Unreviewed Annotation 1 Contributor ?

What is this?

The Genius annotation is the work of the Genius Editorial project. Our editors and contributors collaborate to create the most interesting and informative explanation of any line of text. It’s also a work in progress, so leave a suggestion if this or any annotation is missing something.

To learn more about participating in the Genius Editorial project, check out the contributor guidelines.

Loading...

“Peace through power” is a variant of a conservative political slogan from the 1980s supporting the American military buildup. Peace Through Strength

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Unreviewed Annotation 1 Contributor ?

What is this?

The Genius annotation is the work of the Genius Editorial project. Our editors and contributors collaborate to create the most interesting and informative explanation of any line of text. It’s also a work in progress, so leave a suggestion if this or any annotation is missing something.

To learn more about participating in the Genius Editorial project, check out the contributor guidelines.

Loading...

When this song was written, rap music was being targeted for obscenity prosecutions. The song is a protest against both censorship and the arguably racist way that censorship was applied to rap but not rock music.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Unreviewed Annotation 1 Contributor ?

What is this?

The Genius annotation is the work of the Genius Editorial project. Our editors and contributors collaborate to create the most interesting and informative explanation of any line of text. It’s also a work in progress, so leave a suggestion if this or any annotation is missing something.

To learn more about participating in the Genius Editorial project, check out the contributor guidelines.

Loading...

The chorus is a send-up of a cheesy 1960s love song. In the original, the singer is inspired by love. In Salt n Pepa’s version, the singer is inspired by her lover’s cheating to do the same.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

`(d) INFORMATION LOCATION TOOLS- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider--
`(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;
`(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
`(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
`(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
`(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link
United States Congress (Ft. Mark Lemley) – The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

This protects search engines so long as they provide a “notice-and-takedown” procedure and lack actual knowledge or “red-flag” knowledge of particular infringement in the material they link to.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

`(c) INFORMATION RESIDING ON SYSTEMS OR NETWORKS AT DIRECTION OF USERS-
`(1) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider--
`(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
`(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
`(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
`(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
`(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity
`(2) DESIGNATED AGENT- The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:
`(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent
`(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate
The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, in both electronic and hard copy formats, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory
`(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION-
`(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
`(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed
`(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site
`(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material
`(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted
`(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law
`(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed
`(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), a notification from a copyright owner or from a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent
`(ii) In a case in which the notification that is provided to the service provider's designated agent fails to comply substantially with all the provisions of subparagraph (A) but substantially complies with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (A), clause (i) of this subparagraph applies only if the service provider promptly attempts to contact the person making the notification or takes other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially complies with all the provisions of subparagraph (A)
United States Congress (Ft. Mark Lemley) – The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Hosting companies like Internet service providers, YouTube, or RapGenius are not liable for infringing material put on their site, provided they offer a “notice-and-takedown” procedure that allows copyright owners to demand that infringing work come off the site.

Sites may be liable for things they actually know are infringing, or if they have “red-flag” knowledge of infringement.

In Viacom v. YouTube, the court held that it wasn’t enough to have general knowledge that there was copyright infringement on the site – YouTube’s founders could be liable only if they knew of actual infringements and failed to take them off the site.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Caching companies aren’t liable for infringing material stored on their site automatically.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

`(a) TRANSITORY DIGITAL NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if--
`(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
`(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
`(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
`(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
`(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content
United States Congress (Ft. Mark Lemley) – The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Telephone and cable companies aren’t liable for infringement passing through their systems as long as they don’t control it.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

While this says fair use survives, most courts to read the statute have concluded that fair use is irrelevant to a DMCA violation because it is a separate law from copyright.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

While section (a) was directed to hacking encryption, this section is directed to hacking copy protection technologies. Note that unlike (a), the law makes the tools illegal here but does not actually make it illegal for individuals to break copy protection.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.