language: Deutsch   Français   italiano   Español   Português   日本語   russian   arabic   norwegian   swedish   danish   Nederlands   finland   ireland   English  

Yammer DMCA | Digital Millennium Copyright Act us digital millennium copyright act 1998

DMCA Policy

If you believe that your copyrighted work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement and is accessible via the Service, please notify Yammer’s copyright agent, as set forth in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”). Yammer encourages you to submit a claim of copyright infringement by using our online process .

For your complaint to be valid under the DMCA, you must provide the following information in writing:

An electronic or physical signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner; Identification of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed; Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing and where it is located on the Service; Information reasonably sufficient to permit Yammer to contact you, such as your address, telephone number, and, e-mail address; A statement that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or law; and A statement, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information homvdwzh. moncler outlet italy onlineis accurate, and that you are the copyright owner or are authorized to act on behalf of the owner.

The above information must be submitted to the following DMCA Agent:

Name: Attn: K. Carlson Address: One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052 Phone: (425) 703-5529 Fax: (425) 936-7329 Email: dmcaagnt@microsoft.com

UNDER FEDERAL LAW, IF YOU KNOWINGLY MISREPRESENT THAT ONLINE MATERIAL IS INFRINGING, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY AND CIVIL PENALTIES, INCLUDING MONETARY DAMAGES, COURT COSTS, AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES.

Please note that this procedure is exclusively for notifying Yammer and its affiliates that your copyrighted material has been infringed. The preceding requirements are intended to comply with Yammer’s rights and obligations under the DMCA, including 17 U.S.C. §512(c), but do not constitute legal advice. It may be advisable to contact an attorney regarding your rights and obligations under the DMCA and other applicable laws.

In accordance with the DMCA and other applicable law, Yammer has adopted a policy of terminating, in appropriate circumstances and at Yammer’s sole discretion, members who are deemed to be repeat infringers. Yammer may also at its sole discretion limit access to the Service and/or terminate the accounts of any Users who infringe any intellectual property rights of others, whether or not there is any repeat infringement.


us digital millennium copyright act 1998

how to remove us digital millennium copyright act
moncler mens jacket replica
moncler children's size guide
moncler milano outlet address
moncler mens t shirt Digital Millennium Copyright Act Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act Updated: 2017-05-26T21:19Z Digital Millennium Copyright Act Long title To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes. Acronyms (colloquial) DMCA Enacted by the 105th United States Congress Effective October 28, 1998 Citations Public law Pub. L. 105-304 Statutes at Large 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) Codification Acts amended Copyright Act of 1976 Titles amended 5 (Government Organization and Employees); 17 (Copyrights); 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure); 35 (Patents) U.S.C. sections created 17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201–1205, 1301–1332; 28 U.S.C. § 4001 U.S.C. sections amended 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 104, 104A, 108, 112, 114, 117, 701 Legislative history Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Rep. Howard Coble ( R - NC ) on July 29, 1997 Committee consideration by House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property); House Commerce Committee (Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection) Passed the House on August 4, 1998 ( voice vote ) Passed the Senate on September 17, 1998 (unanimous consent) Reported by the joint conference committee on October 8, 1998; agreed to by the Senate on October 8, 1998 (consent) and by the House on October 12, 1998 (voice vote) Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet . [1] [2] Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of Internet service providers and other intermediaries. This exemption was adopted by the European Union in the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000. The Copyright Directive 2001 implemented the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU.

Contents 1 Provisions 1.1 Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act 1.2 Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act 1.3 Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act 1.4 Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions 1.5 Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act 2 Anti-circumvention exemptions 2.1 Section 1201 Study 2.2 Previous exemptions 3 Linking to infringing content 3.1 Edelman v. N2H2 3.2 RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. 3.3 Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc. 3.4 IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. 3.5 Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. 3.6 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. 3.7 Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter 3.8 Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. 3.9 Sony v. George Hotz 3.10 Automattic, Inc. and Oliver Hotham v. Nick Steiner 4 Criticisms 4.1 Abuse of takedown notice 4.2 Abuse of the anti-circumvention provision 4.3 Effect on analog video equipment 4.4 Effect on research 4.5 Effect on innovation and competition 4.6 Reform and opposition 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

Provisions 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 to even unintended circumvention for legitimate purposes. [3]

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. [4] 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 boats are useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function. [5] [6]

Anti-circumvention exemptions This section's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (May 2013)

In addition to the safe harbors and exemptions the statute explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) requires that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology. Exemptions are granted when it is shown that access-control technology has had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of people to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works.

