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.

10 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. It should be the other way round by caston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really there should be a list of things that ARE covered by the DCMA so that companies can't blidning through the DCMA around everytime they feel threatended.

    --
    Beings aspergers AND pulling chicks... I enjoy the challenge!
  2. Sweet by Wah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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


    Windows 95 is considered obsolete and unsupported by Microsoft, right? And doesn't that end many questions on MAME?

    I can't wait for the next round of exceptions.

    --
    +&x
    1. Re:Sweet by Fryed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And doesn't that end many questions on MAME?


      Well, the way I read this (IANAL), it now seems legal to break the whatever copyright protection was installed onto a game if the format of the game has become obsolete, and which in unaltered form would require the original media/hardware to use. So basically, if you own an old, obsolete arcade game, you can legally circumvent the copyright protection so that you can extract the ROM and use it on your PC.

      Now, how many MAME users actually own old arcade hardware, and intend to use MAME to play that arcade game? Distributing the ROMs to anyone is still illegal, but I guess it would now be legal for me to tell you how to rip the ROM out of your own board yourself.

      Windows 95 is considered obsolete and unsupported by Microsoft, right?

      Yes, Windows 95 is considered obsolete by Microsoft, but the format it is distributed on (CDs) are not. Furthermore, there's not really any DRM on the Windows 95 cd anyway, aside from the installation program asking for a valid key, so the point is moot.

      What this exemption really means is that if, in the future, software was distributed on DRM enabled media, and then further into the future, the DRM media they 'obsolete' and few people had drives that could read them, it would be legal to tell someone how to extract data from that media and use it on the current hardware.

  3. No, Circumvention != Copying by Myriad · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Doesn't this make emulators like MAME and the use of ROMS legal now?

    Unfortunately no. Section 2 & 3 specifically state (emphesis mine):

    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.

    So this says you are allowed to bypass and DRM or other copy protection necessary to access the software if it is no longer feasable to do it legally... BUT you must own the software in the first place to do this. Otherwise it could still be considered piracy.

    Blockwars: multiplayer gaming... free!

    --
    "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
  4. Re:Question... by spinkham · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doesn't matter. Basically, this means that if you bought a NES game, and the NES is no longer on the market, you can write a program that allows you to use the game you bought in another way (like an emulator, for example).
    It does not invalidate the copyright on the game, and allow you to redistribute the rom, or to download the rom from somewhere else. It just lets you get at what you have bought to be used in a way the maker didn't design for you.
    Using the term "abandonware" which people connect with downloading roms you have not purchased an original cartridge or software license for only confuses the issue.

    --
    Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
  5. Re:The saddest thing by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's BS, it's not like copyright infringement has been or was any worse than it was before the digital age. The only things that changed were hard economic times and the copyright holders believing they now had the technical means to control their works in ways that were never before possible. When they found out that the technical means were there, but that their money couldn't buy enough technical prowess to keep these new controls in place, they lobbied for laws so that they could.

    This has never been about people infringing copyright, it's about control and maximizing profit. These changes came about as a result of it being technology possible to restrict buyers this way, NOT as a result of people needing to be restricted.

  6. Re:The saddest thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed.

    This is all about protecting a business model that political, social, and technological changes has rendered depreciated.

    Take a look at the upheaval AC power created, and the underhanded, illegal and unethical (by today's standards) tactics used by "big business" to protect that monopoly.

    The old saw about "...who ignore history..." has never been truer.

  7. Awwwww, too bad... by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So I can't watch DVD's in my Mandrake box? Or in my Xbox Media Center (should I decide to build one)

    Oh my! What should I do about all these awful copies of DeCSS all over the Internet?

    Um, so sorry, but no one is going to tell me what I can or can not do with property that I posess. It's mine, I paid for it, I traded CASH for property. I buy property, I don't license it. Licenses are invalid and un-enforceable anyway, just ask SCO. I'll take any and everything apart I own and study it and tell people about it as I see fit.

    I always have and I always will.
    When I was 5 years old a kid game me a 9 transistor pocket radio circa 1966 that was broken. I fixed it by taking other radios apart and seeing how they were put together.

    This DMCA is bullshit designed to keep the elite few at the top in total control.
    It stiffles innovation and creativity.
    A hell of a lot of inventions were the spawn of someone trying to improve upon an existing design. You stop people from doing that and you are killing progress.

    DMCA is a draconian and oppressive tool that keeps the rich, rich and the dumb, dumb.

    It's all about the almighty dollar. Greed makes the world go around..

  8. Re:The saddest thing by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I think any competent programmer would tell you that any software copy-protection method, and nearly any hardware copy-protection method CAN be circumvented. Therefore it became necessary for those methods to have some force of law behind them."

    I won't let this degrade into a "did! did not!" debate. But if copyright infringement got worse PROSECUTE. Copyright infringement was ALREADY illegal. The only extension the DMCA added of significance is that it's now illegal to circumvent protective measures EVEN WHERE THEY EXTEND WELL BEYOND the limited controls given by copyright.

    Remember the RIAA nor the musicians own the music, the people own the music. The people have said thankyou for their contribution by giving them LIMITED control for a LIMITED period of time over LIMITED aspects of OUR property.

    Personally I think we need a new DMCA, toss out the old one, copyright holders (myself included, I have copyrights for books, poems, source code, and web content) should lose copyright if they choose technological protections in place of it. They should be mutually exclusive, either you depend on the law and press for it to be enforced, OR you depend on vigilante self enforcement.

  9. Re:Question... by Quarters · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Your example is more akin to software, not the devices used to protect it.

    A good case for this would be Discreet's 3DS Max R3.x. It used a parallel port hardware dongle made by Rainbow. The dongles were exceedingly fragile and would blow out (thus rendering the software useless) quite often. The problem was so bad that eventually Discreet set up a web page to automate the process of entering complaints and getting new dongles sent out.

    While Discreet is on R6 of Max now (with software based licensing schemes), R3 is still a valid product and can be used on modern hardware. A lot of motherboards don't have parallel ports, though. And, even for those that do, Discreet doesn't support R3 any more. They won't replace dead dongles. I don't think that Rainbow is around any more, either. So, when (not if, because it will happen) your dongle goes PFFFFT you will probably be out of luck.

    Now the LoC is saying that in such an instance downloading, or creating, a hack to 3ds max R3 that circumvents the dongle check would be allowable. That is a good thing.