Talk: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
streaming of radio stations over the Internet is also impaired by the DMCA. For example: No playing an artist twice in a row. No pre-announce of songs. No Program Director of a radio station. especially in a major market, is going to alter his programming to fit such restrictions.
- See also Talk:Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act for the stuff relating to designated agents (etc) removed from this article by Martin. It now doesn't reference Wikipedia (good) but there is some duplication with Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, so ideally someone with legal knowledge would have to merge.
This article isn't NPOV. It delivers things in a persuasive style, and only presents one side of the story. First step, balance the anti-DMCA exrefs with some pro-DMCA exrefs. Wikipedia is NOT about propaganda.
- Vacuum 18:03, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
The routine uses aren't usually noteworthy - it's generally agreed that enforcing copyrights is good. It's the interesting uses and cases which merit individual mention, not the mundane and obvious ones. It's pretty unlikely that Congress intended to stop people from teaching robotic dogs new tricks, so it's noteworthy when the DMCA is used to achieve that result. The article inevitably will, and should, cover the cases where the law is applied in unexpected ways and discussions of cases where copyright holders have tried to go beyond what the law provides for and had their arguments rejected. Still, if you'd like to document some mundane cases where everyone thinks that a use of the DMCA is obviously right, feel free. I've written a couple of takedown notices and responded to some infringement claims. They don't merit mentioning here because they aren't notable and don't illustrate anything intersting. I support the DMCA, so don't take this as a comment from someone who opposes it. Jamesday 01:11, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a violation of anti-trust to require someone to purchase a second product once they've bought another. Would the Lexmark case fall into this catagory? --Guest
missing material
The last time I checked this article, it contained a list of court cases and even some decisions illuminating the actual effects (for good or ill, depending on viewpoint) of this law. All of this material seems to have been delected. Was this vandalism or ...? The Talk page doesn't much illuminate, and before I go trolling through the page history attempting to figure it out, I thought I'd post a question. That material was valuable and I think it should have been retained if accurate (I never did the legal research to check!). Can't see why it should have been deleted.
And those are now at WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, at least in part - some useful detail was removed in the copy which was done, though additional useful material was also added. I changed the section titles back to their original full form instead of the short forms because in each case the short forms mentioned the least significant part of the portions pointed to. The first didn't mention bringing a vast array or works into US copyright protection while the second didn't mention the primary purpose, which was to protect OSPs. The WIPO portion is no longer at DMCA 1201 because section 1201 was only the least significant portion of that act, not all of it. Jamesday 01:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
jjjjjjjfkf