The exemption rules are revised every three years. Exemption proposals are submitted by the public to the Registrar of Copyrights, and after a process of hearings and public comments, the final rule is recommended by the Registrar and issued by the Librarian. Exemptions expire after three years and must be resubmitted for the next rulemaking cycle. Consequently, the exemptions issued in the prior rulemakings in 2000, 2003, 2006, 2010 and 2013 are no longer valid.

Section 1201 Study This section is incomplete. (October 2016)

After much criticism (see below ), on December 29, 2015, the Copyright Office initiated a study to assess the operation of section 1201 and the triennial rulemaking process. This is different from usual public comments on exemption proposals. It includes the role of the anti-trafficking provisions and permanent exemptions, and the requirements of the rulemaking itself. The Office has issued a Notice of Inquiry requesting public comment. [7]

Several comments were posted by individuals and organizations. [8] An individual recalls that the Copyright Clause has limitations. [9] Association of American Publishers et al. hold there is no need to amend the statute or to significantly alter the rulemaking. They are happy with the protection they are being granted, including anti-trafficking provisions, and talk of placing the cart before the horse, when they argue about requiring a proof of the mindset that consumers would have when utilizing circumvention tools before actual acts of circumvention occur. In their opinion, the meaning of Section 1201 is to extend , not merely duplicate, copyright holder's rights. [10] Society of American Archivists say they are not aware that the anti-trafficking provisions of section 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) have had any impact in deterring copyright infringement. They do know, however, that the provisions have created an absurd, Catch-22 situation for any archives that sought to adhere to the letter of the law. [11] iFixit also talks of Catch-22 on stressing that since it is up to proponents to show that an exemption is relevant, they need to show that there’s overwhelming market demand if only it were legal . [12] Rapid7 notice that DMCA adversely affects good faith security research by forbidding researchers from circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs) to analyze software for vulnerabilities. [13] Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School points out that the rulemaking is a complicated, ad hoc , and unduly burdensome process. [14]

The Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) commented that circumventing DRM restrictions to meet accessibility needs deserves a permanent exception. [15] Entertainment Software Association gives a vivid and detailed description of a flourishing market which is only possible because of DMCA. [16] They are deeply concerned about people with disabilities, but that concern is already being taken care of by the copyright holders, so that no permanent exception is needed. [17]

Comments have also been submitted by, among others, R Street Institute [18] American Association of Law Libraries , [19] Business Software Alliance , [20] Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers , [21] [22] Association of American Universities et al. , [23] Copyright Alliance , [24] [25] Association for Computing Machinery U.S. Public Policy Council, [26] the Software and Information Industry Association , [27] [28] DVD Copy Control Association (“DVD CCA”) et al. , [29] Microsoft Corporation , [30] Association for Competitive Technology , [31] Public Knowledge , [32] [33] American Automobile Association . [34]

Previous exemptions

The Copyright Office approved two exemptions in 2000; four in 2003; six in 2006 and 2010.

2000, 2003, 2006 rulemakings

In 2000, the first rulemaking, the Office exempted (a) "Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications" (renewed in 2003 but not renewed in 2006); and (b) "Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage, or obsoleteness." (revised and limited in 2003 and again in 2006). In 2003, the 2000 "literary works including computer programs" exemption was limited to "Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete" and this exemption was renewed in both 2006 and 2010. The 2003 exemption for text readers of ebooks was renewed in both 2006 and 2010. The 2003 exemption for obsolete software and video game formats was renewed in 2006 but not in 2010. The 2000 filtering exemption was revised and renewed in 2003, but was not renewed in 2006. The 2006 exemption for sound recordings allowed after security flaws were found in a copy protection system on some Sony CDs was not renewed in 2010. An exemption covering the audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university's film or media studies department was not renewed in 2010. This exemption was replaced with an exemption on DVDs protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is for the purpose of criticism or comment using short sections, for educational, documentary or non-profit use. The 2006 exemption for wireless handsets connecting to wireless networks was revised in 2010 to specify used handsets and require authorization from the wireless network operator. Another exemption for wireless handsets was introduced in 2010 specific to interoperability software on the phone itself. [35]

