engineering is not a violation if: o The person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy o Such act is necessary to conduct encryption research o The person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention and o Such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section  Factors in determining exemption: o Whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated o Whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology o Whether the person provides the copyright owner with notice of the findings and documentation of the research. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.  Through its Library Project and its Google Books project, acting without permission of rights holders, Google has made digital copies of tens of millions of books, including Plaintiffs’, that were submitted to it for that purpose by major libraries.  Google has scanned digital copies and established a publicly available search function. An Internet user can use this function to search without charge to determine whether the book contains a specified word or term and also see “snippets” of text containing the searched-for terms.  Google has allowed the participating libraries to download and retain digital copies of the books they submit, under agreements which commit the libraries not to use their digital copies in violation of the copyright laws.  Augments public knowledge by making available information about Plaintiff’s books without providing the public with a substantial substitute for matter protected by the Plaintiffs’ copyright interests in the original works or derivatives of them.  An author’s derivative rights do not include an exclusive right to supply information (of the sort provided by Google) about her works.  Google’s profit motivation does not in these circumstances justify denial of fair use.  The mere speculative possibility that the libraries might allow use of their copies in an infringing manner does not make Google a contributory infringer. Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, LLC, and Google, Inc.  Viacom sued YouTube, a video-sharing site owned by Google, alleging that YouTube had engaged in "brazen" and "massive" copyright infringement by allowing users to upload and view hundreds of thousands of videos owned by Viacom without permission  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provisions (which says they are safe from infringement suits as long as promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent) shielded Google from Viacom’s copyright infringement claims.  Google stated that Viacom itself had "hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site". Google argued that since Viacom and its lawyers were "unable to recognize that dozens of the clips alleged as infringements in this case were uploaded to YouTube with Viacom
More Less

Related notes for PUBPOL 373

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit