Update to Digital Millennium Copyright Act Long Overdue

Update to Digital Millennium Copyright Act Long Overdue

by | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy, Politics

DMCA is outdated and broken

Momentum is building for changes to the DMCA that will better protect creators

Content creators from all walks of life are coalescing around the need to update copyright law to protect their work against theft in digital age.  A piece in yesterday’s NY Times,  Music World Bands Together Against YouTube, Seeking Change to Law, is the latest to highlight growing calls by the creative community to update a woefully antiquated Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

In its newest effort, the music industry has asked the federal government to change the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, saying that the law, which was passed in 1998 and protects sites like YouTube that host copyrighted material posted by users, is outdated and makes removing unauthorized content too difficult.

Cary Sherman, the chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, says that even when songs are taken down, they can easily be uploaded again.

“This is a new form of piracy,” he said. “You don’t have to go into dark corners and sell stuff out of your car. You can do it in plain sight and rely on the D.M.C.A. to justify that what you’re doing is perfectly legal.” –NY Times

Last month the U.S. Copyright Office held public roundtables in New York and San Francisco to hear testimony as part of its study to “evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the safe harbor provisions contained in section 512 of title 17, United States Code.”

As part of the study, the Copyright Office also solicited public comments. While I shared by thoughts with researchers at Mason Law’s Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic for its submission, “Middle Class Artists Want a DMCA System that Works”  I also drafted my own statement.  Although my comments are part of the public record, I thought I’d share my them here as well.   My hope is to generate further dialogue as to how we can advocate for a meaningful update to the DMCA so that moving forward, creators’ rights (and livelihoods) will be better protected.

Here’s my submission to the U.S. Copyright Office.

Updating the DMCA – Areas of Concern

Overwhelming volume

The DMCA is currently the only tool content creators have available to safeguard their work from online theft and profiteering. Unfortunately, these days, using the DMCA to fight piracy is about effective as standing under Niagara Falls holding an umbrella.

Within a few months of our independent film’s release in 2010 we’d found more than 56,000 illegal download links and streams for pirated copies. Those are only the ones we managed to uncover. There were likely thousands more.

Multiply that figure by hundreds, if not thousands, of downloads per link and one can begin to appreciate the scope of the problem. Of course not every illegal download equals a lost sale, but even looking at a fraction of the total, the income lost by diluting legit sales can represent the difference between paying off production debts and making another film, or not.

The time and effort spent in policing piracy on the web is time and effort most independent artists cannot afford. For larger entities that can engage takedown services to manage the work for them the process remains an expensive and daunting task.

Ultimately such efforts can only slow, not stop, the incredible tide of online piracy.

Overly complex takedown procedures

While that language required to craft a legal DMCA takedown notice is straightforward, the process for actually sending it to an OSP’s takedown agent is often not so clear. While some OSPs accept email notification (as required by law), other larger entities, like Google, prefer that requests be sent via a cumbersome and time-consuming online process.

Uploading infringing content to a Google site can be done with a mere click of a mouse, unfortunately removing it is not quite so simple. Because the email address for Google’s DMCA Agent is not posted on its websites, rights holders must jump through various hoops and navigate through a series of questions in order to arrive at the correct form. Once there it takes additional time to complete the 9-part form. Before one can actually send it one must be sure to create a Google account, then login and send.

Once the takedown request is sent, no copy of the actual takedown request is generated, only a brief acknowledgement of receipt. Then it’s a waiting game to see whether the infringing content gets removed.

Sending a simple DMCA takedown notice via email is simple, fast, and makes record keeping and follow up easy.   Any update to the DMCA should continue to support email as an efficient way to send takedown requests and require that OSPs process emails with the same speed as those submitted via the web form.

Repeat infringement

Even if one sends a DMCA takedown notice to Google reporting a site for dozens of illegal links, Google allows the site to remain online.   It takes multiple notices, sent 48 hours apart, to trigger any sort of account disabling.

Other sites employ varying degrees of punishment for repeat infringers and some do nothing. This is certainly an area of concern for rights holders as it adds to the overall ineffectiveness and inefficiencies of the DMCA notice and takedown process.

Any update to the DMCA should specify what constitutes a repeat infringement and require that OSPs publish this information on their website. The law should also require that the OSP be responsible for preventing any re-upload of content already reported as infringing. This can be achieved by employing technological solutions described in the following section.

Technological Solutions

Technology brought us to this point. It’s time technology be utilized to help safeguard copyrighted work. YouTube’s Content ID system, though not without problems, at least provides a way for rights holders to find and manage YouTube access for their music or films. Cloud storage provider Dropbox also employs technology to scan files for identifying hash data so that reported files cannot be uploaded repeatedly.

If an OSP’s (online service provider) business model is predicated on monetizing user-generated content (not vetted for copyright) then the OSP should be required, by law, to implement some form of digital fingerprinting to prevent infringing material from being uploaded in the first place. This type of technology would also help address enforce a takedown – stay down approach and prevent repeated uploads of pirated content to a site.

If an OSP does not have the resources to build its own proprietary tech like YouTube’s Content ID, there are a number of third-party vendors, like Vobile, that offer digital fingerprinting. While such 3rd-party services are not free, it seems only fair that cost of implementing a digital gatekeeper be considered a cost of doing business. Creators have long borne the “costs” of OSPs monetizing their content without permission. Having OSPs tap into profits to better protect copyright seems only fair.

Any update to the law should include a requirement that, in order to qualify for the limitations to liability that safe-harbor offers, certain user-generated content sites must implement reasonable technology to mitigate content theft.

Counter-notices and small claims process

Not only are creators burdened with having to play detective to find and remove their stolen content from various websites, but even the counter-notice system works against rights holders.

The counter-notice system allows recipients of an erroneous DMCA to prevent the removal of content and while such a system of checks and balances is important, problems occur when such counter-notices are themselves erroneous. Unless the sender of the DMCA notice files in federal court to enforce the takedown, following a 10-day waiting period, the reported content is reposted.

For most indie artists, the cost of filing in federal court to enforce a DMCA takedown is far too costly and so, in these cases, the infringing content remains online. I’ve experienced this situation multiple times and have seen full copies of a film reposted after a counter-notice (claiming fair use) was sent after a takedown on YouTube.

Perhaps, as part of any update to the DMCA, the time has finally come to create a small claims process to adjudicate copyright claims outside the federal court system. The U.S. Copyright Office has already studied the issue and has recommended creation of a voluntary system of adjudication to resolve copyright small claims. (http://copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/usco-smallcopyrightclaims.pdf )

Content removed due to infringement should not be replaced by direct links to 3rd party site(s) that republish the same infringing links

Another issue not addressed by the DMCA is a problem that’s arisen thanks to a third-party database that records all the DMCA notices received by a number of OSPs including Google. The Lumen database https://lumendatabase.org/ (formerly Chilling Effects) offers a searchable database of these DMCA notices. While this might serve as a valuable archive, Lumen’s searchable database, in its current form, does not redact the infringing URLs from the DMCA notices and so–in effect–becomes an efficient search engine for pirated content. This afternoon I used Lumen’s search engine to look for illegal copies of the recent release “Carol.” With one click I found a link, then right-click and I ended up at an active, illegal copy online.

Lumen’s DMCA notices are also easily found thanks to Google’s direct links to them in what would seem to be blatant disregard for the DMCA’s intent–if not the law. The scenario works like this: When an infringing link is removed from Google search following a DMCA request, the search result remains, but the original infringing link is simply replaced with a fresh hyperlink to the DMCA notice stored in Lumen’s database. Essentially, removing the infringing link from Google search with a DMCA takedown requests only means a web user searching for pirated copies only has to click one additional link in order to find the pirated content he/she was looking for.

While the database itself may claim to operate under the mantel of “free speech” one has to ask how Google qualifies for “safe harbor” protection when infringing links removed from its search engine are replaced by a link to the DMCA notice on the Lumen database that contains the same, un-redacted infringing link.  This type of re-linking should be explicitly banned in any update of the DMCA.

What’s at stake

Takedowns will continue to be a part of any DMCA fix, but collectively we must figure out a better way streamline the process, utilize technology, and mediate disputes in order to protect copyright and support a culture where creators can flourish– and the wealth of content they create can be enjoyed, and sustained, by consumers throughout the world.

If nothing is done to update the DMCA for the 21st century, content creators of all stripes will continue to struggle and the diversity, and variety of quality of creative content available to consumers will diminish. At first, we may not miss what isn’t made, but eventually our creative culture will be the lesser for it.

 

 

 

Will DMCA ‘safe harbor’ loophole finally get fixed?

Will DMCA ‘safe harbor’ loophole finally get fixed?

by | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics

DMCA is broken

DMCA is outdated and broken

U.S. Copyright Office announces study on impact and effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor provisions

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) “safe harbor” provision has long been a source of frustration for creators.  For years it’s allowed 3rd parties who enable, and often profit from piracy, to avoid legal liability for infringement.  Momentum to tighten eligibility standards to qualify for safe harbor protection has been growing of late, both in courts and at the U.S. Copyright Office. In December, a federal jury’s verdict awarded BMG Rights Management 25 million in damages in its copyright infringement suit against Cox Communications.  The suit went forward after the judge ruled against Cox, determining that because of an inadequate “repeat infringer” policy the company did not meet eligibility for a safe harbor defense as stipulated in section §512(i) of the DMCA.

(1)Accommodation of technology.—The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider- (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers;

Perhaps even more significant news came on the final day of 2015 when the U.S. Copyright announced it was “undertaking a public study to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the safe harbor provisions contained in section 512 of title 17, United States Code.”
While Congress understood that it would be essential to address online infringement as the internet continued to grow, it may have been difficult to anticipate the online world as we now know it, where each day users upload hundreds of millions of photos, videos and other items, and service providers receive over a million notices of alleged infringement. The growth of the internet has highlighted issues concerning section 512 that appear ripe for study….Among other issues, the Office will consider the costs and burdens of the notice-and-takedown process on large- and small-scale copyright owners, online service providers, and the general public.
Though somewhat buried by the holidays, this announcement is welcome news for artists who been lobbying members of Congress tackle the outdated DMCA.  Most notable is the fact attention is finally being paid to smaller copyright owners who don’t have the resources to fight back effectively against online thieves:
Many smaller copyright owners, for example, lack access to third-party services and sophisticated tools to monitor for infringing uses, which can be costly, and must instead rely on manual search and notification processes —an effort that has been likened to ‘‘trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.’’  In addition to the burden of policing infringement across the internet, copyright owners complain that material they succeed in having taken down is often promptly reposted on the same site—the so-called ‘‘whacka-mole’’ problem. Under section 512 as it has been interpreted, providers are not required to filter out or prevent the reposting of copyrighted content.
Take Down, Stay DownI’ve written numerous blog posts about the burdens faced by independent creators and the fact that the DMCA is a badly outdated law so it’s beyond gratifying to see progress in this area.
 Others,  like Fare Play’s Will Buckley have been tireless advocates on this issue in Washington.  Buckley launched the Take Down, Stay Down petition campaign to “Restore an artist’s right to determine what happens to their work on the internet,” that asks Congress to update Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and close the safe harbor “loophole” in the DMCA by adding a “stay down” provision.
Buckley is thrilled that Washington seems to be getting serious about looking at the law’s deficiencies.  “I think it’s great that they’re seriously interested in taking a deeper look into safe harbor.”  When asked what impact the take down,stay down petition drive may have had in pushing the issue to the fore, Buckley observed, “the petition has helped drive more conversation about the serious problems we have with an artists inability to control who monetizes their work and how they’re compensated.”
With this study, let’s hope conversations continue so that real solutions can be found for the issues vexing artists trying to earn a fair living in this digital age.  If you’d like to have your voice heard, according to the Copyright Office there will be an opportunity for you to comment:
Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on March 21, 2016. Specific instructions for submitting comments will be posted on the Copyright Office website on or before February 1, 2016. The Office will also be announcing one or more public meetings, to take place after the initial written comments are received, by separate notice in the future.
I’ll be sure to alert you when I hear more regarding this important issue.
Instagram rip-offs by Richard Prince show why we need a small claims copyright court now

Instagram rip-offs by Richard Prince show why we need a small claims copyright court now

by | Copyright, Law, Photography, Piracy, Politics

Richard Prince, art thief

Richard Prince is not an artist, he’s a con-artist.

Ripping off artists in the name of ART is not OK

How long are we going to continue to let small artists get screwed by those with deep pockets?  Talk to any small creator–filmmakers, musicians, photographers, artists, authors–and ask whether they’ve had their work stolen (and monetized) by others and most will likely say “yes.”  Then ask them what they did about it.  The answer will likely be, “nothing.”

Right now a con-artist named Richard Prince is busy raking in the dough by selling Instagram photographs taken by others.   Oh yeah, he adds some drivel and emojis to the bottom of each photo before he blows it up a 65 x 48 print.  Yes art is often derivative, and yes these photographs are altered–but, in essence, at its core, the art remains a photograph taken (and owned) by someone else.

Prince, and the Gagosian Gallery where his work was shown, apparently have no qualms about blatantly appropriating and cashing by selling the work of other artists without their permission.  As a Paddy Johnson noted so succinctly in a piece he wrote for Artnet News, “Richard Prince sucks.”

So, while there’s no doubt Prince is a phony, piggy-backing off the work of Instagram artists; the question is–returning to my original query–Can the photographers whose pictures were stolen do anything to stop Prince’s outrageous fraud?  Well, not really. You see, quite simply,  Mr. Prince is loaded and the people he steals from are not.

Prince’s scam, disguised as art, is nothing new.  Over his career he’s developed a reputation as a serial thief and has ended up in court before. Two years ago he prevailed (partially) on appeal in a suit brought by photographer Patrick Cariou who claimed copyright infringement when Prince produced a series of photographs based on Cariou’s  work.  Ultimately a settlement was reached.

For his part Prince purports not to care much about copyright, telling Russhumazine.com:

…sometimes it’s better not to be successful and well known and you can get away with much more. I knew what I was stealing 30 years ago but it didn’t matter because no one cared, no one was paying any attention.

Why should he care?  With millions in the bank Prince can afford not to.  Does his past legal success mean he’d win this round?  Unfortunately, it’s unlikely we’ll ever find out since filing a lawsuit costs mega money–money that most everyday creators don’t have.

Doe Deere, one of the Instagram artists whose work was stolen, posted this response on the social media site aside the photo Prince filched:

Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes, it’s just a screenshot (not a painting). No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway. It’s already sold ($90K I’ve been told) during the VIP preview. No, I’m not gonna go after him. And nope, I have no idea who ended up with it! ? #lifeisstrange #modernart #wannabuyaninstagrampicture

Once again we’re left with a scenario where a rich charlatan can get away with stealing from the little guy.

It’s a scenario that’s played out many times.  We’ve witnessed similar rip-offs by corporate interests that routinely steal the work of artists.  Sam Levin wrote an expose for the East Bay Express last year documenting the ways in which artists are routinely victimized by such theft:

Visual artists and designers throughout the Bay Area and across the country are, at alarming rates, facing copyright infringements from large retail and wholesale companies stealing their intellectual property for their own products and profit. As artists increasingly promote their work and crafts online — through Etsy or their own websites and Facebook pages — corporations are stealing their designs and mass-producing them for sale.

Here too, an artist whose work is stolen has little recourse when it comes to fighting back.  Even if they do, Levin points out that any settlement is likely to be paltry and include a non-disclosure agreement, thereby shielding the thief from any negative public shaming.

