디지털 밀레니엄 저작권법

DMCA/Digital Millennium Copyright Act

1 개요

구글에 뭘 검색할 때마다 뜨는 거

1998년 10월 28일에 미국의 의회가 자국 내 온라인 디지털 콘텐츠의 저작권 보호를 위해 제정한 포괄적 법안이다.

2 상세

접근을 통제하는 기술적 보호 장치를 우회하는 행위 즉, 복제 방지 기술을 무효화시키는 것을 불법으로 간주하고, 복제 방지 기술을 무용화시키는 장치를 제작, 수입, 유통하는 것을 금지하며, 복제 방지를 위한 제어 및 구현에 대한 임의 조작을 금지하며, 저작물 관리 정보의 완전성을 보호하는 내용을 포함하고 있다.

저작권 관리 소프트웨어를 크랙(crack)하는 것을 범죄로 규정한 포괄적인 우회 금지 조항으로 디지털 방송 환경에 대비하여 불법 복제에 관한 보다 적극적인 관심과 구체적인 기술 개발의 계기가 되었으며 한편으로는 이에 반대하는 논란도 끊이지 않고 있다.

또한 서비스 이용자가 저작물을 올린 것을 삭제하지 않으면 저작권 침해라는 판례에 대응해 서비스 제공자가 통지 및 게시 중단 절차를 충실히 따르면 면책된다는 조항이 신설되었다.

3 전문

먼저 해당 항목은 전부 영문이다.구글 번역기를 사용해보자
출처 : 영문 위키백과

Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act

DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, amends U.S. copyright law to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, adopted at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference in December 1996. The treaties have two major portions. One portion includes works covered by several treaties in U.S. copy prevention laws and gave the title its name. For further analysis of this portion of the Act and of cases under it, see WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act.

The second portion (17 U.S.C. 1201) is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions changed the remedies for the circumvention of copy-prevention systems (also called "technical protection measures") and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention created by Macrovision (now Rovi Corporation) built in, giving Macrovision an effective monopoly on the analog video-recording copy-prevention market. The section contains a number of specific limitations and exemptions, for such things as government research and reverse engineering in specified situations. Although, section 1201(c) of the title stated that the section does not change the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, or defenses, it did not make those defenses available in circumvention actions. The section does not include a fair use exemption from criminality nor a scienter requirement, so criminal liability could attach even unintended circumvention for legitimate purposes.[1]

Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright infringement liability, provided they meet specific requirements. OSPs must adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and 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. OCILLA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users' identity.

Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act
DMCA Title III modified section 117 of the copyright title so that those repairing computers could make certain temporary, limited copies while working on a computer. It reversed the precedent set in MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).

Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions
DMCA Title IV contains an assortment of provisions:
Clarified and added to the duties of the Copyright Office.
Added ephemeral copy for broadcasters provisions, including certain statutory licenses.
Added provisions to facilitate distance education.
Added provisions to assist libraries with keeping phonorecords of sound recordings.
Added provisions relating to collective bargaining and the transfer of movie rights.

Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act
DMCA Title V added sections 1301 through 1332 to add a sui generis protection for boat hull designs. Boat hull designs were not considered covered under copyright law because they are useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function.[2][3]

4 기타

2015년, 리그베다 위키의 요구로 인해 2015년 나무위키 DMCA 테이크다운 사태가 일어났다. 나무위키와 나무위키 미러가 구글 검색에서 내려갔고[4], 나무위키 게시판을 사용할 수 없게 된 것.
  1. ↑ Band, Jonathan and Katoh, Masanobu (2011). Interfaces on Trial 2.0. MIT Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-262-01500-4.
  2. ↑ 17 U.S.C. 101 (defining "Pictorial, graphic and sculptural works" as "Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.")
  3. ↑ "Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1997 (H.R. 2696)", Statement of MaryBeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights, before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, Oct. 23, 1997 ("It is a long-held view of the Office that a gap exists in legal protection for the designs of useful articles. Existing bodies of federal intellectual property law do not provide appropriate and practical coverage for such designs, while state law is largely preempted in this area. Consequently, while considerable investment and creativity may go into the creation of innovative designs, they often can be copied with impunity.").
  4. ↑ 2015년 11월 25일 현재는 구글에서 나무위키를 검색하면 맨 위에 나무위키가 뜨며, 모든 검색에서도 마찬가지인 것으로 보아 원상복구된 듯하다.