Copyright Infringement claims – Anti-circumvention provision of DMCA. WE TAKE DMCA LITIGATION CASES NATIONWIDE!
If you are sued for federal copyright infringement, another related claim that may be brought (for example following a BSA or SIIA software licensing audit) is a claim for illegal circumvention of access controlled technology. This blog helps define this legal concept and explain it in layman’s terms.
17 U.S.C. 1201(a) is part of the DMCA.
This section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) states:
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.
(1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Congress enacted the DMCA in 1998 to conform United States copyright law to its obligations under two World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) treaties, which require contracting parties to provide effective legal remedies against the circumvention of protective technological measures used by copyright owners. See MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, 942 (9th Cir. 2010).
The DMCA was enacted to prohibit, inter alia, the trafficking of products or devices that circumvent the technological measures used by copyright owners to restrict access to their copyrighted works. Section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA, commonly referred to as the anti-trafficking provision, prohibits any product or device that circumvents a technological measure that prevents unauthorized access to a copyrighted work. See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 943, 966-67 (E.D. Ky. 2003) vacated, 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).
The first provision, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A), is a general prohibition against “circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].” The second prohibits trafficking in technology that circumvents a technological measure that “effectively controls access” to a copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2). The third prohibits trafficking in technology that circumvents a technological measure that “effectively protects” a copyright owner’s right. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1). MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, 942 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended on denial of reh’g (Feb. 17, 2011), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, No. 09-15932, 2011 WL 538748 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2011).
The anti-circumvention rule was discussed in Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Feather, 895 F. Supp. 2d 297, 302 (D. Conn. 2012) which stated:
“Similarly, the admitted facts establish that Feather is liable for violations of the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA. The DMCA provides that “no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A). “To ‘circumvent a technological measure’ is defined, in pertinent part, as ‘to descramble a scrambled work or otherwise to bypass a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner.” Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 440–41 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(A) (internal alterations omitted)). In this case, the serial numbers and product keys marketed and distributed by Feather were primarily designed and produced for the purpose of circumventing the activation and validation features of the plaintiffs’ software in violation of section 1201(a)(2).
Three ways to prove liability under the anti-circumvention statute:
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 943, 967 (E.D. Ky. 2003) vacated, 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).
Damages available to a Plaintiff for a DMCA anti-circumvention violation
Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1203(c)(3)(A), TracFone is entitled to recover statutory damages “of not less than $200 or more than $2,500” for each TracFone Prepaid Phone Defendants altered, or sold as part of a conspiracy to alter, in furtherance of the Bulk Resale Scheme. See Stockwire Research Group, Inc. v. Lebed, 577 F.Supp.2d 1262, 1268 (S.D.Fla.2008) (awarding statutory damages per act of circumvention in the total amount of $2,357,200.00); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Silver Star Micro, Inc., No. l:06–cv–1350–WSD, 2008 WL 115006 at (N.D.Ga. Jan. 9, 2008) (awarding the statutory maximum for each of defendant’s acts of circumvention); Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Divineo, Inc., 457 F.Supp.2d 957, 967–68 (N.D.Cal.2006) (awarding statutory damages in amount of $5,791,400.00 under the DMCA in a default judgment against defendant); Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Filipiak, 406 F.Supp.2d 1068 (N.D.Cal.2005) (entering final judgment against defendant for $6,018,700.00 in statutory damages under the DMCA based on defendant’s sale of 7194 infringing items); Coxcom, Inc. v. Chaffee, 2007 WL 1577708 (D.R.I. May 31, 2007) (“Courts have interpreted this provision [17 U.S.C. 1203(c)(3)(A) ] to authorize an award of statutory damages ‘for each device sold. See TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. SND Cellular, Inc., 715 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1261-62 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
This is general legal information about this important section of the DMCA. If you are facing a federal copyright lawsuit, or need to file a federal copyright lawsuit against an infringing party, contact one of our federal copyright lawyers to discuss handling your case. We are experienced litigators and strong negotiators. Call (877) 276-5084. Click here to view our federal court experience.
Latest posts by Vondran Legal - Business, Real Estate, Insurance, Technology & Civil Litigation Counsel (see all)
- Tekla Trimble Software – did you receive an audit or demand letter? - April 12, 2017
- Autodesk vs. Flores case brief (Default judgement for copyright infringement) - April 12, 2017
- Beware of unsolicited phone call from someone claiming to be Microsoft software license representative - April 11, 2017
- London Has Fallen suggests it will seize your bicycle for allegedly pirating their movies? - April 7, 2017
- MCN Channel Network Contracts – get them reviewed by Youtube Lawyer! - April 6, 2017