language: Deutsch   Français   italiano   Español   Português   日本語   russian   arabic   norwegian   swedish   danish   Nederlands   finland   ireland   English  

New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US) (Topic in the 'Everything Else (Music related)' forum) | KVR Audio Forum us digital millennium copyright act 1998 definition

  Login / Register   My KVR 0 Updates       0 items | $ 0.00 New What is KVR? Submit News Advertise  Search             News   Plugins   Your Personal Plugin, App & Soundware Universe Buy Now: KVR Marketplace What's New? Search Plugins & More Search Developers (Brand) Latest Reviews Product Rankings Product Ratings Groups: Whats's in?   Patches & Presets Downloads & Uploads All Plug-ins, Hosts, Apps & Soundware in the KVR Product Database on One Page   Forum   Latest Posts     Marketplace   Videos   Music by KVR Members   More     Chris Halaby's Industry Focus Interviews Reviews Deals Blog Giveaways Polls Newsletter RSS Feeds KVR Developer Challenge KVR Readers' Choice Awards 2013 KVR Celebrates 10 Years (2010) Submit: News, Plug-ins & Hosts Apply To Manage A Developer Advertise About KVR / Contact Us Link to KVR! Privacy Statement Everything Else (Music related)     Latest Posts   Light Forum Colors Dark Forum Colors             New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)     Post Reply     Start New Topic 20 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1 , 2 annode KVRAF   5891 posts since 28 Mar, 2003, from Location: Location     by annode ; Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:32 pm New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

In a state ywrjrvii. outlet moncler milanoment, a rep for YouTube responded: "The overwhelming majority of labels and publishers have licensing agreements in place with YouTube to leave fan videos up on the platform and earn revenue from them. Today the revenue from fan uploaded content accounts for roughly 50 percent of the music industry's YouTube revenue. Any assertion that this content is largely unlicensed is false." Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... z4CFPnyEbR Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook WTF! Fan video? Are they serious? ....................Don`t blame me for 'The Roots', I just live here. Top sprnva KVRian   943 posts since 16 Jan, 2013     by sprnva ; Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:51 pm Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

Content ID. Where once they would have your video taken down or silenced for using copyrighted content, now they claim ownership of the content and take any revenue it earns on YouTube. This even happens with legit promotional content. Jim Sterling found a clever solution to having his gaming videos "claimed" while using promotional content the game companies sent out... for promotional purposes. Top AsPeeXXXVIII KVRist   182 posts since 17 Aug, 2015, from Finland     by AsPeeXXXVIII ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:50 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

sprnva wrote: Jim Sterling found a clever solution to having his gaming videos "claimed" while using promotional content the game companies sent out... for promotional purposes. I don't personally watch or follow Sterling, but goddamn, I just have to applaud him. "Creativity is a lot like sex. When it's spontaneous, it's good, but forcing it makes it bad." My metal music | My electronic music Top chk071 KVRAF   12738 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany   by chk071 ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:01 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

sprnva wrote: Content ID. Where once they would have your video taken down or silenced for using copyrighted content, now they claim ownership of the content and take any revenue it earns on YouTube. This even happens with legit promotional content. Jim Sterling found a clever solution to having his gaming videos "claimed" while using promotional content the game companies sent out... for promotional purposes. Actually, i don't find that a bad solution at all. They can't fight that sort of thing anyway, because it's too expensive, and requires too much effort. I just wonder what GEMA will do about it in the future. I don't think they (or rather the artists) will benefit from banning music videos in germany in the long run. It's not "news" anymore, it's "infotainment". Top Zexila KVRAF   1812 posts since 17 Mar, 2008   by Zexila ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:32 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

sprnva wrote: Content ID. Where once they would have your video taken down or silenced for using copyrighted content, now they claim ownership of the content and take any revenue it earns on YouTube. Pretty fair deal. Top chk071 KVRAF   12738 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany   by chk071 ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:19 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

I would think so. If i imagine to be an artist trying to make a living from my music, and see all those random people marketing my music, i would be happy to at least partly take control over the way my music is marketed too. Or from a label's perspective. It's not "news" anymore, it's "infotainment". Top annode KVRAF   5891 posts since 28 Mar, 2003, from Location: Location     by annode ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:45 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