The time has come for Congress to establish a small claims court for copyright

Perhaps the time has come to get serious about establishing a copyright small claims court. It’s an idea the U.S. Copyright Office spent several years studying. A report summarizing its findings was sent to Congress in September of 2013.  It outlined potential bureaucratic hurdles and ultimately recommended “the creation of a voluntary system of adjudication to be administered by the Copyright Office.”  In any case, the report’s findings reinforce the need for some type of action on this issue.  From the introduction:

While infringement is nothing new when it comes to the world of creative works, there is no question that it has proliferated with the ascendance of digital culture and the unprecedented desire for content. Today it is not only easy to make unauthorized copies, but to do so at virtually no cost, much to the detriment of authors and the market for their works. …Unfortunately, and perhaps ironically, as the rate of infringement has increased, so too have the barriers to pursuing copyright claims in the federal courts. These barriers are largely practical: federal litigation is expensive and time-consuming, and therefore out of reach for many copyright owners…If exclusive rights are unenforceable, they are weakened as the pillars of the copyright law, and public respect for our nation’s creativity is eroded in turn.

Other documentation gathered for the report included this startling nugget:.

In fact, one recent survey found that, as of 2011, the median cost for litigating a copyright infringement lawsuit with less than $1 million at risk was $350,000.

More analysis of the report can be found by Jonathan Bailey’s post on  Plagiarism Today.

Yet here we are.  More than a year and a half has passed since the Copyright Office published its recommendations, Congress has yet to act.  I realize the wheels of progress move at a glacial pass in Washington, and there are other copyright-related issues being bandied about, but let’s hope this idea will move to the front burner soon.

Bottom line, establishing a small claims court where copyright claims could be heard would at least level the playing field a bit.  Small creators would not have to sit idly as skunks like Richard Prince co-opt their work and make money at their expense. Obviously damages are limited in small claims court, but at least those whose work is stolen could seek redress and perhaps, collectively, turn the tide against this type of chronic theft.

Prince can afford to go to court.  The Instagram users he stole from cannot.  There has got to be a better way don’t you think?

 

Update 5/29/15:  I think this article by posted at fstoppers.com is a good overview of the copyright issues involved: The Latest Richard Prince Controversy, Clarified by Patent and Copyright Attorney John Arsenault

A Good Week for Copyright

A Good Week for Copyright

by | Copyright

good-newsFrom Congress to the courts, this has been a good week for those of us who care about copyright and believe it’s fundamental to preserving creator’s rights.

First up, on Wednesday, was U.S. Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallante’s highly anticipated testimony before the United States House of Representative’s Judiciary Committee, where she spoke about the “next great copyright act.”  Her appearance there came on the heels of a lecture she gave earlier this month at Columbia Law School where she echoed many of the same themes.  Those who believe copyright law is the enemy expressed cautious optimism after the Columbia speech thanks to her mention of rolling back the copyright term from 70 to 50 years, but I imagine that by the time she was finished her testimony on Wednesday, their optimism had turned to disappointment, and for that I am grateful.

Why am I grateful?  I’m grateful because Ms. Pallante expressed a thoughtful (and modern) view of copyright law.  Her presentation was pragmatic and positive.  Like many others, she believes an update to copyright law is long overdue, but unlike voices of the anti-copyright lobby, she seeks a balanced approach, understanding how profoundly important copyright is to those who create books, films, music and more.  As Sandra Aistars, executive director, Copyright Alliance wrote in a recent editorial  in The Hill:

Should Congress take on the challenge of updating the Copyright Act, it must do so guided by sound principles, and its deliberations must be based in reality rather than rhetoric.

Chief among these principles is that protecting authors is in the public interest. Ensuring that all creators retain the freedom of choice in determining how their creative work is used, disseminated and monetized is vital to protecting freedom of expression.  Consent is at the heart of freedom, thus we must judge any proposed update by whether it prioritizes artists’ rights to have meaningful control over their creative work and livelihood.

In her prepared testimony, which she read before answering questions, Pallante affirmed the need to keep the rights of creators at the core of any revision to copyright law:

The issues of authors are intertwined with the interests of the public. As the first beneficiaries of the copyright law, they are not a counterweight to the public interest but instead are at the very center of the equation. In the words of the Supreme Court, “[t]he immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an ‘author’s’ creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.”Congress has a duty to keep authors in its mind’s eye, including songwriters, book authors, filmmakers, photographers, and visual artists. A law that does not provide for authors would be illogical hardly a copyright law at all.

