Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Full title	To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes.
Acronym	DMCA
Enacted by the	105th United States Congress
Effective	October 28, 1998
Citations
Public Law	Pub. L. 105-304
Stat.	112 Stat. 2860 (1998)
Codification
Copyright Act of 1976
Title(s) amended	5 (Government Organization and Employees); 17 (Copyrights); 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure); 35 (Patents)
U.S.C. sections created	17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201–1205, 1301–1332; 28 U.S.C. § 4001
U.S.C. section(s) amended	17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 104, 104A, 108, 112, 114, 117, 701
Legislative history
Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) on July 29, 1997 Committee consideration by: House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property); House Commerce Committee (Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection) Passed the House on August 4, 1998 (voice vote) Passed the Senate on September 17, 1998 (unanimous consent) Reported by the joint conference committee on October 8, 1998; agreed to by the Senate on October 8, 1998 ({{{passedvote3}}}) and by the House on October 12, 1998 (voice vote) Signed into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998
Major amendments
None
v t e

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users.

On May 22, 2001, the European Union passed the Copyright Directive or EUCD, which addresses some of the same issues as the DMCA. The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries (Title II of the DMCA), was separately addressed, and largely followed, in Europe by means of the separate Electronic Commerce Directive. (Unlike U.S. federal laws and regulations, the execution of European Union directives usually requires separate legislation by or within each of the Union's member countries.)

Provisions[link]

Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act[link]

DMCA Title I, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, amends U.S. copyright law to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, adopted at the WIPO Diplomatic Conference in December 1996. The treaties have two major portions. One portion includes works covered by several treaties in U.S. copy prevention laws and gave the title its name. For further analysis of this portion of the Act and of cases under it, see WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act.

The second portion is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions changed the remedies for the circumvention of copy-prevention systems (also called "technical protection measures") and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention created by Macrovision (now Rovi Corporation) built in, giving Macrovision an effective monopoly on the analog video-recording copy-prevention market. However, section 1201(c) of the title clarified that the title does not change the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, or defenses. The title contains other limitations and exemptions, including for research and reverse engineering in specified situations.

Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act[link]

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright infringement liability, provided they meet specific requirements. OSPs must adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users' identity.

Title III: Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act[link]

DMCA Title III modified section 117 of the copyright title so that those repairing computers could make certain temporary, limited copies while working on a computer. It reversed the precedent set in MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).

Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions[link]

DMCA Title IV contains an assortment of provisions:

• Clarified and added to the duties of the Copyright Office.
• Added ephemeral copy for broadcasters provisions, including certain statutory licenses.
• Added provisions to facilitate distance education.
• Added provisions to assist libraries with keeping phonorecords of sound recordings.
• Added provisions relating to collective bargaining and the transfer of movie rights.

Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act[link]

DMCA Title V added sections 1301 through 1332 to add a sui generis protection for boat hull designs. Boat hull designs were not considered covered under copyright law because they are useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function.^[1][2]

Anti-circumvention exemptions[link]

In addition to the safe harbors and exemptions the statute explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) requires that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology. Exemptions are granted when it is shown that access-control technology has had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of people to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works.

The exemption rules are revised every three years. Exemption proposals are submitted by the public to the Registrar of Copyrights, and after a process of hearings and public comments, the final rule is recommended by the Registrar and issued by the Librarian. Exemptions expire after three years and must be resubmitted for the next rulemaking cycle. Consequently, the exemptions issued in the prior rulemakings, in 2000, 2003 and 2006 are no longer valid.

The current administratively-created exemptions, issued in July 2010, are:

• Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
  • Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
  • Documentary filmmaking;
  • Noncommercial videos. (A new exemption in 2010, similar to a previous educational exemption.)
• Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset. (A new exemption in 2010.)
• Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2006.)
• Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
  • The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
  • The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law. (A new exemption in 2010.)
• Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.)
• Literary works distributed in e-book format when all existing e-book editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format. (A renewed exemption from 2006, based on a similar exemption approved in 2003.)

The Copyright Office approved two exemptions in 2000; four in 2003; six in 2006 and 2010. In 2000, the Office exempted (a) "Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications" (renewed in 2003 but not renewed in 2006); and (b) "Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage, or obsoleteness." (revised and limited in 2003 and again in 2006). In 2003, the 2000 "literary works including computer programs" exemption was limited to "Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete" and this exemption was renewed in both 2006 and 2010. The 2003 exemption for text readers of ebooks was renewed in both 2006 and 2010. The 2003 exemption for obsolete software and video game formats was renewed in 2006 but was not renewed in 2010. The 2000 filtering exemption was revised and renewed in 2003, but was not renewed in 2006. The 2006 exemption for sound recordings allowed after security flaws were found in a copy protection system on some Sony CDs was not renewed in 2010. An exemption covering the audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department was not renewed in 2010. This exemption was replaced with an exemption on DVDs protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is for the purpose of criticism or comment using short sections, for educational, documentary or non-profit use. The 2006 exemption for wireless handsets connecting to wireless networks was revised in 2010 to specify used handsets and require authorization from the wireless network operator. Another exemption for wireless handsets was introduced in 2010 specific to interoperability software on the phone itself.^[3]

Linking to infringing content[link]

The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent DRM (digital rights management) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material.^[4]

There have been^[when?] no cases in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances.^{[citation needed]}

Notable court cases[link]

This section requires expansion.

Edelman v. N2H2[link]

In July 2002, American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Benjamin Edelman, a computer researcher at Berkman Center for Internet and Society, seeking a Declaratory judgment to affirm his first amendment rights when reverse engineering the censorware product of defendant N2H2 in case he intended to publish the finding. N2H2 filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted.

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc.[link]

In August 2009, the DVD Copy Control Association won a lawsuit against RealNetworks for violating copyright law in selling its RealDVD software, allowing users to copy DVDs and store them on a harddrive. The DVD Copy Control Association claimed that Real violated the DMCA by circumventing anti-piracy measures ARccOS Protection and RipGuard, as well as breaking Real's licensing agreement with the MPAA's Content Scrambling System.^[5]

Viacom Inc. v. YouTube, Google Inc.[link]

On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its corporate parent Google for copyright infringement seeking more than $1 billion in damages. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Viacom claims the popular video-sharing site was engaging in "massive intentional copyright infringement" for making available a contended 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's entertainment programming. Google relied on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision to shield them from liability.^[6]

On June 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton granted summary judgment in favor of YouTube.^[7] The court held that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the DMCA. Viacom has said that it will appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible.^[8]

On April 5, 2012, the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Louis Stanton's ruling, and instead ruled that Viacom had presented enough evidence against YouTube to warrant a trial, and the case should not have been thrown out in summary judgement. The court did uphold the ruling that YouTube could not be held liable based on "general knowledge" that users on its site were infringing copyright. The case will be sent back to the District Court in New York to be tried. ^[9]

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.[link]

On June 23, 2006 IO Group, Inc. filed a complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for California's Northern District.^[10] IO Group alleged that Veoh was responsible for copyright infringement by allowing videos owned by IO Group to be accessed through Veoh's online service without permission over 40,000 times between the dates June 1 and June 22.^[11]

Veoh is a Flash video site relying on user contributed content. IO Group argued that since Veoh transcoded user uploaded videos to Flash format it became a direct infringer and the materials were under their direct control, thereby disqualifying them for DMCA safe harbor protection.

