Faronics Wants Deep Freeze on Reverse Engineered Info

Sender Information:
Faronics Technologies
Sent by: [Private]
[Private]
Coquitlam, BC, Canada

[back to notice text]

Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(d), a safe-harbor for providers of "information location tools." These safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by users' materials it links to, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint. The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification if he or she believes the complaint was erroneous.

Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions.

In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Question: What are the provisions of 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3) & 512(d)(3)?

Answer: Section 512(c)(3) sets out the elements for notification under the DMCA. Subsection A (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)) states that to be effective a notification must include: 1) a physical/electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed right; 2) identification of the copyrighted works claimed to have been infringed; 3) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed; 4) information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party (e.g., the address, telephone number, or email address); 5) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner; and 6) a statement that information in the complaint is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. Subsection B (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(B)) states that if the complaining party does not substantially comply with these requirements the notice will not serve as actual notice for the purpose of Section 512.

Section 512(d)(3), which applies to "information location tools" such as search engines and directories, incorporates the above requirements; however, instead of the identification of the allegedly infringing material, the notification must identify the reference or link to the material claimed to be infringing.

Question: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?

Answer: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.

Question: How do I file a DMCA counter-notice?

Answer: If you believe your material was removed because of mistake or misidentification, you can file a "counter notification" asking the service provider to put it back up. Chilling Effects offers a form to build your own counter-notice.

For more information on the DMCA Safe Harbors, see the FAQs on DMCA Safe Harbor. For more information on Copyright and defenses to copyright infringement, see Copyright.

[back to notice text]

Answer: Subject to certain defenses, it is copyright infringement for someone other than the author to do the following without the author's permission:

1. reproduce (copy) the work;

2. create a new work derived from the original work (for example, by translating the work into a new language, by copying and distorting the image, or by transferring the work into a new medium of expression);

3. sell or give away the work, or a copy of the work, for the first time (but once the author has done so, the right to sell or give away the item is transferred to the new owner. This is known as the "first sale" doctrine: once a copyright owner has sold or given away the work or a copy of it, the recipient or purchaser may do as she pleases with what she posesses.) 17 U.S.C. ?109(a);

4. perform or display the work in public without permission from the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. ?106. It is also copyright infringement to violate the "moral rights" of an author as defined by 17 U.S.C. 106A. Moral rights are discussed here.

[back to notice text]

Answer: The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative work by granting a temporary monopoly in an author's original creations. This monopoly takes the form of six rights in areas where the author retains exclusive control. These rights are:

(1) the right of reproduction (i.e., copying),
(2) the right to create derivative works,
(3) the right to distribution,
(4) the right to performance,
(5) the right to display, and
(6) the digital transmission performance right.

The law of copyright protects the first two rights in both private and public contexts, whereas an author can only restrict the last four rights in the public sphere. Claims of infringement must show that the defendant exercised one of these rights. For example, if I create unauthorized videotape copies of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and distribute them to strangers on the street, then I have infringed both the copyright holder's rights of reproduction and distribution. If I merely re-enact The Wrath of Khan for my family in my home, then I have not infringed on the copyright.

[back to notice text]

Answer: In order to be copyrightable, a work must be

1. fixed in a tangible medium of expression ; and
2. original.

Copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries: they only protect physical representations. 17 U.S.C.

[back to notice text]

Answer: Copyright law seeks to promote the production and distribution of creative works by conferring property rights on authors. The principle of fair use serves to mediate between these property rights and the constitutional rights of public access and free speech embodied in the First Amendment. Fair use serves an important social function by allowing for the use of parts of creative works for the sake of criticism, commentary, and reporting.

To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;
   
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
   
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and,
   
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)]

The principles of fair use are invoked when the transaction costs associated with gaining authorization from copyright owners to make use of works is too burdensome in reasonable circumstances. Fair use also permits the reproduction of art and information for the private, noncommercial sharing of those works. Fair use allows for market competitors to use copyrighted works in ways that allow them to extract the public domain aspects of those works in order to develop innovative products.

[back to notice text]

Answer: There are seven exemptions built into section 1201 of the DMCA, some of which permit the circumvention of access and copy controls for limited purposes, some of which allow for the limited distribution of circumvention tools in particular circumstances. These seven exemptions are for:

• Libraries, archives, and educational institutions for acquisition purposes; [1201(d)]
  
• Law enforcement and intelligence gathering activities; [1201(e)]
  
• Reverse engineering in order to develop interoperable programs; [1201(f)]
  
• Encryption Research; [1201(g)]
  
• Protecting minors from material on the Internet; [1201(h)]
  
• Protecting the privacy of personally identifying information; [1201(i)]
  
• Security Testing [1201(j)]

In addition to these seven exemptions, the Library of Congress is required every three years to exempt the circumvention of measures that prevent the "fair use" of copyrighted works. [1201(a)(1)(B-E)] The DMCA also contains provisions that ensure that the traditional rights of copyright law still apply to the DMCA. Section 1201(c)(1) provides that the rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to claims of copyright infringement still apply. Section 1201(c)(4) states that these provisions should not affect the rights to free speech or freedom of the press for activities using electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.

[back to notice text]

Answer: The DMCA, as it is known, has a number of different parts. One part is the anticircumvention provisions, which make it illegal to "circumvent" a technological measure protecting access to or copying of a copyrighted work (see Anticircumvention (DMCA)). Another part gives web hosts and Internet service providers a "safe harbor" from copyright infringement claims if they implement certain notice and takedown procedures (see DMCA Safe Harbor).

[back to notice text]

Answer: To qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions, the service provider must give notice to its users of its policies regarding copyright infringement and the consequences of repeated infringing activity. [512(i)(1)(A)] The notice can be a part of the contract signed by the user when signing up for the service or a page on the service provider's web site explaining the terms of use of their systems. While there are no specific rules about how this notice must be made, it must be "reasonably implemented" so that subscribers and account holders are informed of the terms. [512(i)(1)(A)]

[back to notice text]

Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:

• The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
  
• The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
  
• Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
  
• A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
  
• A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].

Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.

[back to notice text]

Answer: No. ISPs can take down material according to the DMCA anytime they receive a compliant notice alleging copyright infringement (see What are the notice and takedown procedures for we...?). The ISP does not have to investigate to determine whether the material was truly infringing before taking it down. The fact that someone has claimed infringement does not prove that infringement occurred -- there might be a fair use defense, or the claim might have been false or even frivolous.

In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:

The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]

Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]

A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]

Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]

If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)]

[back to notice text]

Answer: Proper notice under the safe harbor provisions requires the copyright owners to specifically identify the alleged infringing materials, or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, to specifically identify the links to the alleged infringing materials. [512(c)(3)(iii)], [512(d)(3)]. The provisions also require the copyright owners to identify the copyrighted work, or a representative list of the copyrighted works, that is claimed to be infringed. [512(c)(3)(A)(ii)]. Rather than simply sending a letter to the service provider that claims that infringing material exists on their system, these qualifications ensure that service providers are given a reasonable amount of information to locate the infringing materials and to effectively police their networks. [512(c)(3)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(3)].

However, in the recent case of ALS Scan, Inc. v. Remarq Communities, Inc., the court found that the copyright owner did not have to point out all of the infringing material, but only substantially all of the material. The relaxation of this specificity requirement shifts the burden of identifying the material to the service provider, raising the question of the extent to which a service provider must search through its system. OSP customers should note that this situation might encourage OSP's to err on the side of removing allegedly infringing material.

[back to notice text]

Answer: Reverse engineering is the general process of analyzing a technology specifically to ascertain how it was designed or how it operates. This kind of inquiry engages individuals in a constructive learning process about the operation of systems and products. Reverse engineering as a method is not confined to any particular purpose, but is often an important part of the scientific method and technological development. The process of taking something apart and revealing the way in which it works is often an effective way to learn how to build a technology or make improvements to it.