Overall, her testimony was, in my view, refreshing and forward-thinking.  Much has changed since 1998, the last time U.S. copyright law was updated via the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and revising the law to reflect the digital landscape of the 21st century is long overdue.  Our culture is one where content of all kinds is disseminated with the click of a mouse.  The recognition that digital content is as worthy of protection as its non-digital counterpart, provides a foundation from which a comprehensive revision can emerge.  Surely we can find a means to protect the rights of creators while acknowledging the transformations that technology has brought to consumption and collaboration.

When Congress revisits copyright law I hope they revisit  Section 512 (Limitations on Liability Relating to Material Online) otherwise known as the “safe harbor” provision.

(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.—

(1) In general.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—

(A)
(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

In the 14 years since President Clinton signed this law, technology has become exponentially more sophisticated.  Unfortunately, thus far, these advances seem to have primarily benefited those engaged in IP theft.  Why not turn that around? Why not mandate that websites implement appropriate technology to help safeguard copyright?   Youtube’s Content ID system is a good example of what can happen when an online entity institutes reasonable measures to protect the rights of content creators.  Why not revise the DMCA and add language to the safe harbor provision that requires websites to utilize reasonable technological measures to detect infringing content?   The DMCA is routinely used as a convenient shield from legal liability by online entities that actively and knowingly engage in piracy for profit.   Clarifying the law will benefit not only those who are victims of content theft, but those who wish to create legit businesses in digital distribution.

As Maria Pallante testified:

In revising the law, Congress should look to the equities of the statute as a whole, and strive for balance in the overall framework. It is both possible and necessary to have a copyright law that combines safeguards for free expression, guarantees of due process, mechanisms for access, and respect for intellectual property.

I believe that it is possible to find consensus and revise copyright law so that it will better protect the rights of creators in this digital age, while not hindering future artistic or technical “innovation.”  Spin aside, these are not opposing goals, but naturally synergistic ones.   In her speech at Columbia, Pallante touched on this notion as well:

In short, the next great copyright act presents an opportunity. All members of the online ecosystem should have a role, including payment processors, advertising networks, search engines, Internet service providers, and copyright owners. These strategies can be a mix of legislative solutions and complementary voluntary initiatives, but where gaps in the law exist Congress should not be absent.

One critical issue is the ability of law enforcement to prosecute the rising tide of illegal streaming in the criminal context. Streaming implicates the copyright owner’s exclusive right of public performance: it is a major means by which copyright owners license their rights in sporting events, television programs, movies, and music to customers, who in turn access the content on their televisions, smart phones, tablets, or video consoles. Under current law there is a disparity that may have once been of little consequence but is today a major problem: prosecutors may pursue felony charges in the case of illegal reproductions or distributions, but are limited to misdemeanor charges when the work is streamed, even where such conduct is large scale, willful and undertaken for a profit motive. As a practical matter, prosecutors have little incentive to file charges at all, or to pursue only those cases where the rights of reproduction and distribution are also at issue. This lack of parity neither reflects nor serves the digital marketplace.

This digital “marketplace” should continue to thrive.  Revising the copyright law to protect the integrity of products disseminated via that marketplace will ensure that it does.

The other bit of good copyright news came today as federal appeals court affirmed a lower court decision against the BitTorrent piracy website Isohunt.  Most notably the court held that website operators were not “entitled to protection from liability under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.”   In their decision the court recognized that the site’s owner, Gary Fung, was in the business of piracy, not engaging in “free speech.” As I mentioned above, the DMCA’s safe harbor provision is often abused by piracy sites like Isohunt and although I’m an independent filmmaker, not a product of Hollywood, Henry Hoberman of the MPAA summed it up my reaction pretty well:

This ruling affirms a core principle of copyright law: Those who build businesses around encouraging, enabling, and helping others to commit copyright infringement are themselves infringers, and will be held accountable for their illegal actions It also strikes an important blow in the fight to preserve the jobs of millions of workers in the creative industries, whose hard work and investments are exploited by rogue websites for their own profit.

For a more comprehensive look at the decision, please visit Alexandra Goldstein’s analysis here.  All in all, a very good week for copyright (and those who believe in it).