Internet Archive Gets DMCA Exemption

Paul Hickman writes "The Internet Archive has successfully lobbied for a DMCA exemption for the Software Archive. The IA keeps out-of-date programs, games and other random craziness for future programmers to savor. At the rapid pace of software development, this makes sure that we can create a history for us to remember and wonder at the programming of early games."

Comments

Can they ignore takedown orders?

[Kadin2048]

Does this mean that they can ignore DMCA takedown orders on all content? Or just that they're immune to prosecution if they reverse-engineer and break a copy-protection system of a work that's already in the public domain and out of copyright?

If it's the latter, while it's a nice move, there isn't really any software (except stuff on Hollerith cards) that's anywhere near getting into the public domain anyway. So it would seem to be a moot point. If they have permission to archive all content though, even stuff that's still in copyright, that would be decent.

I've read elsewhere though that the exemptions from the Copyright Office aren't permanent, but need to be renewed every few years or they expire. So all that has to happen to destroy everything is for an administration to pressure the Copyright Office to let the exemption slip, and then threaten to prosecute the IA if they don't destroy the de-protected works. Someone in another thread likened it to being given a Band-Aid after you've gotten the crap beaten out of you with a lead pipe; a nice gesture, but ultimately it would have been nicer to not get beaten in the first place.

Re:Can they ignore takedown orders?

[HTH NE1]

There is no fair use on a commercial scale, its just using someone else's work to gain profit

Scale != gain. You could make no money, not even at your own loss (not recouping your own costs), and still infringe on a commercial scale.

Also, criminal penalty for incitement to pirate? So if I were to tell people to massively violate Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie (or other works that would have gone to the public domain if not for extensions), and people do it on a scale of a commercial act, even if not for commercial gain, that would be criminal incitement to infringe copyright.

Expect any sharing that isn't limited in volume of copies to be considered commercial-scale infringement. Especially as they don't care how many copies you make but rather how many copies you potentially could have made to googol the penalties (remember talk of small operations' equipment being "equivalent to N 1x CD burners"?).

Not just IA

[Rob T Firefly]

What's important to note here is that the exemption isn't limited just to the Internet Archive. IANAL but unless I'm reading something hideously wrongly, this seems to generally exempt software from the protection granted by the DMCA if the hardware to run it isn't reasonably available. Have they just legitimized the abandonware scene?

Re:Now all that we need is

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiots wielding mod points is the problem.

Re:Who funds the Internet Archive?

[MushMouth]

The internet archive predates Alexa, although both were founded by Brewster Kahle. As for ad-aware, they have not offered any explanation as to why alexa is identified for removal, yet the google toolbar, even with "advanced features" enabled, is not. A friend of mine who is swedish and works for alexa even stopped by the lavasoft office in sweden to request a meeting. Most likely it helps that google bundles ad-aware with the google desktop.

not good news

[Magic5Ball]

Not yay!

Seeking and receiving an exemption validates and legitimizes the DMCA. This is very similar to answering "no" to "Did you steal software today?"