undefined | Better HN

0 pointswgjordan5y ago0 comments

> I was under the impression that DMCA notices were for the removal of infringing content, not alleged anti-circumvention tools. That's what the law seems to specify.

My reading is that the DMCA expanded the definition of 'copyright infringement' to include 'circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner' (§1201), and so a DMCA notice specifying 'material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity' (§512) would work for the removal of anti-circumvention tools as well.

§1201: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

§512: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

0 comments

zerocrates5y ago

Infringement of copyright is defined by the statute and does not include the anti-circumvention 1201 provisions.

There is no legally-specified takedown procedure for a 1201 violation, and correspondingly no "safe harbor." The "takedown" here was more in the vein of a demand letter.

wgjordanOP5y ago

> Infringement of copyright is defined by the statute and does not include the anti-circumvention 1201 provisions.

Yeah, my mistake, you're correct the 1201 anti-circumvention provisions do define a new violation separate from copyright infringement itself.

However, there is a circuit split as to whether a violation of section 1201 requires a nexus to copyright infringement to be valid. If an 'infringement nexus requirement' is upheld, section 512 may still cover section 1201 violations by shielding service providers from any copyright infringement liability that would establish a nexus with the circumvention tool.

I don't see this particular issue ever being resolved by the courts in any case, so there's still quite a bit of ambiguity in this connection between the two sections of the DMCA.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse