THE ROLE OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN PROTECTING ONLINE CREATIVITY: A STUDY OF THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT
Main Article Content
Abstract
Under discussion in this article is the role of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in copyright protection system for digital creativity with a special focus on how algorithmic enforcement mechanisms help to protect rights of authors and copyright holders. Therefore, changes to how content is created, distributed and consumed have tested traditional approaches to copyrighting due to the internet and digital technology. In this regard, I will discuss the way DMCA responds to these challenges by examining its safe harbors as well as notice-and-takedown procedures plus anti-circumvention provisions and weigh up their pros and cons for creators, consumers, intermediaries in a digital landscape. The writer employs judicial analysis, case studies and literature so as to find out whether or not the DMCA has managed to create an online space where innovation can flourish as well as safeguarding rights of copyright owners. Furthermore, some research brings about either good or bad effects tied to DMCA thus raising doubts over its aptness in terms of securing any future existence of originality on the net. Lastly, legislative proposals are made together with policy recommendations. This is done in order to balance both rights hence enabling copyright laws keep pace with the changes in digitalization that promotes digital creativity or inventiveness.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Aufderheide, P., & Jaszi, P. (2011). Reclaiming Fair Use. University of Chicago Press.
Boyle, J. (2008). The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. Yale University Press.
Cohen, J. E. (2012). Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice. Yale University Press.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998).
Fisher, W. (2013). Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment. Stanford University Press.
Lessig, L. (2004). Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Penguin Books.
Litman, J. (2010). Digital Copyright: Protecting Intellectual Property on the Internet. Prometheus Books.
Reid, J. (2015). The effects of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions on academic research. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 10(11), 845-854. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv145
Samuelson, P. (2009). The Google Book Settlement: Realizing the potential of the public domain. California Law Review, 97(3), 1219-1252.
Tushnet, R. (2014). Copyright's copy wrongs. The Yale Law Journal, 123(3), 633-682.
Universal Music Corp. v. Lenz, 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015).
Muhammad Hamza Zakir, Syed Hammad Khan , Zeeshan Anwar, & Anum Ali. (2023). Trademark Infringement on Social Media Platforms: A Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Responses in Pakistan, China, and the US. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN AND SOCIETY, 3(3), 304-316. Retrieved from https://www.ijhs.com.pk/index.php/IJHS/article/view/348
Zakir, M. H., Rashna, & Ali , S. (2023). CROSS-BORDER TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT IN THE DIGITAL AGE: JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES AND HARMONIZATION EFFORTS . PAKISTAN ISLAMICUS (An International Journal of Islamic & Social Sciences), 3(2), 51–69. Retrieved from https://pakistanislamicus.com/index.php/home/article/view/44
Zakir, M. H. (2020). Bilateral Trade Agreements and Trademark Protection: A Comparative Study of China and Pakistan. International Review of Social Sciences, 8(12), 493-504.
Zakir, M. H. (2023). The Challenges and Opportunities for Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Pakistan. International Review of Basic and Applied Sciences, 11(2), 48-57.https://irbas.academyirmbr.com/paper_details.php?title=The_Challenges_and_Opportunities_for_Intellectual_Property_Rights_Protection_in_Pakistan
Urban, J. M., Karaganis, J., & Schofield, B. L. (2017). Notice and takedown in everyday practice. UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper, (No. 2755628).
Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2nd Cir. 2012).
World Intellectual Property Organization. (1996). WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT).
World Intellectual Property Organization. (1996). WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).