Zexila wrote: sprnva wrote: Content ID. Where once they would have your video taken down or silenced for using copyrighted content, now they claim ownership of the content and take any revenue it earns on YouTube. Pretty fair deal. WHAT! That response and the others above seem insensitive to the real issue...Youtube makes money from advertisers and none is given to the talent. This petition is asking for reconsideration of the law written in `98. If that passes, making amendments to this writ will be considered. I want talent to make as much money as they can, any way they can. In my mind this steps up the quality of talent we get to hear and gives more incentive to becoming full time musicians, heightening competition. I`d like to see copyright law enforced on torrents as well. I can do without all this prefab female fronted, synchronized dancing crap that has flooded the American music market. Art and musicianship in music(which takes talent) has lost all visibility in the market and exists in only small quantities. Can't make a living doing that anymore. Recordings get released only to be freely available. What's the use? ....................Don`t blame me for 'The Roots', I just live here. Top johnrule KVRist   414 posts since 24 Apr, 2007, from Northern CA     by johnrule ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:14 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

annode wrote: I want talent to make as much money as they can, any way they can. In my mind this steps up the quality of talent we get to hear and gives more incentive to becoming full time musicians, heightening competition. I`d like to see copyright law enforced on torrents as well. I can do without all this prefab female fronted, synchronized dancing crap that has flooded the American music market. Art and musicianship in music(which takes talent) has lost all visibility in the market and exists in only small quantities. Can't make a living doing that anymore. Recordings get released only to be freely available. What's the use? Thank you for that intelligent statement, and lol to the "prefab female fronted, synchronized dancing crap" statement Someone listens to my entire album, and I get .02? Laws allow people to sample large portions of my music and call it their own? No wonder I can't make a living in music. Software Engineer RCS Programming RTE3 Videos , My Music Top chk071 KVRAF   12738 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany   by chk071 ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:53 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

annode wrote: Zexila wrote: sprnva wrote: Content ID. Where once they would have your video taken down or silenced for using copyrighted content, now they claim ownership of the content and take any revenue it earns on YouTube. Pretty fair deal. WHAT! That response and the others above seem insensitive to the real issue...Youtube makes money from advertisers and none is given to the talent. Not sure what you mean there. But you might want to read this sentence again: Where once they would have your video taken down or silenced for using copyrighted content, now they claim ownership of the content and take any revenue it earns on YouTube. It's not "news" anymore, it's "infotainment". Top annode KVRAF   5891 posts since 28 Mar, 2003, from Location: Location     by annode ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:27 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

chk071 wrote: annode wrote: Zexila wrote: sprnva wrote: Content ID. Where once they would have your video taken down or silenced for using copyrighted content, now they claim ownership of the content and take any revenue it earns on YouTube. Pretty fair deal. WHAT! That response and the others above seem insensitive to the real issue...Youtube makes money from advertisers and none is given to the talent. Not sure what you mean there. But you might want to read this sentence again: Where once they would have your video taken down or silenced for using copyrighted content, now they claim ownership of the content and take any revenue it earns on YouTube. My take on how that reads is they [Youtube] claim ownership of the content and take any revenue it earns [from adverts while being played] ....................Don`t blame me for 'The Roots', I just live here. Top chk071 KVRAF   12738 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany   by chk071 ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:58 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

The way i understand it, i don't know how it is exactly, only how i understand sprnva's post, it is, when the video was uploaded by some private person, the copyright holder can claim ownership of the content, and earn on the revenues, if the video is monetarized, or monetarize it themselves (although i'm not sure if that is possible, i thought i once read somewhere that you have to set the monetarize option before you post the video, but not sure). Of course, Youtube also earns, but, fair enough, for hosting petabytes of video data, and providing a video service for free. It's not "news" anymore, it's "infotainment". Top Zexila KVRAF   1812 posts since 17 Mar, 2008   by Zexila ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:13 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

annode wrote: My take on how that reads is they [Youtube] claim ownership of the content and take any revenue it earns [from adverts while being played] Read again The overwhelming majority of labels and publishers have licensing agreements in place with YouTube to leave fan videos up on the platform and earn revenue from them. So majority of labels and publishers are "they" and instead of just taking it down on their demand, they are actually earning with it too, it's not fair to use that content in first place, so this way everybody wins. Top chk071 KVRAF   12738 posts since 10 Apr, 2010, from Germany   by chk071 ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:20 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

Zexila wrote: So majority of labels and publishers are "they" and instead of just taking it down on their demand, they are actually earning with it too, it's not fair to use that content in first place, so this way everybody wins. That's the way i see it too, if it's like that. It's not "news" anymore, it's "infotainment". Top Zexila KVRAF   1812 posts since 17 Mar, 2008   by Zexila ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:24 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

chk071 wrote: Zexila wrote: So majority of labels and publishers are "they" and instead of just taking it down on their demand, they are actually earning with it too, it's not fair to use that content in first place, so this way everybody wins. That's the way i see it too, if it's like that. That's how it is I guess based on what is written, but maybe there's more to it, if not, that's it. Top xNiMiNx KVRian   932 posts since 24 Mar, 2010   by xNiMiNx ; Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:29 am Re: New petition to reform 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' of 1998 (US)

