Home
A Brief Overview
| Works created on or after January 1, 1978 | Extends copyright from the life of the author plus 50 years, to the life of the author plus 70 years (i.e., 20 year extension) |
| Works created before January 1, 1978 but not registered or published by that date | Automatically given same copyright protection as works created on or after January 1, 1978 with the same terms |
| Works published on or before December 31, 2002 | Extends copyright from 25 to 45 years (i.e., 20 year extension) |
| Works created anonymously or psuedonymously | 95 years from first publication or 120 years from the year of first creation, whichever comes first. (i.e., 20 year extension) |
| Sound Recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 | Extends copyright from February 15, 2047 to February 15, 2067 (i.e., 20 year extension) |
Some Highlights of the CTEA
The copyright term extension act allows libraries or archives to "reproduce, distribute, display or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such work for purposes of preservation, scholarship or research" under certain conditions. (CTEA) The work must not be available commercially or easily affordable, and the library is not notified of any conditions by the copyright holders. Use of the reproductions is restricted to the library or archive users.
The CTEA also addresses the spirit of negotiation by copyright holders of audiovisual materials. Section 105 states that because Congress has extended the rights of copyright holders, those individuals are obligated to negotiate for fair remuneration by all parties involved in the production of those works.
Title II of the CTEA allows bars and restaurants to play recorded music without paying licensing fees as long as the broadcast is confined to the establishment and no additional fees are charged.
Supreme Court Challenges to the CTEA
A supreme court decision handed down 2/16/01 upheld the CTEA of 1998 as constitutional. The class action suit against the federal government was brought by a group of vendors of works that were in the public domain until the CTEA was passed, protecting them from copyright infringement for an additional 20 years. (Eldritch)
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA)
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 amended section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Code which addresses the rights and limitations on reproduction of copyright material by libraries and archives. Under the DMCA, libraries and archives are allowed to make three copies of materials which are damaged, lost or deteriorating, whereas they were previously only allowed to make one copy. They are also allowed to make up to three digital copies of a work in an obsolete format providing the copies are not accessible outside the library or archive. The DMCA further stipulates that libraries and archives are required to include the actual notice of copyright as it appears on journal articles, book chapters and photocopies for interlibrary loan. If a copyright statement is not found on the material, the institution must stamp or label the material with a statement to the effect "This material may be protected by Copyright Law". The amendments also include the right of libraries and archives to copy and freely reproduce, distribute, and display materials which are in the last 20 years of copyright protection. This allows the library or archive to use materials which would have been in the public domain had their copyright term not been extended by the CTEA. ( Copyright/ALA)
The DMCA also addressed many of the issues of fair use and copyright
which are particular to the internet and digitally produced media.
Of particular note is the attention paid to the circumvention of security
devices. The DMCA makes the distinction between unauthorized access
of digital media and unauthorized copying of digital media and the security
devices involved in both of those situations. According to the DMCA
it is not illegal to circumvent security devices designed to prevent copying
digital media if the copying itself constitutes fair use, for example,
making a backup copy of software for personal use. Fair use is not
a defense, however, for circumventing security measures to gain unauthorized
access to software or digital media. Also, the DMCA makes it
illegal to produce or distribute software or devices that facilitate circumnavigation
of security software for purposes other than fair use. (Band)
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act also outlines the limits of liability
for Internet Service Providers (ISP's) in the facilitation of copyright
piracy. Under the DMCA, an ISP (or network administrator, in the
case of a college or university) is free from liability when a user posts
pirated material, or uses provided access, in any way which violates the
copyright law if they have clearly stated guidelines for users and terminate
repeat violators. They are not required to police their sites, however,
but only to designate an individual or department which is responsible
for fielding complaints by copyright holders.They are required to
advertise that individual or department on their web site. They also have
to agree not to tamper with standard technology measures which prevent
duplication of copyright protected material. (Copyright Basics)
http://www.diamondmm.com/
In October of 1998, the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) attempted to block the sale and distribution of a new digital music player, Diamond Rio, manufactured by Diamond Multimedia, Inc. The Diamond Rio player represented a new generation of personal music technology and its accompanying hardware. It is a small audio device that employs the MPEG 1 layer 3 (MP3) compression utility to store digital audio files and convert them to analog output for a single user through headphones. MP3 technology, capable of compressing digital files to one tenth of their size, allows the palm sized device to store up to 60 minutes of digital music or 8 hours of speech. There is no output other than to the headphones, and the device cannot transfer the files to other media or store the files indefinitely; files are presumed to be rewritten frequently to provide variety to the listener. (Bridges)
The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 was a law enacted to address the
copying or pirating of digital music files. The ability of new recording
technologies to produce exact copies necessitated a revision of the copyright
law in respect to the copying of audio recordings. Basically, the
law required the manufacturer's of recording equipment to build security
technology, or a Security Copy Management System (SCMS), into their recording
devices to prevent them from being used to copy protected works.
Additionally, the manufacturer that introduced any new technology would
be responsible for paying royalties to the recording industry equal to
3% of the purchase price, and would be the only manufacturer responsible
for royalty payments.
(AHRA)
The RIAA claimed that the Rio player violated the Audio Home Recording
Act of 1992 (AHRA) because it was a digital audio recording device that
perpetuated the dissemination of illegally distributed music outside the
reach or control of artists and record labels. Additionally, the
Rio further violated the AHRA because it was a device that recorded music
from another digital device, producing an exact digital copy, without a
SCMS (serial copy management system) and without paying royalties. (Hu)
Diamond countered that the downloading of digital music files from the
hard drive of a computer to the device was beyond the scope of the AHRA,
which addresses the copying of digital transmissions or recordings, not
computer files. The defendant further countered that it did not broadcast
said recordings, and since the player and the computer were meant to be
used in the same room, the player fit the definition of a computer peripheral,
similar to speakers. The RIAA was successful in stopping the distribution
of the Rio player initially by obtaining a temporary restraining order,
but Diamond Multimedia eventually prevailed. They successfully defended
their product against the capricious claims of the recording industry by
demonstrating that the sole purpose of the Rio player was to store audio
for personal use in a mobile setting; a right which is protected by the
AHRA. (Bridges) The RIAA appealed the decision and lost again; the
9th Circuit Court of Pasadena, California upheld Diamond Multimedia's claim
that it was not a recording device. (O'Scanlainn) It is interesting
to note, however, that the RIAA did not attempt to use the copyright infringement
argument to stop the distribution of the Diamond Rio player. They
knew that the right to make a personal copy of legally obtained material
is protected by the fair use statute and the AHRA of 1992 as well as the
Copyright Law of the United States.
A&M records vs. Napster
In A&M records vs. Napster, recording industry giant A&M Records sought an immediate injunction against Napster, a computer software company owned by Sean Fanning. Napster provides Internet users with free software, developed by Fanning, which allows them to connect to other computers, in a peer-to-peer network, and "trade" music files in a variety of electronic formats, notably, MP3. The software allows the files to be transferred from one computer to another as an exact digital copy, making it perfect for pirating digital musical recordings. Furthermore, the technology is so simple that virtually thousands of people were popping CD's into their disc drives, copying the files into their hard drives and sending them out to everyone on the Internet. On the receiving end, Napster users could search for a song by title or artist, find a user with the file, and download it on the spot.
Naturally, the recording industry wanted to protect the rights of recording artists and musicians, not to mention the industry itself, from the loss of income generated by Napster's users, who were illegally trading copyright protected music recordings. In court, Napster used the Fair Use defense. (Wilson) It claimed that it didn't actively participate in copyright infringement: Napster's users may have, but the company itself did not. It further defended its peer-to-peer technology by stating that Napster does not participate in the transfer of the recordings, but merely distributes the technology which allows users to transfer files from their home computers. The technology used to transfer digital music files can be used to transfer files which are in the public domain as well as copyrighted material, therefore Napster was not in violation of the copyright law.(Wilson)
The court rejected Napster's claim that use of the service constituted fair use of copyrighted material and ruled that Napster's users were indeed in violation of federal copyright law. The court further ruled that Napster was secondarily liable for copyright infringement in that it not only facilitated copyright infringement by its users, it encouraged it as well and profited from its failure to police the illegal actions of its users. (A&M Records v. Napster, Inc.) On March 6 of this year a federal judge, Marilyn Patel, ordered Napster to block all copyrighted material from its web site.
This ruling had the effect of forcing ISP's to step up their efforts
to be vigilant in posting copyright statements or fair use guidelines on
their Internet Sites. Whereas the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
attempts to outline the responsibilities of ISP's, it is obvious from this
case and others that this area remains fertile ground for legal challenges.
Yale University and several other colleges were recently sued by the recording
group Metallica, who claimed that they were "liable for contributory and
vicarious copyright infringement" for their failure to block student access
to Napster. (CrashCourse/IntellectualProperty/napster). On April
3 Hank Barry, Napster's acting CEO, appealed to Congress to amend the copyright
code to include compulsory federal licensing of online media, stating "Compulsory
licenses with clear payment structures have encouraged beneficial new technologies
and responded effectively to particular market failures. Music on the radio
works because of what is functionally a compulsory license.'' (Barry)
It is obvious that we have not heard the end of the Napster debate, and
the advent of new technologies will continue to stress the definition of
protected works.
Relevant Sites
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Audio Home Recording Act of 1992