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.

Comments

Re:What are my rights? - it's a very short list.

[silentbozo]

It's a very, very, very short list. You could print it on a t-shirt, or on a postcard. It's nice to know that we have SOME rights, but even then these exemptions are set to expire in 3 years. Here it is:

(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. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

(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.

Definitions. (1) "Internet locations" are defined to include domains, uniform resource locators (URLs), numeric IP addresses or any combination thereof. (3) "Obsolete" shall mean "no longer manufactured or reasonably available in the commercial marketplace." (3) "Specialized format," "digital text" and "authorized entities" shall have the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 121.

These exemptions will remain in effect through October 27, 2006.

Re:she?

[Theatetus]

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.

Re:but it's NOT the consumers property

[seanadams.com]

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.

Re:but it's NOT the consumers property

[Dun Malg]

Sorry - if a consumer wants to own a movie s/he should hire a film crew, construct the sets, pay big names outrageous fortunes, write the scripts, pay for post production, etc. After you spend at least a million (and that's LOW budget) THEN you own a movie, can make copies and give it away, rip it, edit it, whatever you want.

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...

Re:What are dongles

[shadowcabbit]

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.

Re:You own the disc.

[kfg]

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

Be careful

[MunchMunch]

"a completely braindead law that makes it a crime to exercise what was once accepted as 'inalienable rights'."

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.