So, Artist creates song without video. Fan creates fan-made video for the song. The song is getting all the money, but the person who created the visual art gets nothing? I understand that without the song there is no fan made video, but i also see that on youtube there are many album-cover-only 'videos' for songs, and fan-made videos with more views. Of course, it gets more complicated when you include user created video content as compared to using other works. Still, effort goes into songs, just as effort goes into creating a video. KVR Audio Forum Signature is currently unavailable for your web browser. Top     Post Reply     Start New Topic 20 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1 , 2

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Everything Else (Music related)


us digital millennium copyright act 1998 definition

moncler mens size chart
moncler sale
moncler baby fleece onesie
moncler outlet sale review
moncler womens designer shoes Bravo Design, Inc. Design Studio in Los Angeles, CA home work key art home entertainment collateral + branding motion graphics trailers print production about contact The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act https://vimeo.com/bravodesignince The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP [Intellectual Property] Act (PIPA) Explained Posted on January 18, 2012 by skulkaew www.wired.com

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP [intellectual property] Act (PIPA) are anti-piracy bills which, if passed, would expand the ability of US law enforcement and copyright holders to fight the piracy of intellectual property and counterfeit goods by seeking court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Its main targets would be “rogue” overseas sites like the Pirate Bay, a website based in Sweden, which hosts magnet links and torrent files that allow users to download digital media and software illegally. While the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lays out enforcement measures, it’s not enforceable against sites based in other countries. SOPA goes further by stopping companies based within the US from providing funding, advertising, links or other assistance to sites that facilitate copyright infringement. The legislation would also require search engines to remove websites from search queries altogether which opponents of the legislation liken to methods employed by regimes that suppress political dissent. Additionally, SOPA includes an “anti-circumvention” clause, which makes providing instruction on how to sidestep SOPA nearly as bad as violating its main provisions. Ultimately, this clause may be extended to cover tools like VPNs and Tor that are used by human rights groups, government officials and businesses to protect their communications and evade online spying and filtering.

Opponents of the legislation worry that the bill is so broad that it would allow content owners to target US websites that unknowingly host pirated content. This has been a particular concern for Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube, all of which depend heavily on content uploaded by users. In the case of WikiLeaks, a site thats posts the internal communications of governments and private corporations alike, it’s hard to imagine how it wouldn’t qualify for blacklisting. Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and author of a treatise titled “American Constitutional Law,” argues that SOPA is unconstitutional because, if passed, “an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement.” For SOPA opponents, one of the most alarming qualities, in its original form, is that it lets intellectual property owners take action without a single court appearance or judicial sign-off. All it requires is a single letter claiming a “good faith belief” that the target site has infringed on a copyright. While filing false allegations is a crime, the process would put the burden of proof and cost of arbitration on the accused. Once a search engine or payment processor receives a quarantine notice, it would have five days to either comply or contest the claim in court. In the most recent version of the bill, the five day window has softened. Companies now need a warrant issued by a federal judge, but the potential for abuse still poses a significant threat as rights holders face little penalty for filing allegations without doing due diligence or considering fair use. Opponents of SOPA and PIPA believe that neither does enough to protect against false accusations. While provisions in the bills remove liability from payment processors and ad networks that cut off sites in the event a claims turn out to be false, the brunt of the blow is taken on by the site itself. Red Hat, a company that creates open source software, writes, “In a single generation, the Internet has transformed our world to such an extent that it is easy to forget its miraculous properties and take it for granted. It’s worth reminding ourselves, though, that our future economic growth depends on our ability to use the Internet to share new ideas and technology. Measures that block the freedom and openness of the Internet also hinder innovation. That poses a threat to the future success of Red Hat and other innovative companies. The sponsors of SOPA and PIPA claim that the bills are intended to thwart web piracy. Yet, the bills overreach, and could put a website out of business after a single complaint. Web sites would vanish, and have little recourse, if they were suspected of infringing copyrights or trademarks.”