The ruling judge disagreed with the argument, stating that "Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users. Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the thirdparty software... But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh's users." The Court has granted the Veoh's motion for summary judgment, on the basis of the DMCA, holding that the defendant's video-sharing web site complied and was entitled to the protection of the statute's "safe harbor" provision.^[12] Even though Veoh won the court case, it blamed the litigation as one of the causes of its preparing to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and its subsequent sale to Qlipso.^[13]

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.[link]

After numerous DMCA takedown notices in response to his eBay listings, Timothy S. Vernor sued Autodesk in August 2007 alleging that Autodesk abused the DMCA and disrupted his right to sell used software he bought at a garage sale.^[14] In May 2008, a federal district judge in Washington State dismissed Autodesk's argument that the software's license agreement preempted the seller from his rights under the first-sale doctrine.^[15] In September 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions." ^[16]

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.[link]

In 2007, Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" and posted a 29-second video on the video-sharing site YouTube. Four months after the video was originally uploaded, Universal Music Group, which owned the copyrights to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks—not two weeks, as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—to see whether Universal planned to sue Lenz for infringement. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song.^[17]

In August 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

On February 25, 2010, Judge Fogel issued a ruling rejecting several of Universal's affirmative defenses, including the defense that Lenz suffered no damages.^[18]

Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter[link]

In the case of Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter the court denied the defendant safe harbour protection under DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512. The court found that the defendant had knowledge of its users' infringing activity and also failed to prevent future infringing activity. As such the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction was granted^[19].

Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.[link]

In this case of Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc., the court denied plaintiff's attempt to find liability for YouTube and Myspace's takedowns of the plaintiff's homemade videos. Despite potential fair use claims, the court found it impossible to use the DMCA takedown provisions as a foundation for liability. The court found that the safe harbor provision serves "to limit the liability of internet service providers, not to create liability that could not otherwise be imposed under existing law independent of the DMCA."^[20]

Sony v. George Hotz[link]

In January 2011, Sony Computer Entertainment sued George Hotz over violating the Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well as the Federal Fraud and Abuse Act due to facilitating consumers to jailbreak their PlayStation 3 consoles.^[21] Hotz argued that because he had purchased the product, he had the right to do with it as he pleased. After three months, Sony and Hotz decided to settle out of court. This also included an injunction against George Hotz, barring him from hacking anymore Sony products.^[22][23]

Criticisms[link]

Takedown Notice[link]

Google asserted misuse of the DMCA in a filing concerning New Zealand's copyright act,^[24] quoting results from a 2005 study by Californian academics Laura Quilter and Jennifer Urban based on data from the Chilling Effects clearinghouse.^[25] Takedown notices targeting a competing business made up over half (57%) of the notices Google has received, the company said, and more than one-third (37%), "were not valid copyright claims."^[26]

Effect on Analog Video Equipment[link]

Analog Copy Protection (ACP), the encryption technology created by Rovi Corporation (formerly Macrovision), is designed to thwart users' attempts to reproduce content via analog cables. When a DVD is played through an analog video cable and recorded using a VCR, Rovi’s ACP technology will distort the copy partially or completely.^[27]

The technology works by adding additional lines to the video signal. In the NTSC video standard, blank lines (vertical blanking intervals) that the user cannot see are used for functions like closed captioning. Rovi Corporation uses these blank lines to implement its ACP technology.^[28]

The implementation of ACP has been ill-regarded by some video enthusiasts. Many claim that the technology has led to signal issues with VCRs and analog video equipment. Some VCRs misread the encryption used to prevent copying, distorting the video image regardless of whether the recording is original or a copy.

The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all producers of analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of Rovi Corporation, a commercial firm.^{[citation needed]} The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support and implement the corporation's proprietary technology.^{[citation needed]} This benefits Rovi Corporation financially, whereas those forced to implement it receive neither profit nor compensation.^[29]

Additionally, some criticize the implementation of ACP as a violation of their fair use rights. A recently developed TV-streaming product called the Slingbox uses analog signals to convey video from television to a mobile device. However, the encryption used by ACP blocks analog transmission, rendering the Slingbox unusable. Additionally ACP blocks the use of recording for educational purposes. On one or more accounts, students have not been able to cite and record cable sources properly due to ACP restrictions.^[30]

Effect on research[link]

The DMCA has had an impact on the worldwide cryptography research community, since an argument can be made that any cryptanalytic research violates, or might violate, the DMCA. The arrest of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov in 2001, for alleged infringement of the DMCA, was a highly publicized example of the law's use to prevent or penalize development of anti-DRM measures.^[31] While working for ElcomSoft in Russia, he developed The Advanced eBook Processor, a software application allowing users to strip usage restriction information from restricted e-books, an activity legal in both Russia and the United States.^[32] Paradoxically, under the DMCA, it is not legal in the United States to provide such a tool. Sklyarov was arrested in the United States after presenting a speech at DEF CON and subsequently spent nearly a month in jail.^[33] The DMCA has also been cited as chilling to legitimate users, such as students of cryptanalysis (including, in a well-known instance, Professor Edward Felten and students at Princeton),^[34] and security consultants such as Niels Ferguson, who has declined to publish information about vulnerabilities he discovered in an Intel secure-computing scheme because of his concern about being arrested under the DMCA when he travels to the US.^[35]

Effect on innovation and competition[link]

In at least one court case, the DMCA has been used by Open Source software projects to defend against conversion of software (i.e. license violations) that involved removal of copyright notices.^[36] This defense can be used even without timely copyright registration, and can generate attorney fee awards, which together make it a useful strategy for Open Source organizations.

Reform and opposition[link]

There are efforts in Congress to modify the Act. Rick Boucher, a Democratic congressman from Virginia, is leading one of these efforts by introducing the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA).

A prominent bill related to the DMCA is the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), known in early drafts as the Security Systems and Standards Certification Act (SSSCA). This bill, if it had passed, would have dealt with the devices used to access digital content and would have been even more restrictive than the DMCA.

On the tenth anniversary of the DMCA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documented harmful consequences of the anti-circumvention provisions.^[37] They document that the DMCA:

1. stifles free expression, such as in its use against Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov, Princeton Professor Edward Felten, and journalists;
2. jeopardizes fair use;
3. impedes competition, such as blocking aftermarket competition in toner cartridges, garage door openers, and enforcing walled gardens around the iPod;^[38] and
4. interferes with computer intrusion laws.^[39]

See also[link]

	Government of the United States portal
	Internet portal

References[link]

Litman, Jessica (2000). Digital Copyright. Berlin: Prometheus Books. p. 208. ISBN 1-57392-889-5. 

External links[link]

Works related to Digital Millennium Copyright Act at Wikisource

• H.R. 2281, DMCA
• U.S. Copyright Office summary of the DMCA (PDF format)
• Title 17 of the U.S. Code, Cornell Law School
• Cybertelecom's DMCA information and background material
• A citizen's guide to the DMCA
• ChillingEffects.org, a clearinghouse of DMCA 512 notices and cease and desist letters
• Info on Dealing with Digital Copyrights Infringement including filing DMCA Notices
• Interview of Marcia Hoffman from the EFF on Lenz v. Universal DMCA lawsuit
• Seth Finkelstein, How To Win (DMCA) Exemptions And Influence Policy.
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) page on the DMCA
• Unintended Consequences: Ten Years under the DMCA - EFF
• Media Copyrights Law

Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski (born January 23, 1943 in Lublin, Poland) is a biochemist and a physician. He is founder, president and chairman of the controversial Burzynski Research Institute Inc. (OTCBB: BZYR), based in Houston and Stafford, Texas. Since December 1976, Burzynski has administered peptides and their metabolites, which he calls antineoplastons, as treatments with alleged anti-cancer activity.

There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved these products for the treatment of any disease.^[1] The American Cancer Society has stated since 1983 that there is no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer and recommended that people do not buy these products since there could be serious health consequences to patients who use this therapy.^[2][3] A 2004 medical review described antioneoplaston treatment as a "disproven therapy".^[4] Oncologists have described Burzynski's research on antineoplastons as "flawed" and "scientific nonsense",^[5] and independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.^[6]

Burzynski’s use and advertising of antineoplastons as an unapproved cancer therapy were deemed to be unlawful by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas Attorney General,^[7][8] and limits on the sale and advertising of the treatment were imposed as a result. In 1994, Burzynski was found guilty of insurance fraud for filing a claim for reimbursement by a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment.^[9] In 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.^[10]

Background[link]

In 1967, at age 24, Burzynski graduated from the Medical Academy in Lublin, Poland, with an M.D. degree with distinction. In 1968, he received his doctorate, D.Msc. He was licensed to practice medicine in the United States in 1973 by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners.^[11]

From 1970 to 1972, Burzynski was employed as a research associate at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. In 1972, he was named assistant professor of medicine at Baylor and remained in this position until 1977. In May that year, Burzynski founded the Burzynski Clinic in West Houston, Texas, treating his patients there.