Through reverse engineering, a researcher gathers the technical data necessary for the documentation of the operation of a technology or component of a system. In "black box" reverse engineering, systems are observed without examining internal structure, while in "white box" reverse engineering the inner workings of the system are inspected.

When reverse engineering software, researchers are able to examine the strength of systems and identify their weaknesses in terms of performance, security, and interoperability. The reverse engineering process allows researchers to understand both how a program works and also what aspects of the program contribute to its not working. Independent manufacturers can participate in a competitive market that rewards the improvements made on dominant products. For example, security audits, which allow users of software to better protect their systems and networks by revealing security flaws, require reverse engineering. The creation of better designs and the interoperability of existing products often begin with reverse engineering.

[back to notice text]

Answer: While the validity of licensing prohibitions of reverse engineering has not yet been decided by courts, the conflict between state laws that would enforce these provisions and federal intellectual property law has been addressed. When considering cases where breach of contract or trade secret misappropriation is claimed (both state law claims), courts must first determine whether or not intellectual property law preempts those contracts enforced by the individual state. Preemption occurs when courts determine that federal intellectual property law must be considered in order to address the issues involved in the particular provisions.

Section 301 of the Copyright Act provides that a state law claim is preempted if:

1. (1) the work to be protected comes within the subject matter of copyright; and
   
2. (2) the state-created right forming the basis of the state law claim is equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright."

In order for the claim to be preempted it must first pass this equivalency test, which determines whether the state-created rights in upholding the contract are merely alternative articulations of the exclusive rights of copyright law. If the court determines that the contract provisions contain an "extra element" that require analysis of the contract to be preempted by copyright law, the courts generally proceed to an analysis of the possible infringement or exemption under fair use of the activities of the reverse engineer.

[back to notice text]

Answer: In the development of software, the source code in which programmers originally write is translated into object (binary) code. The translation is done with a computer program called an "assembler" or "compiler," depending on the source code's language, such as Java, C++, or assembly. A great deal of the original programmer's instructions, including commentary, notations, and specifications, are not included in the translation from source to object code (the assembly or compilation).

Disassembly or decompilation reverses this process by reading the object code of the program and translating them into source code. By presenting the information in a computer language that a software programmer can understand, the reverse engineer can analyze the structure of the program and identify how it operates.

The data generated in the disassembly of a typical computer program is one to many files with thousands of lines of computer code. Because much of the original programmer's commentary, notations, and specifications are not retained in the object code, the reverse engineered code constitutes only a part of the program information included in the original source code. Engineers must interpret the resulting source code using knowledge and expertise to recreate the data structures of the original program and understand the overall design rationale of the system.

Not all reverse engineering efforts require "decompilation" of software. Some "black box" reverse engineering is done by characterizing software through observation of its interaction with system components, other software, and other (external) systems through networks.

[back to notice text]

Answer: Good faith is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "a state of mind consisting in ... honesty in belief or purpose ... or absence of intent to defraud or to seek unconscionable advantage." Good faith can be a defense to legal claims where the plaintiff must establish that the defendant had a particular state of mind, such as an intent to do harm. Essentially, it is a defense that can be used by the defendant to establish that he or she was void of the requisite mental culpability necessary to hold him or her liable for an alleged harm.

[back to notice text]

Answer: A copyright ordinarily vests in the creator or creators of a work (known as the author(s)), and is inherited as ordinary property. Copyrights are freely transferrable as property, at the discretion of the owner. 17 U.S.C.

[back to notice text]

Answer: If the cease-and-desist misinterprets what your website is doing, for example claiming you're "reproducing" things you just link to, you can try to send a response that clarifies the facts -- especially if the factual difference is legally relevant. First, though, you may want to judge from the tone of the letter whether that's likely to resolve the matter, or instead just to draw more attention to you and make the requester angrier.