US Representative for Texas's 21st congressional district, Lamar Smith

For the moment, SOPA has been tabled. It’s unlikely to recover in its present form. The most controversial portions have been excised, and may altogether be dead, but the battle still wages on. Lamar Smith, the Texas representative who first introduced SOPA, derided Wednesday’s blackout and has gone on to say, “It is ironic that a website [Wikipedia] dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act. The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites. This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts. Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy. It’s disappointing that some SOPA critics appear not to have read the bill. The Stop Online Piracy Act only targets foreign websites that are primarily dedicated to illegal activity. It does not grant the Justice Department the authority to seek a court order to shut down any website operated in the US. This bill will not censor the Internet. [sic] But it will protect American workers, inventors and job creators from foreign thieves who steal our products, technology and intellectual property.” Smith has since promised to reintroduce the bill for discussion in February. He and the bills’ supporters dismiss accusations of censorship as the freedom of speech doesn’t include and/or protect criminal behavior. While SOPA’s critics accuse the bills’ backers of failing to understand the unintended implications and collateral damage which may result from the legislation being considered, both sides will have to come together in finding a resolution that protects copyright holders and innovation here and abroad.

To see SOPA in its entirety, click here. To read more about PIPA, click here.

Photo credit: Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images

Update – 01/20/12 @ 11:20am : SOPA is dead.

Posted in Technology / Politics Tagged Anti-Circumvention Clause, Anti-Piracy Bills, Copyright Holders, Copyright Infringement, Counterfeit Goods, DMCA, Good Faith Belief, Lamar Smith, PIPA, Protect Intellectual Property Act, SOPA, The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, The Stop Online Piracy Act In The Blog The Amazing Spider-Man 2 May 2, 2014 The Other Woman April 21, 2014 Transcendence April 17, 2014 Rio 2 April 11, 2014 Hello world! March 25, 2014 Bravo Design Blog Archives Bravo Design Blog Archives Select Month May 2014  (1) April 2014  (3) March 2014  (2) February 2014  (2) January 2014  (1) December 2013  (1) October 2013  (3) September 2013  (2) August 2013  (3) July 2013  (8) June 2013  (8) May 2013  (7) April 2013  (5) March 2013  (3) February 2013  (3) January 2013  (2) December 2012  (2) November 2012  (4) October 2012  (7) September 2012  (6) August 2012  (10) July 2012  (9) June 2012  (10) May 2012  (3) April 2012  (7) March 2012  (9) February 2012  (8) January 2012  (4) December 2011  (2) September 2011  (1) August 2011  (1) May 2011  (2) April 2011  (2) March 2011  (4) November 2010  (1) Topics of Discussion Topics of Discussion Select Category Advertising & Marketing  (38) Corporate  (3) Films & Media  (83) News  (11) Office Mischief  (2) Our Work  (43) Social Networks & Promotion  (15) Software / Downloads  (3) Technology / Politics  (20) Tips / Tutorials  (48) Uncategorized  (1) Web Design  (15)

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) From Internet Law Treatise Jump to: navigation , search Contents 1 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 2 How the CFAA Works 3 Access 4 Civil Action - Damages 5 CFAA Criminal Cases 5.1 Authorization Cases: 5.2 Trespassing a Government Computer: 5.3 Accessing to Defraud and Obtain Value: 5.4 Damaging a Computer or Information: 5.5 Trafficking in Passwords: 6 CFAA Civil Cases Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 , is an amendment made in 1986 to the Counterfeit Access Device and Abuse Act that was passed in 1984 and essentially states that, whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication shall be punished under the Act. In 1996 the CFAA was, again, broadened by an amendment that replaced the term “federal interest computer” with the term “protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030 . While the CFAA is primarily a criminal law intended to reduce the instances of malicious interferences with computer systems and to address federal computer offenses, an amendment in 1994 allows civil actions to brought under the statute, as well.

How the CFAA Works

Types of Offenses (7 Prohibitions) There are seven types of criminal activity enumerated in the CFAA: obtaining national security information, compromising confidentiality, trespassing in a government computer, accessing to defraud and obtain value, damaging a computer or information, trafficking in passwords, and threatening to damage a computer. Attempts to commit these crimes are also criminally punishable.

Protected Computer the term “protected computer” means a computer

(1) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or (2) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States.

18 U.S.C. § 1030 In MBTA v. Anderson , No. 08-11364, (D. Mass. filed Aug. 19, 2008), Plaintiff claimed that defendants violated or threatened to violate the CFAA by releasing the findings of their research regarding the security holes associated with the MBTA fare charging system. The court found that a violation of the CFAA only occurs if the person knowingly causes the transmission of programmed information to a protected computer. Because the defendants in this case were only seeking to transmit information to a non-computer audience, the court found that the MBTA was not likely to succeed on a claim under the CFAA.