He founded the Burzynski Research Institute in 1984.^[12] Burzynski has authored various research publications on antineoplastons^[13] and holds American patents on the treatments.^[14]

Antineoplaston therapy[link]

Antineoplaston is a name coined by Burzynski for a group of peptides, derivatives, and mixtures that he uses as an alternative cancer treatment.^[15] These compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered by Burzynski as part of what he calls "clinical trials", that he runs at his own establishments, the Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas.^[1][16][17] The clinical efficacy of antineoplaston combinations for various diseases has been the subject of many such trials by Burzynski and his associates, but these have not produced any clear evidence of efficacy. Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".^[5] In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies: the National Cancer Institute has observed that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results,^[6] and Cancer Research UK states that “available scientific evidence does not support claims that antineoplaston therapy is effective in treating or preventing cancer.”^[18]

Legal issues[link]

In 1993, Burzynski was brought to court in Texas for treating patients with a treatment not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and for selling antineoplastons in interstate commerce.^[7][8] In 1998 the Texas Attorney General, Dan Morales, placed limits on his advertising of antineoplastons^[19] and ordered him to cease and desist selling his products, without FDA supervised clinical trials.^[9] Burzynski had appealed the limitations on his advertising on the grounds of free speech, but the appeal court upheld the decision, stating that "Burzynski's commercial speech does not concern a lawful activity."^[7] Burzynski was also found guilty of fraud in 1994, as he claimed reimbursement from a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment.^[9]

In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to the Burzynski Research Institute, stating that an investigation had determined the Burzynski Institutional Review Board (IRB) "did not adhere to the applicable statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the protection of human subjects." It identified a number of specific findings, among them that the IRB had approved research without ensuring risk to patients was minimized, had failed to prepare required written procedures or retain required documentation, and had failed to conduct required continuing reviews for studies, among others. The Institute was given fifteen days to identify the steps it would take to prevent future violations.^[20]

In December 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.^[10]

In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski for using false and misleading tactics to swindle her out of $100,000. She also sued his companies, The Burzynski Clinic, the Burzynski Research Institute and Southern Family Pharmacy, in Harris County Court. She sued for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceptive trade and conspiracy.^[21]

[edit] 2010 film, Burzynski - Cancer is Serious Business

The 2010 film, Burzynski, Cancer is Serious Business, directed, written, edited, and narrated by Eric Merola, an art director of television commercials, describes Burzynski's use of antineoplastons and his legal clashes with government agencies and regulators.^[22] The Village Voice commented that the movie "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" and that by interviewing only Burzynski's supporters, the film’s producer "is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement".^[23] Variety described the film as having the qualities of a "paranoid conspiracy theory" and likened it to the National Enquirer, adding that the film’s explanatory diagrams are "simplistic to the point of idiocy". The review concluded that "despite its infotainment look, Burzynski ultimately proves convincing."^[24] Prior to the debut of "Burzynski", Houston Press correspondent Cory Malisow reviewed the pre-release press kit and, after being refused an interview with Merola, mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, calling it "a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism", and criticized it for presenting only Burzynski's side of the story.^[25]

Burzynski Clinic's legal threats to online critics[link]

