<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ALL ABOUT THE DMCA &#38; ONLINE CONTENT</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dmcahandbook.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com</link>
	<description>DMCA, piracy, online content, SOPA, and ACTA</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 16:48:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Case puts 512(f) at the forefront with lots of twists</title>
		<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/05/case-puts-512f-at-the-forefront-with-lots-of-twists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/05/case-puts-512f-at-the-forefront-with-lots-of-twists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 16:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Connie Mableson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[512(f)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA Notice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dmcahandbook.com/?p=472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Section 512(f) of the DMCA provides that if someone makes a material misrepresentation in a DMCA notice or counter-notification, they can be liable for damages, including costs and attorney&#8217;s fees. The standard applied is a difficult subjective standard and the section has never really been applied in any meaningful way. Mike Masnick at Tech Dirt [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/05/case-puts-512f-at-the-forefront-with-lots-of-twists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Grooveshark Loses to UMG in DMCA Case as to pre-1972 Sound Recordings</title>
		<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/grooveshark-loses-to-umg-in-dmca-case-as-to-pre-1972-sound-recordings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/grooveshark-loses-to-umg-in-dmca-case-as-to-pre-1972-sound-recordings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Connie Mableson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Copyright Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[common law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Grooveshark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MP3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Perfect10]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sound recordings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dmcahandbook.com/?p=467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Copyright Act has undergone many amendments and revisions since the law was first passed. One type of creative work that is protected by the US Copyright Act are &#8220;sound recordings&#8221; &#8211; recordings of music, spoken words, bird calls, etc. However, sound recordings are only protected for those made after February 15, 1972. Most [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/grooveshark-loses-to-umg-in-dmca-case-as-to-pre-1972-sound-recordings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>House Judiciary Committee to Undertake Comprehensive Review of Copyright Law</title>
		<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/house-judiciary-committee-to-undertake-comprehensive-review-of-copyright-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/house-judiciary-committee-to-undertake-comprehensive-review-of-copyright-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Connie Mableson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA HANDBOOK Series]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Copyright Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goodblatte]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house judiciary committee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dmcahandbook.com/?p=459</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R &#8211; Va.) announced that the Judiciary Committee will conduct a comprehensive review of US Copyright Law in the coming months. In remarks made by the Chairman, he said: &#8220;The goal of these hearings will be to determine whether the laws are still working in the digital age.&#8221; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/house-judiciary-committee-to-undertake-comprehensive-review-of-copyright-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viacom Loses to YouTube in court case upholding DMCA Safe Harbor</title>
		<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/viacom-loses-to-youtube-in-court-case-upholding-dmca-safe-harbor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/viacom-loses-to-youtube-in-court-case-upholding-dmca-safe-harbor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:44:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Connie Mableson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viacom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wilfull blindness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YouTube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dmcahandbook.com/?p=453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The long-awaited decision in the Viacom case against YouTube has finally been resolved in favor of YouTube. The Second Circuit opined in April of 2012 that the DMCA safe harbor protected YouTube against liability for copyright infringement when it stored Viacom&#8217;s copyrighted protected content on YouTube&#8217;s servers. The Court remanded the case to the lower [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/viacom-loses-to-youtube-in-court-case-upholding-dmca-safe-harbor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CISPA passed in the House; Senate Not as Supportive</title>
		<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/cispa-passed-in-the-house-senate-not-as-supportive/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/cispa-passed-in-the-house-senate-not-as-supportive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:20:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Connie Mableson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CISPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SOPA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dmcahandbook.com/?p=464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The House has passed CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). Today, many websites are participating in an internet shutdown to protect the bill. Those in opposition are concerned that CISPA will authorize the government to peek into private records of individuals under the guise of a cyber crime investigation. Specifically, CISPA could allow private [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/cispa-passed-in-the-house-senate-not-as-supportive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Redigi Loses Music Resale Case in Landmark Ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/redigi-loses-music-resale-case-in-landmark-ruling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/redigi-loses-music-resale-case-in-landmark-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Connie Mableson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fair use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[file sharing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Redigi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dmcahandbook.com/?p=445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new case (March 30, 2013) out of the Southern District of New York has ruled that the resale of digital music does not fall within the first dale doctrine of copyright law and constitutes infringement. In a scathing opinion against Redigi, Judge Sullivan draws a distinction between physical copies of records and digital copies [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/04/redigi-loses-music-resale-case-in-landmark-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google Transparency Report on DMCA Take-Downs</title>
		<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/03/google-transparency-report-on-dmca-take-downs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/03/google-transparency-report-on-dmca-take-downs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:29:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Connie Mableson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dmcahandbook.com/?p=442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google does a good job of reporting about its DMCA Notices and other take-down or informational requests from the Government as a result of a search warrant or subpoena. Its most recent report contains stunning statistics that serves as a reminder of how GIGANTIC Google really is.   As of today, the stats looks like this: [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/03/google-transparency-report-on-dmca-take-downs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GoPro&#8217;s Wrong use of DMCA Causes Brand Tarnishment</title>
		<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/03/gopros-wrong-use-of-dmca-causes-brand-tarnishment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/03/gopros-wrong-use-of-dmca-causes-brand-tarnishment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Connie Mableson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dmcahandbook.com/?p=435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The internet has been buzzing about GoPro&#8217;s DMCA Notice sent to DigitalRev. DigitalRev wrote an article reviewing GoPro&#8217;s Hero 3. Apparently, GoPro didn&#8217;t like the review and sent a DMCA take-down notice to DigitalRev&#8217;s ISP. It looked like an abuse of the DMCA as the DMCA is not intended to be used as a way [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/03/gopros-wrong-use-of-dmca-causes-brand-tarnishment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Copyright Alert System&#8221; Goes Live</title>
		<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/02/copyright-alert-system-goes-live/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/02/copyright-alert-system-goes-live/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:08:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Connie Mableson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Alert Syatem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peer to peer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dmcahandbook.com/?p=431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the last 4 years, the MPAA and RIAA have been working with the big ISPs to create their own system for the purpose to decrease the number of online copyright infringements and infringers. The “Copyright Alert System” includes participation by AT&#38;T, Cablevision Systems, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. Others can join. These residential [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/02/copyright-alert-system-goes-live/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DMCA Abuse Example</title>
		<link>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/02/dmca-abuse-example/</link>
		<comments>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/02/dmca-abuse-example/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Connie Mableson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA HANDBOOK Series]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA Abuse]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dmcahandbook.com/?p=426</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Another example of DMCA abuse highlights how bad actors can really mess up things for the owners of original content. Retraction Watch is a blog that monitors journals (it monitors retractions and corrections in scientific and medical journals). NewBulet.in copied 10 of Retraction Watch&#8217;s posts and republished then on NewBulet.in. Then, NewBulet.in sent a DMCA [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.dmcahandbook.com/2013/02/dmca-abuse-example/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