Access

A violation of the CFAA can be committed in two ways: either by an outsider who trespasses into a computer or an intruder who goes beyond the scope of his given authorization.

Without Authorization "Congress did not define the phrase 'without authorization,' perhaps assuming that the words speak for themselves. The meaning, however, has proven to be elusive." EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc. , 274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 2001). Some courts have applied a "reasonable expectation" standard in that conduct is without authorization only if it is not “in line with the reasonable expectations” of the website owner and its users. Id . While other courts, finding the "reasonable expectations" standard to be an overly broad reading that restricts access and is at odds with the Internet's intended purpose of providing the “open and free exchange of information," urge us to adopt the reasoning that computer use is “without authorization” only if the use is not “in any way related to [its] intended function.” Id . at 582.

Instances where an outsider trespasses onto a computer system are fairly easy to recognize, however in some instances an insider can stray so far from the realm of his given authorization that the court treats the user as having acted without authorization. In United States v. Morris , a case prosecuted under a previous version of the CFAA that punished “intentionally accessing a Federal interest computer without authorization,” Morris spread a program known as a “worm” that affected computers across the country and caused damage. U.S. v. Morris , 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991) (Internet worm violated CFAA). Morris argued that he had merely exceeded his authorized access and not accessed the computers without authorization. The court noted that Congress “did not mean to insulate from liability the person authorized to use computers at the State Department who causes damage to computers at the Defense Department.” Id at 511. Further, the court goes on to state that, “Congress did not intend an individual's authorized access to one federal interest computer to protect him from prosecution, no matter what other federal interest computers he accesses.” Id . As such, they found that Morris was acting without authorization.

Agency In determining if an employee has exceeded authorization in accessing a computer system, issues regarding agency often arise. In Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc. , Plaintiff sued a competitor for violations of the CFAA resulting from allegations that Defendant created an agency relationship with one of Plaintiff’s employees whereby the employee accessed Plaintiff’s computers to provide Defendant proprietary information regarding Plaintiff’s company while still employed by Plaintiff. Regarding the agency issue, the court held that, “for purposes of stating claim under CFAA, former employees lost access to computers when they allegedly became agents of competitor.” Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc. , 119 F.Supp.2d 1121 (W.D. Wash. 2000)(finding that insiders with authorization to use a system can lose that authorization when they act as agents of an outside organization).

Like Shurgard , where Defendant accessed files on Plaintiff’s computer and used the files against Plaintiff, in LVRC Holdings v. Brekka the defendant transferred files from his employer’s computer and later used these files for reasons contrary to the employer’s interests. However, unlike Shurgard , where the employee’s behavior changed as a result of his new agency relationship with Defendant, in Brekka , Defendant regularly emailed documents from his work computer to his personal computers and Plaintiff did not have an employment agreement or give guidelines to Defendant prohibiting the transfer of Plaintiff’s computer files to personal computers. Thus, the court found that, “because Brekka was authorized to use [Plaintiff’s] computers while he was employed [by Plaintiff], he did not access a computer ‘without authorization’ in violation of § 1030(a)(2) or § 1030(a)(4) when he emailed documents to himself and to his wife prior to leaving [Plaintiff’s company]. Nor did emailing the documents ‘exceed authorized access,’ because [Defendant] was entitled to obtain the documents.” LVRC Holdings v. Brekka , No. 07-17116, (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2009). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit noted that, "[n]o language in the CFAA supports [Plaintiff’s] argument that authorization to use a computer ceases when an employee resolves to use the computer contrary to the employer’s interest." Id .

The Seventh Circuit, in Citrin , noting the principles of agency in their decision stated that Defendant, a former employee of the plaintiff, breached his duty of loyalty to his employer, thus terminating his agency relationship with said employer. As such, the court found that any rights that were granted as a result of the agency relationship, including authorization to use the employer's computer, were also terminated. Thus, because defendant was not authorized to use Plaintiff's computer, the court held that the "employee's alleged installation of [a] program on employer's computer that caused deletion of files would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act." International Airport Centers, L.L.C. v. Citrin , 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. March 8, 2006).

Exceeds Authorization The term "exceeds authorized access" is defined by the CFAA to mean "to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6).

Misuse/TradeSecret Recent judicial decisions and statutory amendments have broadened the scope of the CFAA. This broadened CFAA scope combined with today's corporate practice of storing confidential information electronically, has created an environment where plaintiffs bring claims for the misappropriation of proprietary information under the CFAA. However, because more than merely unauthorized use is required to establish a violation of the CFAA, the majority of courts have found that misappropriation alone does not constitute an offense under the statute.

In Therapeutic Research Faculty v. NBTY , 488 F. Supp. 2d 991 (E.D. Cal. 2007), Plaintiff alleged that Defendant purchased a single user subscription to Plaintiff's publication, but proceeded to share its provided "confidential username and passcode among many [of its employees] for two-and-a-half years, thereby infringing on [Plaintiff's] rights in the Publication.” Id . As such, Plaintiff brought suit for a number of claims including violation of the CFAA and the court found that Plaintiff adequately "alleged that its username and passcode constituted 'trade secret' under California law." Id . Regarding the CFAA claim, the court held that "Plaintiff's allegations sufficiently state a claim under the CFAA" and they go on to state "several district courts have recognized that damage caused by unauthorized access or access in excess of authorization to a computer system may be redressed under the CFAA." Id . at 997.

Unlike Therapeutic Research Faculty , where Defendant provided information to other users that allowed for unauthorized access to Plaintiff’s computer system, in U.S. v. Czubinski , Defendant made no attempt to damage the data or the usability of the computer system he was accessing. Instead, Defendant merely accessed files on the IRS's computer system without authorization and the court noted that there was no evidence to show that defendant's end was no more than to satisfy his own curiosity and that the showing of some additional end-to which the unauthorized access is a means is required. Thus, the hurdle to making a successful claim for trade secrets violation under the CFAA appears to stem from the CFAA's requirement that the inflicted damage diminished the completeness or usability of data or information on a computer system. However, misappropriated data very often remains intact on the originating computer; as such, in these instances, most plaintiffs will not be able to make a CFAA claim.

Drew/EULA Recently, during the U.S. v. Drew case, questions arose regarding whether an intentional breach of a website’s end user license agreement, without more, is enough to sustain a violation of the CFAA. In U.S. v. Drew , Plaintiff created a fictitious profile for a boy named “Josh” on the social networking website, Myspace. In doing so, Plaintiff violated Myspace’s Terms of Service. Plaintiff then used this fictitious profile to communicate with her daughter’s classmate. During one of the communications, Plaintiff, using the fictitious profile, told her daughter’s classmate “that [‘Josh’] no longer liked her and that ‘the world would be a better place without her in it.’” United States v. Drew , 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D.Cal.) Her daughter’s classmate killed herself later that day. Upon learning of the classmate’s death, Plaintiff deleted the fictitious Myspace account. The court in Drew concluded that, “an intentional breach of the MSTOS can potentially constitute accessing the MySpace computer/server without authorization and/or in excess of authorization under the statute.” Id . at 461.

However, the court goes on to note that, “[t]he pivotal issue herein is whether basing a CFAA misdemeanor violation as per 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) and 1030(c)(2)(A) upon the conscious violation of a website's terms of service runs afoul of the void-for-vagueness doctrine. This Court concludes that it does primarily because of the absence of minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement, but also because of actual notice deficiencies.” Id . at 465. A violation of the CFAA in this instance appears to hinge on whether a reasonable person, upon consenting to a click wrap agreement, would be put on notice that potential criminal penalties could be enforced for breaching the contract. The court in Drew noted that the CFAA, “does not explicitly state (nor does it implicitly suggest) that the CFAA has 'criminalized breaches of contract' in the context of website terms of service.” Id . Moreover, the court goes on to point out that, “[n]ormally, breaches of contract are not the subject of criminal prosecution . . . [and that] by utilizing violations of the terms of service as the basis for the section 1030(a)(2)(C) crime . . . the website owner-in essence [becomes the] party who ultimately defines the criminal conduct.” Id . “In sum, if any conscious breach of a website's terms of service is held to be sufficient by itself to constitute intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization, the result will be that section 1030(a)(2)(C) becomes a law “that affords too much discretion to the police and too little notice to citizens who wish to use the [Internet].” Id . (citing City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 at 64, 119 S.Ct. 1849).

Civil Action - Damages

The CFAA is primarily a criminal statute. However, in 1994 a civil suit provision was added that provides a private cause of action if a violation causes loss or damage, as those terms are defined in the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). To state a civil claim for violation of the CFAA, a plaintiff must allege

damage or loss; caused by; a violation of one of the substantive provisions set forth in § 1030(a); and conduct involving one of the factors in § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I)-(V).

18 U.S.C. § 1030(g).

Persons found to be civilly liable for a CFAA violation can be responsible for compensatory damages and injunctive or other equitable relief.

Moreover, an action brought under this section must be bought within two years of the date the act is complained or the date of the discovery of the damage. Additionally, no action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware. June 23, 2008) (must plead intent to cause harm, intent to transmit software code is not enough).

In 2008, the CFAA was amended by the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act, Pub. Law 110-326, 122 Stat. 3560. This amendment enhanced a number of aspects of the CFAA. Most notably, the 2008 amendment eliminated the need for Plaintiff’s loss to be greater than $5,000 and made it a felony for a user to cause damage to ten or more computers. Thus, while the $5,000 threshold has been done away with, a Plaintiff still needs to show that they suffered damage or loss.

Prior to the USA PATRIOT ACT in 2001, the CFAA contained no definition for “loss.” In United States v. Middleton, a case argued before the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the defendant accessed his former employer’s computer system without authorization and as a result, the company was forced to pay to repair the system. At trial, Defendant argued that his actions had not caused “damage” as the term is defined in the CFAA. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, however, reasoning that, “[i]n determining the amount of losses, [one] may consider what measures were reasonably necessary to restore the data, program, system, or information that [one] finds was damaged or what measures were reasonably necessary to resecure the data, program, system, or information from further damage. “United States v. Middleton, 231 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2000). The court’s holding in Middleton then became the basis for the definition of “loss” in the USA PATRIOT Act. As such, “loss” is now statutorily defined as, “any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service.”

Loss includes

Response costs Damage assessments Restoration of data or programs Wages of employees for these tasks Lost sales from website Lost advertising revenue from website

Loss might include

Harm to reputation or goodwill Other costs if reasonable

Loss does not include

Assistance to law enforcement

Moreover, lost revenue resultant from the theft of proprietary information is also not considered loss. While the following cases do not meet the current definition of “loss,” they are relevant to understanding what damage or loss is. In Andritz, Inc. v. Southern Maintenance Contractor, LLC, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant violated the CFAA by misappropriating Plaintiff’s trade secrets. The court found that:

Plaintiff simply fails to allege that it suffered any damages that fall within CFAA's statutory definition of “loss” or “damage.” Plaintiff does not allege that there was any impairment to its computer system or data as a result of Defendants' conduct. After the alleged theft of the data, Plaintiff still had access to the data just as it had before Defendants' actions. The alleged CFAA violation is not that Defendants deleted or altered any data but that Defendants used the data inappropriately. Plaintiff also does not allege any damages related to responding to the offense or conducting a damage assessment, nor does Plaintiff allege that it lost revenue or incurred costs because of an interruption of service. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that it lost revenue because Defendants copied Plaintiff's proprietary information and intellectual property and then used that information to steal customers away from Plaintiff. While a remedy may exist for such conduct, Congress did not provide one in CFAA. See Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc., 319 F.Supp.2d 468, 477 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (finding that lost revenue due to unfair competition and lost business opportunity does not constitute a loss under CFAA). Andritz, Inc. v. Southern Maintenance Contractor, LLC, 2009 WL 48187 (M.D. Ga. January 7, 2009). CFAA Criminal Cases Authorization Cases: United States v. Stegora , 849 F.2d 291, 292 (8th Cir. 1988) Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, James M. Rosenbaum, J., of interstate transportation of stolen property and mail fraud, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals, Fagg, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) finding that stolen samples of synthetic casting material for use by orthopedic surgeons to repair broken bones were worth more than $5,000 was supported by evidence, and (2) refusal to instruct jury regarding definition of term “patent pending” was not abuse of discretion. U.S. v. Middleton , 231 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2000)(CFAA protects corporate entities)

Defendant was convicted of intentionally causing damage to protected computer by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, William H. Orrick, Jr., J., and he appealed. The Court of Appeals, Graber, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) statute that prohibits any person from knowingly causing damage, without authorization, to protected computer criminalizes computer crime that damages natural persons and corporations alike; (2) refusal to give defendant's requested instruction on “damage” was not abuse of district court's discretion; and (3) in calculating damage resulting from ex-employee's unauthorized access to employer's computers and deletion of internal databases, district court could compute “damage” based on salaries paid to, and hours worked by, in-house employees who corrected problem.

U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069 (1st Cir. 1997) (unauthorized browsing of computer files did not violate CFAA)

Defendant was convicted of wire fraud and computer fraud by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Nathaniel M. Gorton, J., and Robert B. Collings, United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Torruella, Chief Judge, held that: (1) interstate transmission element of wire fraud could be inferred from circumstantial evidence that defendant's searches of master taxpayer files caused information to be sent to his computer terminal in different state; (2) defendant's unauthorized browsing of confidential taxpayer information did not defraud Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of its property within meaning of wire fraud statute; (3) defendant's unauthorized browsing of confidential taxpayer information did not deprive taxpayers of their intangible, nonproperty right to honest government services; and (4) defendant could not be convicted of computer fraud in connection with his browsing of confidential taxpayer files.

