German Library Allowed To Crack Copy Protection

AlexanderT writes "The EU Directive 2001/29/EU (also known as the European Copyright Directive) has made it "a criminal offence to break or attempt to break the copy protection or access control systems on digital content such as music, videos, eBooks, and software". Since today, at least in Germany there is one notable exception: The Deutsche Bibliothek, Germany's national library and bibliographic information center, has received a "license to copy", i.e. the official authorization to crack and duplicate DRM-protected e-books and other digital media such as CD-Audio and CD-Roms. The Deutsche Bibliothek achieved an agreement with the German Federation of the Phonographic Industry and the German Booksellers and Publishers Association after it became obvious that copy protections would not only annoy teenage school boys, but also prohibit the library from fulling its legal mandate to collect, process and bibliographic index important German and German-language based works."

Comments

Right to read

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this would be a brilliant time to point of this essay, the right to read!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read .html

It'll take you 5 minutes to get through but I think everyone should check it out :)

Re:Right to read

[dash2]

Let me bite.

Should it be illegal to break into someone else's computer? Yes. It's a violation of their privacy and means you could access information which you don't have a right to.

Why doesn't the same logic apply to breaking into someone's copy-protected CD? If you want unlimited rights to the digital content - i.e., you want to actually own the song or software - then you should buy those rights. If you don't have that ownership right then you aren't allowed to try and steal it - even if you own the physical medium.

Re:Right to read

[nkh]

What if tomorrow DVD's are replaced by some other technology?

There is a problem already happening right now: I still use old programs on my 386, programs I can't use anymore on Windows 9X or even XP (shared-memory, not enough EMS...). I have to install emulators to use them and even "crack" their copy protection just to launch them.

Quick Question

[metlin]

Isn't law supposed to be equal for all?

If Joe Sixpack kills someone and is forgiven, why shouldn't anyone else be? While that is an extreme (and criminal) analogy, it is unfair that the law does not treat everyone equally.

I'm sure a good lawyer could argue out this point - if X can be exempted, why can't Y be exempted if his reasons are quite similar?

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Cowherd X]

if X can be exempted, why can't Y be exempted if his reasons are quite similar?

By stating that X is exempted you are confirming the fact that X is an exception to the rule and this is exactly how that saying that the exception proves the rule came about. If you prove the existence of a case is an exception that implies that a rule contrary to that exception must be valid for all other cases.

Re:Quick Question

[Urkki]

• Isn't law supposed to be equal for all?
  If Joe Sixpack kills someone and is forgiven, why shouldn't anyone else be? While that is an extreme (and criminal) analogy, it is unfair that the law does not treat everyone equally.
  

Not really, circumstances matter. An extreme example: an enemy soldier that kills soldier on your side in a battle is not guilty of murder even though he's an enemy (and vice versa your side killing enemy soldiers). But if you purposefully kill a soldier on your side, you're not only guilty of murder, but possibly of treason/sabotage also, even if you're a soldier too.

Do you call that unfair, too?

• I'm sure a good lawyer could argue out this point - if X can be exempted, why can't Y be exempted if his reasons are quite similar?

Well, in this case it'd mean the lawyer would have to show that Y has legal (or moral or somesuch) obligation to do something which requires breaking the copy protection... I wouldn't bet on success, no matter how good the lawyer was at twisting words.

Re:Quick Question

[Advocadus Diaboli]

The aren't exempt from the law; they have negotiated with the publishers for permission to make copies.

No, they negotiated to break the law that says you're not allowed to crack copy protection. If I give you the permission to break into my house its still a criminal act if you do so. And every police officer will ask: "If he gave you access permission to his house, why didn't he give you a housekey?". So, if content industry wants to give copy permission to someone they have to give them unprotected material, otherwise the copying party is still breaking applicable law!

Re:Quick Question

[PastaLover]

Basically it's a very different thing. This is IP law. The publishers can extend copying rights to everyone they please, including the public libraries. That they have to crack the protection is a trivial fact as long as it is with the permission of the owner. You cannot make this analogy since it are two very different cases. There's just no comparison. The one is property law, the other is not.

Re:Quick Question

[1u3hr]

No, they negotiated to break the law that says you're not allowed to crack copy protection. If I give you the permission to break into my house its still a criminal act if you do so.

Of course it's not illegal. What if I've lost my key, or the door is jammed, etc, etc... and I ask someone, say a locksmith, to break in to my house. Just about any act short of murder is not illegal if the person you're doing it to has and is capable of giving permission. Sorry, but a silly analogy proves nothing (not that a more sound one does much either, analogies serve mainly as illustrations, not as proofs).

In Australia

[digitalchinky]

I know working for DSD all of the laws relating to 'intercept of communications' are also valid for joe public - meaning what I do in the lab, the public can also do without repercussion from law enforcement.

It seems odd that a library should be alowed to do something, yet the German public can not. Was it to affect me, I'd lobby against the law. Write politicians and such. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, though such exemptions are usually a good start for more stupid laws.

Re:In Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

"Governments have no 'Obligation' beyond the will of the masses."

That's a pretty big obligation, and not one ignored lightly. Besides, in Australia libraries are publicly funded, but are not part of the government as such; public libraries have a charter spelling out the exact role and function. This makes the management of each library seperately accountable, while isolating libraries from government policies. In this regard public libraries are more independent of government policy than, say, the Defence Signals Directorate*.

"The reality (at least in my tiny little world) is that the desires of the masses are lost...I've seen this first hand"

The NSW Labour caucus once met in my living room (planning the strategy that led to Neville Wran's election victory); believe it or not, a lot of politicians actually DO think of the public interest (yes, even Liberals - Neville Bonner used to stay at my place when he was in Sydney). This doesn't mean they aren't capable of making daft legislation because of a lack of technical knowledge, or based on poor or incomprehensible advice from their underlings (such as those who head the DSD for example). I've seen this first hand.

"The laws are all public domain - anyone can read them on the internet, I'm sure we have our fair share of crap laws as well."

So you're saying "because law 'A' is absurd, laws B-Z must also be absurd" (while admitting you've never actually read any legislation); are you TRYING to undermine your own credibility? But then, what makes you think having the legal capacity to monitor high powered RADAR signals (as used in, say, military targetting systems) is such a daft idea? Perhaps you lack the perspective to see why this might be useful (in fact, the folks I know at ASTJIC thought it was a very good idea...). There's also ham radio operators to consider: if monitoring RADAR was illegal, Dick Smith (VK2DIK) could be in gaol right now (good, bad, you decide...)

"My personal opinion, I position all people as equal. The government is 'people' too."

No, the people who make up the government are people, the government itself has no identity other than acting as a servant of the people (BTW, since you work for the DSD, which is a branch of the public service, you are part of the government...do you feel personally accountable for the government's actions? Funny how nobody who draws a public paycheque does); Australia does not yet have an all-powerful President, please do not engage in the American habit of anthropomorphising the government. Libraries are part of the government's obligation to the people: providing education. To reiterate my previous post, private citizens have no obligation to provide education to anyone else. So who deserves more leniency when it comes to copyright: an organization that has a written obligation to the public, or individuals who have no obligations whatsoever? You didn't refute my point, merely stated an opposing opinion while providing a very weak analogy which tried to argue that all laws are flawed (or, if that wasn't your intention, that the Telecommunications act and amendments are somehow related to copyright, which they aren't). It would be equally logical to argue that all DSD personelle have had their brains scrambled by high-energy pulses (since some actually have**), and should therefore be ignored.

Disclaimer: IAAL. Yes, I(really)AAL.

*When abreviating it is polite to supply the definition of the initials where it won't be readily obvious to an audience. You and I know who you work for, but the 5.976 billion people who aren't Australian might need some help.

**Don't stand too close to the Gunn diodes.

Now, if only they could decompile stuff too...

[mrchaotica]

Cracking copy protection on books and music is great, but what about software? N years from now we'll be able to read the books, but all the old abandonware will be useless because the source code is long gone... And no, emulation doesn't cut it because you can't make derivative works.

(BTW, I do realize that software isn't included in their mandate, but it's still an important related issue!)

