1. 개요
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA1998년 10월 28일에 미국의 의회가 자국 내 온라인 디지털 컨텐츠의 저작권 보호를 위해 제정한 포괄적 법안.
==# 전문 #==
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 even unintended circumvention for legitimate purposes.[1]
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. 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 they are useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function.[2][3]
참고DMCA 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 even unintended circumvention for legitimate purposes.[1]
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. 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 they are useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function.[2][3]
2. 상세
접근을 통제하는 기술적 보호 장치를 우회하는 행위 즉, 복제 방지 기술을 무효화시키는 것을 불법으로 간주하고, 복제 방지 기술을 무용화시키는 장치를 제작, 수입, 유통하는 것은 물론 복제 방지를 위한 제어 및 구현에 대한 임의 조작도 금지하며, 저작물 관리 정보의 완전성을 보호하는 내용을 포함하고 있다.저작권 관리 소프트웨어를 크랙(crack)하는 것을 범죄로 규정한 포괄적인 우회 금지 조항으로 디지털 방송 환경에 대비하여 불법 복제에 관한 보다 적극적인 관심과 구체적인 기술 개발의 계기가 되었으며 한편으로는 이에 반대하는 논란도 끊이지 않고 있다.
3. 통지 및 게시 중단 정책
또한 서비스 이용자가 저작물을 올린 것을 삭제하지 않으면 저작권 침해라는 판례에 대응해 서비스 제공자가 통지 및 게시 중단 절차를 충실히 따르면 면책된다는 굉장히 파격적인 조항이 신설되었다. 즉 저작권자가 메일이나 전화로 '당신 사이트에 내 저작물이 무단으로 올라와있으니 당장 내려라'라고 해당 사업자에게 통보하면 업로드한 사업자는 그 요구가 진실한 것이라고 판단하고 즉시 해당 저작물을 삭제해야하며, 이 처리가 제대로 이루어진다면 그 이상의 배상책임이나 처벌을 면해준다는 것.과거 DMCA가 없었을 때는 사업자가 무단으로 사용한 저작물의 저작권이 나에게 있다는 것과 무단으로 사용한 것에 대한 피해사실 등을 모두 저작권자가 증명하고 요구해야 겨우 사업자측의 조치를 받을 수 있었는데, DMCA 덕분에 메일 한 통만으로도 즉각적인 저작권을 행사할 수 있게 되었다.
하지만 당연히 이런 조치는 문제점이 존재한다. 사업자가 저작물이 신고자에게 있는지 확인하지 않고 곧바로 삭제해버릴 수 있게 되기 때문에 허위신고를 통해 저작권을 보유하지 않은 자가 게시물 삭제요청을 할 수 있게 남용되는 것. 원본과 사본을 동일하게 복사할 수 있는 디지털 특성상 저작권 소유자임을 증명하는 것은 까다로운 영역이기에 법인의 경우 사업자등록증, 개인의 경우 신분증을 첨부하는 것으로 갈음하기도 한다.
이러한 DMCA를 남용하여 돈을 벌어들이려는 사람들도 존재한다. 특히 유튜브 등지에서 출몰하는데, 세간에서는 이들을 DMCA Abuser라고 칭한다.
4. 관련 사건
- 2014년, 마인크래프트의 서버 프로그램인 CraftBukkit이 DMCA 테이크다운을 당했다. 마인크래프트/서버 참고.
- 2020년 트위치 DMCA 클레임 사건 참고.
- 2020년 10월 24일 기준 Youtube 영상 다운로드 오픈소스 소프트웨어인 youtube-dl의 GitHub가 DMCA 테이크다운을 당했었지만 현재 복구되었다. 자세한것은 youtube-dl문서의 2번 문단 참고.
- 2022년 12월 9일 YouTube ReVanced의 패치 모음 레포지토리가 DMCA 테이크다운을 당한 사례. 해당 문서의 사건 사고 문단 참고.
- 2023년 2월 17일 Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic이라는 게임이 한 모더가 자신의 모드를 표절했다며 허위 DMCA신고를 함으로써 스팀에서 내려갔다 3월 4일에서야 복구되었다. DMCA제도를 악용한 대표적인 허위신고사례.
- 2023년 3월 25일 Dark and Darker가 DMCA 테이크다운을 당해 스팀에서 내려갔다.
- 2023년, 닌텐도 게임큐브, Wii 에뮬레이터인 Dolphin의 Steam 출시가 닌텐도의 DMCA 신고로 인해 무산되었다.
- 2024년 1월, s&box로 제작된 팀 포트리스 2의 팬게임이자 비공식 소스 2 이식작인 팀 포트리스: 소스 2가 밸브 코퍼레이션측의 DMCA 신고로 인해 개발이 무기한 중단되었다.
- 2024년 2월, Roblox의 누적 방문자 수 6억 7천만명을 달성한 인기 게임 Kaiju Universe를 비롯한 여러 고질라 시리즈 게임들이 DMCA에 의해 내려갔다. 고질라 시리즈의 저작권을 가지고 있는 도호나 레전더리 픽쳐스에서 저작권 문제를 건 것으로 추정된다.
- 2024년 4월 25일, 닌텐도 측에서 게리 모드의 닌텐도 관련 창작마당 애드온들이 DMCA에 의해 내려가는 일이 발생했다. 특히나 장정 20년간 쌓아온 애드온들이 모조리 증발해버렸기에 닌텐도와 DMCA에 관한 여론이 매우 부정적이다.
5. 관련 문서
[1]
Band, Jonathan and Katoh, Masanobu (2011). Interfaces on Trial 2.0. MIT Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-262-01500-4.
[2]
17 U.S.C. 101 (defining "Pictorial, graphic and sculptural works" as "Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.")
[3]
"Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1997 (H.R. 2696)", Statement of MaryBeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights, before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, Oct. 23, 1997 ("It is a long-held view of the Office that a gap exists in legal protection for the designs of useful articles. Existing bodies of federal intellectual property law do not provide appropriate and practical coverage for such designs, while state law is largely preempted in this area. Consequently, while considerable investment and creativity may go into the creation of innovative designs, they often can be copied with impunity.").