2010 rulemaking

The 2010 exemptions, issued in July 2010, are:

Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances: Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students; Documentary filmmaking; Obsolete software and video game formats. Noncommercial videos. (A new exemption in 2010, similar to a previous educational exemption.) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset. (A new exemption in 2010.) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2006.) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if: The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law. (A new exemption in 2010.) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.) Literary works distributed in e-book format when all existing e-book editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.) 2012 rulemaking

The 2012 exemptions, issued in November 2012, [36] are for:

Literary works, distributed electronically, that are protected by technological measures that either prevent the enabling of read-aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other applications or assistive technologies Computer programs that enable smartphones and portable all-purpose mobile computing devices to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smartphone or device, or to permit removal of software from the smartphone or device Computer programs that enable certain types of wireless devices to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is undertaken solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and such connection is authorized by the operator of such network Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where circumvention is undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures for the purpose of criticism or comment in limited instances Motion pictures and other audiovisual works on DVDs that are protected by the Content Scrambling System, or that are distributed by an online service and protected by technological measures that control access to such works, where circumvention is related to developing captioning and descriptive audio technologies 2015 rulemaking

The 2015 exemptions, issued in October 2015, [37] are for:

Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where circumvention is undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures for the purpose of criticism or comment in limited instances, Literary works, distributed electronically, that are protected by technological measures that either prevent the enabling of read-aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other applications or assistive technologies, Computer programs that enable the following types of wireless devices to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is undertaken solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and such connection is authorized by the operator of such network, Computer programs that enable smartphones and portable all-purpose mobile computing devices to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smartphone or device, or to permit removal of software from the smartphone or device, Computer programs that enable smart televisions to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smart television, Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial motor vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for computer programs primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle, when circumvention is a necessary step undertaken by the authorized owner of the vehicle to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function, Computer programs, where the circumvention is undertaken on a lawfully acquired device or machine on which the computer program operates solely for the purpose of good-faith security research and does not violate any applicable law, Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable local gameplay, Computer programs that operate 3D printers that employ microchip-reliant technological measures to limit the use of feedstock, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of using alternative feedstock and not for the purpose of accessing design software, design files or proprietary data, and Literary works consisting of compilations of data generated by medical devices that are wholly or partially implanted in the body or by their corresponding personal monitoring systems, where such circumvention is undertaken by a patient for the sole purpose of lawfully accessing the data generated by his or her own device or monitoring system. Linking to infringing content

The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent ( digital rights management ) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material. [38]

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it . (November 2008) Edelman v. N2H2

In July 2002, American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Benjamin Edelman, a computer researcher at Berkman Center for Internet and Society, seeking a declaratory judgment to affirm his first amendment rights when reverse engineering the censorware product of defendant N2H2 in case he intended to publish the finding. N2H2 filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted. [ citation needed ]

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. Main article: RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc.

In August 2009, the DVD Copy Control Association won a lawsuit against RealNetworks for violating copyright law in selling its RealDVD software, allowing users to copy DVDs and store them on a harddrive. The DVD Copy Control Association claimed that Real violated the DMCA by circumventing anti-piracy measures ARccOS Protection and RipGuard , as well as breaking Real's licensing agreement with the Content Scrambling System. [39]

Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc. Main article: Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its corporate parent Google for copyright infringement seeking more than $1 billion in damages. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York .

Viacom claims the popular video-sharing site was engaging in "massive intentional copyright infringement" for making available a contended 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's entertainment programming. Google relied on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision to shield them from liability. [40]

On June 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton granted summary judgment in favor of YouTube. [41] The court held that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the DMCA. Viacom appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [42]

On April 5, 2012, the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Louis Stanton's ruling, and instead ruled that Viacom had presented enough evidence against YouTube to warrant a trial, and the case should not have been thrown out in summary judgment. The court did uphold the ruling that YouTube could not be held liable based on "general knowledge" that users on its site were infringing copyright. The case was sent back to the District Court in New York, [43] and on April 18, 2013, Judge Stanton issued another order granting summary judgment in favor of YouTube. The case is over; no money changed hands.

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. Main article: IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

On June 23, 2006, IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District. [44]

IO Group alleged that Veoh was responsible for copyright infringement by allowing videos owned by IO Group to be accessed through Veoh's online service without permission over 40,000 times between the dates June 1 and June 22. [45]

Veoh is a Flash video site relying on user contributed content. IO Group argued that since Veoh transcoded user uploaded videos to Flash format it became a direct infringer and the materials were under their direct control, thereby disqualifying them for DMCA safe harbor protection.

The ruling judge disagreed with the argument, stating that

"Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users. Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the thirdparty software... But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh's users."

The Court has granted the Veoh's motion for summary judgment , on the basis of the DMCA, holding that the defendant's video-sharing web site complied and was entitled to the protection of the statute's "safe harbor" provision. [46] Even though Veoh won the court case, it blamed the litigation as one of the causes of its preparing to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and its subsequent sale to Qlipso. [47] [48]

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. Main article: Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

After numerous DMCA takedown notices in response to his eBay listings, Timothy S. Vernor sued Autodesk in August 2007 alleging that Autodesk abused the DMCA and disrupted his right to sell used software he bought at a garage sale. [49] In May 2008, a federal district judge in Washington State dismissed Autodesk's argument that the software's license agreement preempted the seller from his rights under the first-sale doctrine . [50] In September 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions." [51]

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. Main article: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

In 2007, Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" and posted a 29-second video on the video-sharing site YouTube .

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Posted by: Margaret Rouse WhatIs.com Share this item with your network: Word of the Day backpropagation algorithm

Backpropagation (backward propagation) is an important mathematical tool for improving the accuracy of predictions in data mining and machine learning.

Word of the Day Archive 20 Newest and Updated Terms Apache Spark Skype for Business corporate culture model hybrid hard drive (HHD) USB flash drive patient similarity patient portal population health management (PHM) patient matching PageRank codec nofollow black hat virtual hard drive long-tail keywords link spam keyword density universal basic income (UBI) insurance claims analysis RRAM or ReRAM (resistive RAM)

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a controversial United States digital rights management ( DRM ) law enacted October 28, 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton. The intent behind DMCA was to create an updated version of copyright laws to deal with the special challenges of regulating digital material. Broadly, the aim of DMCA is to protect the rights of both copyright owners and consumers. The law complies with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, both of which were ratified by over 50 countries around the world in 1996.

Drafted by a collaborative effort of publishers, scientists, civil rights groups and others, DMCA is considered a compromise measure by many of these groups, whose interests frequently conflict. Strictly interpreted, DMCA would outlaw many entirely ethical, and even necessary activities. For example, security-related tasks that involve circumventing security systems, encryption research, or reverse engineering software would be illegal. Prior to the law's passing, 50 of the country's most prominent computer scientists and technology signed a letter to the U.S. congress warning that DMCA, as originally envisioned, would "imperil computer systems and networks throughout the United States, criminalize many current university courses . . . and severely disrupt a growing American industry in information security technology."

Revisions were made to DMCA to allow specified exceptions, such as encryption and security research. Industry, consumer, and civil rights groups continue to appraise the law, and many states are considering their own versions. In April 2003, a group called the Broadband and Internet Security Task Force produced an update to the law, sometimes referred to as "Super DMCA." This later version adds important concepts, such as "the intent to defraud," to the stipulations of the original law.

This was last updated in March 2011 Continue Reading About Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is available online. SecurityFocus has an article called "Super-DMCA Not So Bad." There's more information in the Seybold Report on Internet Publishing. SearchSecurity offers a collection of Best Web Links for Copyright and Intellectual Property. Related Terms Communications Act of 1934 The Communications Act of 1934 is United States legislation that transfers the Federal Radio Commission’s authority over radio ... See complete definition RAID (redundant array of independent disks) RAID (redundant array of independent disks) is a way of storing the same data in different places on multiple hard disks to ... See complete definition Six Sigma Six Sigma is an approach to data-driven management that seeks to improve quality by measuring how many defects there are in a ... See complete definition