To understand and maintain the acts of DMCA the following segment of terms will apply for all information not limited to posts, movies, pages, images, media files, videos, contexts and others.
If you found any infringement of DMCA www.macappsfree.com , please be sure to read this document first and act accordingly.
Understanding Of DMCA : What we KNOW, RESPECT and STAND for.
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 that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM). 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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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).
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.
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, only the most recent rulemaking is valid, and prior exemptions issued (in 2000, 2003, 2006, 2010 and 2013) are no longer valid. As of 2017 (for the 2018 rulemaking), the Copyright Office is considering re-authorizing such exemptions if no new evidence is submitted to the contrary.
Section 1201 Study:
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.
Several comments were posted by individuals and organizations. An individual recalls that the Copyright Clause has limitations. 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. 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. 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. Rapid7 notice that DMCA adversely affects good faith security research by forbidding researchers from circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs) to analyze software for vulnerabilities. Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School points out that the rulemaking is a complicated, ad hoc, and unduly burdensome process.
The Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) commented that circumventing DRM restrictions to meet accessibility needs deserves a permanent exception. Entertainment Software Association gives a vivid and detailed description of a flourishing market which is only possible because of DMCA. 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.
Comments have also been submitted by, among others, R Street Institute American Association of Law Libraries, Business Software Alliance, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of American Universities et al., Copyright Alliance, Association for Computing Machinery U.S. Public Policy Council, the Software and Information Industry Association, DVD Copy Control Association (“DVD CCA”) et al., Microsoft Corporation, Association for Competitive Technology, Public Knowledge, American Automobile Association.
In June 2017, the Copyright Office published a report where it “shares the concern” that Section 1201 can affect activities unrelated to copyright infringement, but it does not advise to amend it because it could “severely weaken the right of copyright owners to exercise meaningful control over the terms of access to their works online”, which they believe is “essential to the development of the digital marketplace for creative content”.
The Copyright Office approved two exemptions in 2000; four in 2003; six in 2006; six in 2010; five in 2012; and nine in 2015.
In 2000, the first rulemaking, the Office exempted:
“Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications” (renewed in 2003 but not renewed in 2006); and
“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 Office made the following rules:
The 2000 filtering exemption was revised and renewed.
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.
A new exemption was implemented for electronic books for which technological protection measures prevented the use of read-aloud software or screen readers. This exemption was renewed in 2006, 2010, 2012, and 2015.
A new exemption was made for “Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access.” This exemption was renewed in 2006 but not in 2010.
In 2006, the Office made the following rules:
The 2003 exemption on obsolete computer programs and video games was renewed.
The 2003 exemption on computer programs protected by dongles was renewed.
The 2003 exemption on electronic books was renewed.
A new exemption was made for sound recordings allowed after security flaws were found in a copy protection system on some Sony CDs; this was not renewed in 2010.
A new exemption was implemented covering the audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department; this was not renewed in 2010.
A new exemption was implemented allowing circumvention to allow wireless telephone handsets to connect to wireless networks. This exemption 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.
Rulemaking was scheduled to occur in 2009, but the final rule was not issued until the following year. 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.)
The 2012 exemptions, issued in November 2012, 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
The 2015 exemptions, issued in October 2015, 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, tablets and portable all-purpose mobile computing devices, and 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 smartphone or device, or to permit removal of software from the smartphone or device,
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.
Country Specific Digital Copyright Laws and Understanding:
Above including all other coutry specific copyright and couterfeiting laws are acknowledged and being monitored accordingly. However a specific mention of law with mention is needed to entertain such presentation and action from MTV.
Action And Takedown
We take the intellectual property rights of others seriously and require that our Customers and their Authorized Users do the same. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act established a process for addressing claims of copyright infringement that we have implemented for our services. If you own a copyright or have authority to act on behalf of a copyright owner and want to report a claim that a third party is infringing that material on or through a our service, please send a notice to our copyright agent that includes all of the items below and we will expeditiously take appropriate action:
A description of the copyrighted work that you claim is being infringed
A description of the material you claim is infringing and that you want removed or access to which you want disabled and the URL or other location of that material
Your address, telephone number, and email address
The following statement: “I have a good faith belief that the use of the copyrighted material I am complaining of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (e.g., as a fair use)”
The following statement “The information in this notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, I am the owner, or authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyright or of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed”.
An electronic or physical signature of the owner of the copyright or a person authorized to act on the owner’s behalf.
We macappsfree.com respects the intellectual property rights of others and expects its users to do the same. In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, the text of which may be found on the U.S. Copyright Office website at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf, and specifically in accordance with 17 USC § 512(c)(3), We will respond expeditiously to claims of copyright infringement committed using the Contact Form below.
[contact-form-7 id=”739″ title=”Untitled”]
If you are a copyright owner, authorized to act on behalf of one, or authorized to act under any exclusive right under copyright, please report alleged copyright infringements taking place on or through the Site by completing a DMCA Notice of Alleged Infringement and delivering it to our Designated Copyright Agent by the form above. Upon receipt of Notice as described below, we will take whatever action, in its sole discretion, it deems appropriate, including removal of the challenged content from the Site. Please note that if you fail to comply with all of the requirements of this section and of 17 USC § 512(c)(3) your DMCA notice may not be valid.
1. Identify the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed, or – if multiple copyrighted works are covered by your Notice – you may provide a representative list of the copyrighted works that you claim have been infringed.
2. Identify the material or link you claim is infringing (or the subject of infringing activity) and to which access is to be disabled, including at a minimum, if applicable, the URL of the link shown on the Site or the exact location where such material may be found.
3. Provide your company affiliation (if applicable), mailing address, telephone number, and, if available, email address.
4. Include both of the following statements in the body of the Notice:
5. “I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the copyrighted material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (e.g., as a fair use).”
6. “I hereby state that the information in this Notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that I am the owner, or authorized to act on behalf of, the owner, of the copyright or of an exclusive right under the copyright that is allegedly infringed.”
7. Provide your full legal name and your electronic or physical signature.
Our designated copyright agent to receive such claims can be reached as follows: