(Untitled)

[merrycalliope]

Does anyone know what the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is and if it applies to physical items?

I tried Googling it and nothing I've come up with so far actually explains what it is. *_*

TIA!

Comments

[zalem]

lalalala....*goes on Westlaw*

Here you go:

UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAWS
106th Congress - First Session
Convening January 27, 1999
Copr. © West Group 1999. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

Additions and Deletions are not identified in this database.
Vetoed provisions within tabular material are not displayed

PL 106-160 (HR 3456)
December 9, 1999
DIGITAL THEFT DETERRENCE AND COPYRIGHT DAMAGES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

An Act To amend statutory damages provisions of title 17, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,

<< 17 USCA § 101 NOTE >>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999".

SEC. 2. STATUTORY DAMAGES ENHANCEMENT.

Section 504(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--

<< 17 USCA § 504 >>

(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking "$500" and inserting "$750"; and
(B) by striking "$20,000" and inserting "$30,000"; and

<< 17 USCA § 504

[merrycalliope]

So if I understand this correctly to get the full scoop on this thing I'd need to read this title 17, United States Code thingie?

Basically what's happening is Person A made a physical product and Person B is threatening Person A with a lawsuit based on this Digital Theft Deterrence thing claiming they have a copyright on a concept that Person A is infringing upon.

It's no one I know but I've been watching this train wreck for a few weeks now. Considering that legally Person B can't really have a copyright on a concept and what they are making would, I think, require a patent rather than a copyright anyway I don't think they are on very stable ground legally.

[zalem]

Yup, you need to read title 17 of the USC section 101 to get a real grasp of what it's all about. It's kind of longish but I can post it if you want.

However, from what it sounds like this person doesn't have much of a case. Ideas/concepts are strictly patent law. So unless this person has actually filed a patent on this so-called concept then they don't have a case. Patent law is not like copyright...copyright exists the moment of creation, you don't need to actually file it with the US copyright office. But patent...you MUST file a patent or you will lose the right to your concept if someone files before you.

[zalem]

oh and from the looks of it vague/abstract ideas are NOT patentable at all. But I'm not sure what it is that this person is saying...are they saying the actual design of the product is their idea?

[zalem]

Oh and yes and looking at the act that it is amending...it does apply to physical items.

[zalem]

On the other hand, with the title of the amendment it makes me wonder if those damages are only for digital theft...the rest of the original act talks about all kinds of copyrights though, not just digital.

[merrycalliope]

How confusing! I think 'Person A' really needs to get some legal advice if she really wants to push the issue. *_*