When the snare comes in hit space other wise click the green flag.
Bambi by Jidenna Section 2: Copyright infringement. Section 2 would amend Section 504(c)(2)[9] of Title 17, and would prevent courts from levying statutory damages in cases of secondary infringement.[10] Section 2 would also amend Section 501 by adding that "no person shall be liable for copyright infringement based on the design, manufacture, or distribution of a hardware device or of a component of the device if the device is capable of substantial, commercially significant noninfringing use." In effect, this would reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005), which held that "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement,"[11] which has gradually come to be interpreted to mean that any distribution of an object capable of infringement is liable for any resulting infringement.[12] With the Grokster decision null, the prevailing standard regarding secondary liability would return to the Court's decision in Sony v. Universal (also known as the Betamax case). Section 2 echoes the Court's language in Sony, stating specifically that one may not be held liable for copyright infringement "based on the design, manufacture, or distribution of a hardware device or of a component of the device if the device is capable of substantial, commercially significant noninfringing use."[10] Section 3: DMCA amendments[edit] Section 3 first codifies the set of circumvention exemptions granted by the Librarian of Congress as part of the 2006 DMCA rule making process. Section 3 also amends the DMCA to add exceptions for six types of circumvention. Circumvention by libraries and archives, to skip objectionable content, to transmit over a personal network, to gain access to public domain works, for public interest work and research, and for preservation are added as a new set of exceptions.[13] (I) Libraries and archives[edit] Section (I) allows libraries and archives to circumvent copyright for the purposes of compiling audiovisual works that are in a library's collection for educational classroom use by an instructor.[10] Educational compilations for college film and media courses[14] were exempt by the Librarian of Congress under Section 1201 of the DMCA, but that exemption was set to expire in 2009. Section(I) not only made the exemption permanent, it expanded the exemption to apply to compilations for coursework at all grade levels, in any subject area. (II) Objectionable content[edit] Section (II) allows specifically for circumvention via hardware or software that skips objectionable content.[10] Circumvention for the purposes of avoiding objectionable content became an issue in 2006, when a Denver judge ruled that the edited versions of films sold by companies such as CleanFlicks and CleanFilms were not considered fair use.[15] These companies, along with a handful of others, removed objectionable content (such as nudity and profanity) from DVDs and sold the edited versions to consumers. In its decision, the court did not address the legality of companies who offered software or hardware that would “read” unaltered media and skip objectionable content. Section (II) allows the sale of hardware, such as modified DVD players sold by CleanPlay, and software, like downloadable plug-ins, that would skip such content.[16] (III) Personal network[edit] Section (III) allows circumvention for the purpose of storing or transmitting media over a personal network, but explicitly prevents the uploading of media “to the Internet for mass, indiscriminate redistribution."[10] (IV) Public domain works[edit] Section (IV) allows for circumvention that enables access to a public domain work, or a compilation of works that are primarily in the public domain.[10] Arguably, Section (IV) would expressly allow initiatives such as Google Books, which was originally pioneered in 2004 as a database to increase the availability of, and readers' access to, public domain works.[17] (V) Public interest work and research[edit] Section (V) is similar to a broader version of the third prong of fair use. It allows circumvention that is carried out to gain access to a work of substantial public interest solely for the purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."[10] The language of Section (V) is ambiguous, which led some critics to worry that the language was too broad, potentially enabling students to circumvent copyright to access books, films, and music for coursework, or allowing professors to create course packs without obtaining permission from publishers.[18] (VI) Circumvention for preservation[edit] Section (VI) allows circumvention for purposes of preservation by a library or archives, with respect to works in its collection.[19] Since the DCMA was passed, librarians across the country protested the limited circumvention rights they were afforded. The Association of R
