Slashdot Mirror
Librarian of Congress Posts DMCA Exemptions
MrNerdHair writes "The Librarian of Congress has posted a list of exemptions from the DMCA (also obtainable in PDF here.) Works falling in four 'classes' may be considered exempt from Section 1201 of the DMCA's prohibition against 'circumvention of a technological measure which effectively controls access to a work.' Among the list are blacklists of sites used in programs such as NetNanny and cracks to bypass dongles on abandonware. All in all, a very interesting read ..." Not just interesting: as Robin Gross writes, "Unfortunately, the ruling leaves the vast majority of consumers unable to access their own property, such as skipping commercials on DVDs, playing CDs in their PCs, and reading eBooks on PDA's without violating the DMCA." Update: 10/29 15:19 GMT by T : Take a look at Seth Finkelstein's site for an idea of how being pushy can sometimes be helpful; Finkelstein has loudly pushed for the importance of DMCA exemptions, including in Congressional testimony.
Created with word or something similarly evil, but here it is:
IP Justice Media Release
Contact: Robin Gross, IP Justice Executive Director
+1 415-553-6261 robin@ipjustice.org
October 28, 2003
US Copyright Office DMCA Ruling Issued
Consumers Still Unable to Make Lawful Use of Digital Media
Today the US Librarian of Congress issued its Ruling in the triennial proceedings pursuant to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to determine possible exemptions to the DMCA's general ban on circumvention of technological restrictions controlling copyrighted works. Unfortunately, the ruling leaves the vast majority of consumers unable to access their own property, such as skipping commercials on DVDs, playing CDs in their PCs, and reading eBooks on PDA's without violating the DMCA.
The Librarian's ruling is based upon the recommendation of the US Copyright Office after conducting its public study on the adverse impact on the ability to make fair use and other lawful uses of digital media.
The US Librarian of Congress has created the following four narrow exemptions from the DMCA's general ban on circumvention for the next three-years:
1. Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to prevent receipt of email.
2. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.
3. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access.
4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format
The first two exemptions are very similar to the original two exemptions granted by the Librarian in the first DMCA Rulemaking in 2000. While the two new exemptions will be useful to a small handful of consumers, the Librarian's ruling still leaves the vast majority of legitimate consumer uses of digital media illegal under the DMCA.
During the Rulemaking, IP Justice requested the Librarian issue exemptions to permit consumers to access their DVDs, CDs, and ebooks on the devices of their choosing and in the manner of their choosing.
"Its disappointing that the US Copyright Office and Librarian continue to relinquish their power to protect the rights of American consumers to lawfully use their own property as Congress had intended when it created this rulemaking proceeding in 1998," said IP Justice Executive Director Robin Gross, who testified in both the 2000 and 2003 US Copyright Office Hearings.
Even though the Librarian's ruling creating exemptions to the DMCA's general ban on circumvention under 1201 (a)(1), all the tools that are necessary to practically carry out that exemption are still forbidden under 1201(a)(2).
In the 2000 US Copyright Office DMCA Rulemaking, two exemptions were issued to the general ban on circumvention.
1. Compilations consisting of lists of Web sites blocked by filtering software applications.
2. Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsolescence.
US Copyright Office Ruling of Oct. 28, 2003:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
The Recommendation of th
As a matter of fact, he is a he.
The LOC pretty much exists for two reasons:
- Writing reports for Congress
- Letting PhD candidates research
His job is to set library policies that further those two goals.All's true that is mistrusted
We're not talking about the rights to the movie. We're talking about ownership of the EQUIPMENT and SOFTWARE to play it. If I want to go buy a DVD from Amazon.com or buy DRM-crippled music from the iTunes Music Store, then I'm free to do so. If I want to buy a DVD player from Fry's or an iPod from Apple, then I'm free to do so.
Suppose I wanted to *lease* a DVD player (like a car) - then the lessor can impose restriction whatever restrictions he wants on me modifying HIS property, and I don't think anyone would find this unreasonable.
However, if I want to modify my DVD player THAT I PAID FOR, FAIR AND SQURE, so I can skip commercials, then I should be free to do so. And if I want to write a program that can play the stuff on the DVD disc THAT I PAID FOR, then I should be free to do so.
We are not asking for NEW allowances. The old copyright law was fine. It's the DMCA that has to go.
The consumer owns the disc. The copyright holder, once it's sold, does not. Copyright doesn't grant ownership of the movie, it only grants exclusive right to copy. Have you not read any of the explainations posted on /. describing the difference between property and copyright? I'd go over it again, but no one ever seems to listen...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
A "dongle" is a piece of otherwise useless computer hardware that attaches to a port (parallel, serial, USB, or otherwise) and contains a simple or complex "black box" chip. Software that relies on a dongle sends a signal to the port that the dongle is attached to, and if it receives a "proper" signal back, it allows the use of the software. Otherwise the software remains locked and unusable. We used to use these at a place where I interned for a summer.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
Buy a book. See any license agreement on it? No, such has been tried and explicitly rejected by law. You buy the book, you own the book and its content. You license nothing at all. You are merely restricted from making illegal (as opposed to unauthorized. Think about it) copies.
You may use the content in any manner you like. Cut it up and rearrange all words if you wish. Read it anywhere, under any circumstances. This is your right. Because you own it. You do not license the content.
Hey, same thing for videotape. How about that! Nifty, huh?
Analog. Its yours. For keeps.
Fancy that.
KFG
That's just the thing. Unlike, say, the Bill of Rights, copyright for both the public and the holder, is a very narrow grant of power implicitly to further 'science and the useful arts.' I'm completely on your side, in so far as I believe in corollary rights, such as a right to one's culture, and a 'right' in a Hohfeldian sense in that copyright is a bargain and generates rights that are not being honored, but a substantive constitutional negative liberty right it is not.
In fact, by framing it in terms of 'inalienable rights,' you're actually helping the other side, because the key point of disinformation coming out of the MPAA and RIAA lobbying groups is always phrasing their assertion of power as being morally right insofar as it's against 'theft of intellectual property.' This terminology taken from physical property is vitally important, because that you can't be deprived of physical property is an inalienable right under the constitution.
So the MPAA and RIAA are basically reframing copyright in such a way that they can reasonably demand stronger control over the things they publish, such as we've seen in the debate about (and subsequent S. Court decision in favor of, in essence,) perpetual terms, as well as the great expansion of copyright's scope (Girl Scouts singing campfire songs anyone?). Although they wouldn't publicly phrase it that way, that is the necessary and logical conclusion of their use of physical property issue-framing. By asserting that you have inalienable rights, you're supporting, however inadvertantly, a stronger constitutional test that is, right now, the strongest threat to the public's stake in copyright.