U.S. v. Morris , 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991) (Internet worm violated CFAA) Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Howard G. Munson, J., of violating Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jon O. Newman, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) statute punishing anyone who intentionally accesses without authorization federal interest computers and damages or prevents authorized use of information in those computers causing loss of $1,000 or more does not require Government to demonstrate that defendant intentionally prevented authorized use and thereby caused loss, and (2) there was sufficient evidence to conclude that defendant acted without authorization within meaning of statute. U.S. v. Nosal , 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) In United States v. Nosal, an ex-employee of an executive recruiting firm was prosecuted on the theory that he induced current company employees to use their legitimate credentials to access the company's proprietary database and provide him with information in violation of corporate computer-use policy. The government claimed that the violation of this private policy was a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Following a decision issued in 2009 by the Ninth Circuit, the district court ruled that violations of corporate policy are not equivalent to violations of federal computer crime law. Trespassing a Government Computer: Sawyer v. Department of Air Force , 31 M.S.P.R. 193, 196 (M.S.P.B. 1986) Employee was removed on charges of misconduct. The presiding official upheld removal, and employee petitioned for review. The Merit Systems Protection Board held that: (1) agency was not required to prove employee's specific intent to defraud in regard to his alteration of contracts; (2) agency had reasonable cause to believe that criminal violation had occurred, so as to invoke crime provision; and (3) penalty of removal was reasonable for employee's alteration of official contract, receiving of unauthorized agency records, and submission of fraudulent invoices. Accessing to Defraud and Obtain Value: Fasulo v. United States , 272 U.S. 620, 629 (1926) Certiorari to United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Cologero Fasulo was convicted of conspiracy to violate Criminal Code, s 215, and to review a judgment (7 F.(2d) 961), affirming conviction, he brings certiorari. Judgment reversed. United States v. Sadolsky , 234 F.3d 938 (6th Cir. 2000) Defendant pleaded guilty to computer fraud and was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, John G. Heyburn II, J., and the United states appealed sentence. The Court of Appeals, Suhrheinrich, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) the district court's two-level downward departure, based on defendant's alleged gambling disorder, was not an abuse of discretion, and (2) finding that defendant had a gambling problem that qualified as an significantly reduced mental capacity (SRMC) was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Bae , 250 F.3d 774 (D.C. Cir. 2001) Defendant was convicted before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Thomas Penfield Jackson, J., of computer fraud, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals, Ginsburg, J., held that in calculating sentence for computer fraud which involved the fraudulent procurement of lottery tickets by operator of terminal which printed and dispensed the tickets for sale, district court correctly valued the “loss” due to the fraud based on the fair market value of the tickets prior to the drawing, rather than on the value of the winning tickets, replacement cost, or lost profits. Damaging a Computer or Information: United States v. Sullivan , 40 Fed. Appx. 740 (4th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Richard L. Voorhees, J., of intentionally causing damage to protected computer. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) items seized from defendant's home and home computer were admissible under other acts rule, and (2) conviction was supported by evidence. Trafficking in Passwords: United States v. Rushdan , 870 F.2d 1509, 1514 (9th Cir. 1989) Defendant was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic in and possess counterfeit credit cards and possession of 15 or more counterfeit credit cards, and he moved for judgment of acquittal. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, J. Spencer Letts, J., granted motion as to possession count and denied motion as to conspiracy count. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, Leavy, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) conspiracy conviction did not require that conspiracy itself actually affect interstate commerce and was supported by evidence of defendant's possession of numbers of out-of-state accounts he and his codefendants intended to use; (2) defendant was not prejudiced by failure of conspiracy instruction to include reference to interstate commerce in describing object of conspiracy; and (3) illicit possession of out-of-state credit card numbers was “offense affecting interstate or foreign commerce” for purposes of possession count. United States v. Scartz , 838 F.2d 876, 879 (6th Cir. 1988) Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to use and using credit access devices in violation of federal statute by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, John D. Holschuh, J., and he appealed. The Court of Appeals, Nathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge, held that fraudulent use of credit card conviction was sufficiently supported by evidence that defendant had directed confederate to charge over $1,000 in merchandise at merchant's store. CFAA Civil Cases WEC Caroline Energy Solutions LLC v. Miller , No. 11-1201, (4th Cir. 2012) Miller quit his job, but before leaving, and before his access to the company's intranet was terminated, violates the company's use policy by downloading proprietary information to a personal computer.