But how will they do it?

[jlar]

At least in the Danish implementation of the EU copyright directive it is illegal to produce, import, spread, sell, lease out, advertise for or in a commercial setting own products or components that are subject to advertised as usable for circumventing technological protection measures, only have limited use besides circumvention of technological protection measures or is primarily produced to make it possible to circumvent technological protection measures.

The German implementation is probably similar. My question is: How can the German Library break the copy protection when it is illegal to produce tools to do it?

Great, it doesn't solve the problem though.

[Anonymous Coward]

The European Copyright Directive and other laws in that nature make it increasingly difficult for libraries to deliver meaningful content to their users. This is especially obviouse when it comes to university libraries.

Take subito (http://www.subito-doc.de/) for example. It's a service provided by university libraries that let's you order copies of articles in case the relevant journal is not available in your local library. Now with universities always getting less money than actually needed, it's quite common that much of the journals you need are not available locally and so subito really provides a very useful service to students and scholars.

However, this will probably stop in a short while as there is a legal battle raging against it brought by the same institutions that gave the Deutsche Bibliothek to crack DRM.

To sum it up, these laws are in fact hindering innovation and research in Germany (and I'm sure also in other countries) right now and to give some special rights to one library won't change that.

In Sweden...:D

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha funny. A ruling from a couple of week ago in Sweden made it legal for anyone to crack programs and other schemes as long as it is for personal use. You are also allowed to distribute the cracked software to personal friends.

(This is the case against the cracker group DOD, Drink or Die. While the American members all got jailed the Swedish member (who actually did most of the cracking) was freed of all charges)

And yes, Sweden is also in the EU but thankfully our local laws can override BS laws like this (i think)

Pretty Meaningless

[MunchMunch]

This would be important if the German National Bibliothek had somehow negotiated a way to ensure that non-DRMed copies will be made available to them for the library archives. As it is, they've only really negotiated the ability to archive for maybe another five to ten years, as by then content will more likely than not simply not be crackable.

I only need to point to the TCPA/Palladium/locked-bios architectures that pop up every so often--if you're someone who thinks DRM will 'always be crackable as long as the content can be seen,' I have to suggest that maybe you aren't fully taking in the DRM onslaught that is about to take place. If content decoding only takes place in your speakers, monitor, etc, with watermarked/recorder-distorting tech within the images themselves, are you really prepared to crack open your monitor and speaker, braving deadly electrical currents, to solder around a connection or two in order to get a clean signal? What about when it all happens within a single piece of silicon?

The German Bibliothek basically won the rights they already had before the EU/CD and which any logical person would argue they had as a matter of course. What they've lost in this 'victory' is the future.

De directive is inherently flawed...

[lucason]

I think this whole idea of it being illegal to even try to crack copy-protection is inherently flawed.

In fact, it takes away completely the importance of actually creating copy protection of any level of quality.

It's like locking your bike with a 1 digit combination lock that only goes up to 9 and then ranting about the fact that it gets stolen. I think this whole idea of it beeing illegal to even try to crack copy-protection is inherently flawed.

In fact, it takes away completely the importance of actually creating copy protection of any level of quality.

It's like locking you bike with a 1 digit combination lock that only goes up to 9 and then ranting about the fact that it gets stolen.
Apparently one only has to say the work is copy-protected. No actual protection seem to be required.

Where is the obligation of the owner to actually protect his property?
We have it for physical property. In many countries it is illegal to keep expensive items in plain sight in you car for instance. Its just to tempting. Hell even adam and eve couldn't help themselves when it came to forbidden fruit. While I don't necesarily agree with the idea that keeping a laptop on the front seet of your car is asking for it, I do object to it beeing illegal to crack copy protection by pressing the shift button. (talking about the extreemly lame copy protection used on some audio-CDs)

In fact it's not cracking at all.

You can't charge someone for breaking and entering if you left the door open, right?
You can't shoot your neighbour for tresspassing if you didn't put up a fence either.

So where are the definitions of what actuallt IS a copy-protection?You don't even have to create copy protection, you just have to say its copy protected.