Thursday, December 9, 2010

Feds hint at charges for WikiLeaks' Assange | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Feds hint at charges for WikiLeaks' Assange | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Bathetic as it may be, I wonder whether or not the Feds will include copyright infringement among their list of charges against the WikiLeaks founder. It might stick, and the maximum penalty for knowing, repeated copyright infringement is five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each work.

Works are usually books, or songs, or movies, or games.

Usually, for full copyright protection, the "work" has to be registered with the Library Of Congress. Are state secrets entered into the

Can one argue that government employees' reports are "works"? Were they "works for hire" and does that make a difference? I don't know. Everything one writes is said to be instantly copyrighted to the author.

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized copying and publishing of works without the permission of the copyright owner... usually the author.

It seems to me, that the WikiLeaks problem may make passage of COICA (s~3804) much more likely.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Google Vows to Crack Down on Internet Copyright Violations - DailyFinance

Google Vows to Crack Down on Internet Copyright Violations - DailyFinance

The AP gives a dumbed down account of what the law provides.  I wonder why the Media persistently fails to inform the public of the truth.

Here's the wording of OCILLA (the "Safe Harbor" provision)


The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including Internet service providers) and other Internet intermediaries by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement (when they make unauthorized copies) as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

.....First, the OSP must “adopt and reasonably implement a policy”[2] of addressing and terminating accounts of users who are found to be “repeat infringers.”[2] Second, the OSP must accommodate and not interfere with “standard technical measures.”[3] OSPs may qualify for one or more of the Section 512 safe harbors under § 512(a)-(d), for immunity from copyright liability stemming from: transmitting [4], caching [5], storing [6], or linking [7] to infringing material. An OSP who complies with the requirements for a given safe harbor is not liable for money damages, but may still be ordered by a court to perform specific actions such as disabling access to infringing material.

Section 512(c) applies to OSPs that store infringing material. In addition to the two general requirements that OSPs comply with standard technical measures and remove repeat infringers, § 512(c) also requires that the OSP: 1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material.