In November 2011, a music writer and editor for the British newspaper The Observer sought help raising £200,000 to have his 4-year-old niece, who was diagnosed with glioma, treated at the Burzynski Clinic.^[26] Several bloggers reported other cases of patients who had spent similar amounts of money on the treatment, and had died, and challenged the validity of Burzynski's treatments.^[27][28] Marc Stephens, identifying himself as a representative of the Burzynski Clinic, sent emails accusing them of libel and demanding that coverage of Burzynski be removed from their sites.^[29] One of the bloggers who received threatening e-mails from Stephens was Rhys Morgan,^{[30][31][32][33]} a 17-year old sixth-form student from Cardiff, Wales previously noted for exposing the Miracle Mineral Supplement;^[34][35] another was Andy Lewis, a skeptic and publisher of the Quackometer blog.^[36][37][38] Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing summarized Stephens' threats and referred to the Streisand Effect.^[39]

Following the publicity fallout resulting from the legal threats made by Stephens against the bloggers, the Burzynski Clinic issued a press release on November 29, 2011 confirming that the Clinic had hired Stephens “to provide web optimization services and to attempt to stop the dissemination of false and inaccurate information concerning Dr. Burzynski and the Clinic”,^[40] apologizing for comments made by Stephens to bloggers and for the posting of personal information (e.g. a satellite image of Morgan's home), and announcing that Stephens “no longer has a professional relationship with the Burzynski Clinic.”

The story, including the threats against the bloggers, was covered by the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal). The chief clinician at Cancer Research UK expressed his concern at the treatment offered, and Andy Lewis of Quackometer and science writer Simon Singh, who had previously been sued by the British Chiropractic Association, said that English libel law harms public discussion of science and medicine, and thus public health.^[41]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Burzynski Clinic
• American Cancer Society report on Antineoplaston Therapy
• Quackwatch on Burzynski
• Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. FORM 10-K For the fiscal year ended February 28, 2011. Legally-required financial statements and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

William "Billy" Woods (born 24 October 1973 in Cork) is an Irish former professional football player. He is now the First Team Coach with Cork City.

Woods played all his schoolboy football with Midleton before spending two and a half years at Coventry City. He joined Cork City in 1993 and made his debut in October, playing under manager Damien Richardson during his first stint as manager when City played in Bishopstown.

He joined Tranmere Rovers in July 1995 [1]. After plying his trade there he returned to Ireland and signed for Portadown F.C. for one season in 1997.

Woods signed for Shamrock Rovers in 1998 in time to make his debut away to Altay S.K. in the UEFA Intertoto-Cup on 21 June. He made two appearances for the Hoops in Europe.

A few weeks later he won a FAI Super Cup medal.

In the 1999-00 season he was the club's joint-top goalscorer and even appeared in goal on one occasion.[2]. Woods scored a very memorable goal in the FAI Cup quarter final replay in 2001 [3]. His last game for the club was against Galway United on 31 March 2002.

After Richardson left the club at the end of the 2002 season, Woods rejoined his hometown club.

Woods won the League of Ireland Championship in November 2005. Cork City beat Derry City 2-0 on 18 November 2005 to secure the title in the last game of the season. Although Woods did not play in that game, he had been an integral part of the squad through the year.

After the departure of Liam Kearney to Shelbourne in the 2006 season, Woods filled the gap left by Kearney at left wing.

Woods scored Cork City's winning goal in the UEFA Champions League qualifier in July 2006 against Cypriot champions Apollon Limasoll [4]. Woods was a key player in City's run to the second qualifying round, in which Cork City were beaten by Serbian and former European and World Club Champions Red Star Belgrade 4-0 on aggregate.

Woods agreed to stay with Cork City for another year in February 2007. Once again, he signed a part-time contract with the club so as to dovetail his job as car salesman with training and playing for City.

In February 2008 he signed a new contract to remain at Cork City, but retired in October 2008.[5]

In June 2010, Billy returned to play for Cork City. He made 14 appearances for City that season and was appointed as First Team Coach in December 2010. He is currently doing the UEFA ‘B’ licence and will be enrolling on the course to do his ‘A’ Licence in the coming year.[6]

Honours[link]

• League of Ireland: 1
  • Cork City - 2005
• FAI Cup: 1
  • Cork City - 2007
• FAI Super Cup: 1
  • Shamrock Rovers - 1998
• PFAI Young Player of the Year:
  • Cork City - 1994/95