Software piracy is an issue that bedevils many corporations because it results in reduced revenue. This led to the establishment of the DMCA to tackle the issue relating to the use of pirated Linux and related softwares. The DMCA as the study shows has attracted a sizeable share of criticisms even with the benefits that comes with it. It is seen to favor large corporations over the smaller ones. This has attracted a number of court cases as seen in the case involving Motion Picture Association of America against RealNetworks concerning its RealDVD software.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed in October 1998. Some of its parts were not imposed until some later dates. DMCA was implemented through the signing of President George Bush. This law is being used to curb people with free software that is being used to watch DVDs on Linux boxes. This law unfavorably affects anyone. The DCMA establishes large corporations' extensive power over consumers. Moreover, there is minimal acquisition to what the model should contain in enhancing creative works. Moreover, the DMCA is an act of violence with stakes attempting to forcefully seize something that people individuals consider as common property. The DCMA is divided into five significant provisions (U.S.G.P.O. 2008).
DMCA encompasses two significant parts, which are a source of debate since they were implemented in 2000. The "anti-circumvention provision section bar circumvention regarding access controls and measures of technical protection is the first section. In addition, the "safe harbor" provisions safeguard service enhancers that meet a certain situation. These include provisions employed in monitoring damages relating to infringement activities of their clients and other related parties over the internet. Therefore, while enhancing the efficiency of "anti-circumvention" provisions relating to DMCA, the Congress sought to stop copyright pirates that wanted to defeat the DRM. This included other content access and copy limitations on copyrighted works prohibiting the "black books" policies aimed for the purpose. The DCMA protects service providers from monetary liability rooted in supposedly infringing practices of third parties. Therefore, an individual can receive these protections of the DMCA through complying with the terms laid in section 512 (Wilbur, 2000). These include "notice and takedown" processes that give copyright holders faster and effective means of disabling access to supposedly infringing comfort.
Criticisms of the DMCA
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was greatly welcomed by giant companies. However, it faced various criticisms and lacked the force of taking on the big companies. It was rejected by researchers due to its effort to suppress the circulation of information. The DCMA permits over-enthusiastic copyright owners to claim the objection of sources from websites, which are not intruding on the rational possession rights. Moreover, the cost of opposing such a claim includes the effect of a denial to eliminate the content and succeeding loss in a lawsuit. This means that a number of webmasters are able to cede to the unintelligent requests of the copyright owners (Stegmaier, 2005).
In addition, critics of the DMCA have been denoted on research. This is particularly in the aspect of cryptography. It is important to note that it is easy for a cryptanalytic to be alleged of a DMCA violation and be judged on legal consequences. For instance, Skylarov who was a Russian programmer was arrested due to his presentation at DEFCON. He was retained in custody for a month without official charges. DMCA is considered to be at its weakest point because it illegalizes free expression and leads to the detriment of various innocent victims (Wilbur, 2000).
Moreover, other arguments have been raised against DCMA on the fair use of the state's intellectual property paid for by consumers. For instance, companies like Apple go to extremes of locking their devices. Significantly, third developers of software have an opportunity of developing ridiculous processes in order to enhance their applications to the users. The restrictions that are imposed on devices are too limiting considering the capital invested in the applications. However, it is important to note that the DCMA has many supporters, especially from the big companies who are very influential. Consequently, it is impossible for the various critics on DMCA to have a prospect of being amended (Stegmaier, 2005).
Notable court case
One of the notable cases was in August 2009. The Motion Picture Association of America stood in law on a case against RealNetworks concerning its RealDVD software. Surprisingly, the software could enable users to rip DVDs directly into their hard drives and later use them without the original disc. DMCA impressed many people. However, the Motion Picture of America was not justified. MPAA filed a case against RealNetworks and won. This was on the bases of anti-piracy measures that included ARccOS Protection. MPAA claimed that RealNetworks had neglected their license agreement. Considerably, my argument on MPAA's actions is that, the action of neglecting the license agreement by RealNetworks was unlawful. DCMA similarly opposes the underlying agreements and imposes strict intellectual property protection in the electronic realm does society more harm than good. The DMCA suppressed the spread of information (Pike & Fischer, 2008).
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.