Regardless of how one feels about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) as a whole, it’s clear that the Copyright Office's recent rulemaking process has appropriately further limited the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. In February 2009, New Media Rights submitted comments in support of these changes that have now been enacted.

The Office's ruling attempted to clarify the DMCA's prohibition on “circumventing” digital rights management (DRM) and “other technical protection measures” -- a prohibition that, up until now, has given Apple the theoretical right to intimidate iPhone users with “jailbroken” phones with legal action. The Office ruled that this jailbreaking does not constitute violation of the DMCA. Although Apple has never prosecuted any iPhone jailbreaker under the DMCA, Apple did strongly object to any exemption to the anti-circumvention rule. This has led many general interest news sources to label these recent exemptions as a victory specific to iPhone jailbreakers which isn’t true.  The victory is a broader one, for cell phone users, video remix artists, documentarians, and educators, among others.

San Diego, California - On Friday May 7^th, 2010 New Media Rights submitted comments in the FCC's Future of Media proceeding. 

New Media Rights' comments to the Commission draw directly on our experience providing one-to-one pro bono legal assistance as well as a free public media studio to creators of all types.  Our work has given us the opportunity to engage with a wide variety of media makers, advocates and citizens.  These comments are also intended to supplement a conversation held between New Media Rights, Free Press, Main Street Project, People's Production House, The Transmission Project and Mountain Area Information Network with the FCC's Steve Waldman on Thursday May 6^th, 2010.

New Media Rights recently heard from a blogger who received notification that a takedown notice was sent to their service provider, a website that hosts individuals blogs, and that the user’s content was removed.  However, the blogging service didn't

1) Identify the individual who requested the information be taken down OR

2) Specifically identify the infringing material

What's the problem?  This essentially destroys a users right to counternotify, allowing overreaching large content companies to control and remove Internet speech at will. 

Learn about the problem here, and learn how to fight back if you have content removed by a DMCA takedown notice.

Internet bullies are taking matters into their own hands by trying to use the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA to wrongfully intimidate others. It is crucial for all Internet service providers, website operators, bloggers, etc. to fully understand the state of the law in order to avoid unneccesary harassment. 

Section 512 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) creates "safe harbor" provisions for online service providers who allow user generated content. Under these provisions, online service providers are granted some protection against copyright infringement claims as long as certain procedures are followed. Generally, a copyright holder must send a "take down" notice to the service provider, and the service provider will inform the user the content has been taken down. In response, the user may reply with a "counter notice" letter to try and have the content re-posted.

How AT&T, Comcast, and others are helping RIAA & MPAA pursue suspected filesharers.