Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Exemption Time
jvillain writes "Contentagenda notes that the Copyright Office is taking submissions for exemptions to the DMCA. They do this every three years. There's a description of the six exemptions made last time to give you some ideas. So fire up the keyboard and let the Copyright Office know what needs to be changed. If you don't get in now, it'll be another three years before you can try again."
I decided to copy the text of TFA:
Media Wonk
User Profile
Paul Sweeting
Paul Sweeting is the editor of ContentAgenda.com and a columnist for Video Business. He has covered the home entertainment industries since 1985 for Billboard, Variety, Publishers Weekly and other leading business publications. He is based in Washington, DC.
It's DMCA exemption time! - October 6, 2008
Get those anti-circumvention exemptions ready kids! It's time for the Copyright Office's triennial review of Section 1201(a)(1) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in which the Register of Copyrights makes recommendations to the Librarian of Congress about granting temporary exemptions to the ban on circumventing encryption on certain classes of works. The federal register notice is here. Congress added the triennial review to the DMCA as a fail-safe mechanism, in case it turned out that the blanket ban on circumvention was "unduly burdening" fair use of certain types of work. The exemptions are only good for three years, however, and must be reapplied for with each review.
The last rulemaking, in 2006, resulted in six exemptions:
1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or universityâ€(TM)s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.
2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. 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.
3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair 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 either of the bookâ€(TM)s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
6. Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.
Written comments recommending exemptions are due in the Copyright Office December 2, 2008. A notice of proposed rulemaking will be issued later in December based on those recommendations, and final comments are due February 2, 2009.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
... the exemptions are temporary but the law is permanent.
For that WoW Glider guy.
Venomfangx Apologizes to the Internets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4
An exemption should be made for copying within a single device (HD to RAM, for example) or between devices owned by the same person. If I can wish for anything here, make an exemption for any copying without distribution.
Can anyone tell me: how strong does encryption have to be to make breaking it illegal?
Say I create an "encryption algorithm" for images which when it comes down to it does nothing more than invert the image, is anyone selling software which can "break" my encryption now breaking the law?
What if I use nothing more than thousand year old classic like a Caesar cipher to encrypt my media- Is any kid who writes a trivial program to crack such ciphers(specific to my media or not) then breaking the law?
Is thinking about breaking encryption illegal? Is it limited to digital devices or is it illegal to write down a mathamatical formula on paper which can be used to break an encryption scheme?Is it illegal to give the formula to people? How about emailing it to people? How about if the formula is written in a manner than can be parsed by a computer? Or if it's simply example source code for such a program with no executable? that same source code compiled?
Where's the line?
It would be really nice if there were a broad exemption with something about Fair Use of content by media's purchasers. But I wouldn't expect that to come from the FCC but instead a court, since Fair Use arose from Common Law.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
not being unfortunate enough to live in such a despotic state
oh, america, how far you've wandered from freedom
When circumvention is used to transfer content from one device* to another, (or from one owner to another in such a way that the original user no longer has access to the content [such as uploading a file, then deleting the local copy]), in a circumstance which would not normally be permissible due to technical, but not legal, restrictions of the scheme being circumvented.
*"device" is a poor choice of phrase, as this should also cover use of other operating systems or players on a single physical "device".
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
not to say that i actually support Real Media, but for once they made a useful application for people. so lets add this exception:
"Software circumvention of protection can be allowed for personal use in the event that no more then one copy is made and the new copy adds a new and at least equivalent layer of protection. This added protection must not be obsolete and must allow for an identical and identifiable copy."
I dont think that is TOO opened ended, and it would give legit dvd-decryption a boost, as well as make "overcopying" identifiable, at least to a piece of software, a particular DVD or CD, or a user or computer.
they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
According to exemption 6 on the list only CDs can legally be bypassed. That seems awfully ignorant being that Blu-ray, HD-DVD, and even DVD protections pose far greater threats to computer security. Besides, that restricts an owner from having full access to his hardware should really be ruled unconstitutional as a seizure violation. Sure, it is the media distrubuters implement this, but the DMCA is even worse than Kelo vs. City of New London when it comes to the government making it okay for one person to deprive another of the use of their property.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Dear DMCA staff.
Just exempt every content which has once been recorded on a technical medium.
Thanks.
Am I right in thinking that some printer companies use the DMCA to go after those that make compatible cartridges?
If that's true, then I think it's daft and an abuse of the act. If it carries on, we'll have electronics small enough that sheets of paper will start being compatible with specific printers...
Video available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8MDNFaGfT4
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081008/D93M0E5O0.html
I love how it was the fault of the Mexican government that this man couldn't stop shoveling burritos into his grill. This is the problem with the view that the government should be everything to everyone. Personal accountability just goes out the window.
Guess that depends on what you mean by "full access"? One could argue that if it meets it's primary purpose. e.g. Cars go from point A to point B, CD players play music, DVD players play video, etc. Then reasonable access has been provided. The fact that you can use all of the above to cause blunt force damage to others shouldn't be enshrined into law.
With a number of well known brands closing their DRM servers (Walmart, Yahoo!), it ought to be legal to remove the DRM from the audio tracks which they sold. (Really, it ought to be mandatory for the company to do it.)
It's not fun to stay at the |) /\/\ ( /-\ !
There's already an exception for computer software which is no longer supported. I think we need an exception for computer software that requires a potentially expensive phone call to activate. Needs a better argument than EA are idiots though. Having to call and explain why you've installed 3 times already doesn't sound such an onerous task until you have to actually do it.
This "exemption" is nothing but a fig leaf to cover the draconian (and unconstitutional) DMCA act. I say "Ha!" to any act that forbids me to disseminate instructions on how to read ROT13 (in a "copyrighted" work).
The exemptions granted last time around are really, mostly, a "nobody cares" exemption. They were granted so that organizations engaged in archival work can cover their assess -- but they really could've performed said exemptions and the probability of a suit would be infintisimly small.
Where's your platform? Under your sweater?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have a rather simple solution (that will probably never happen) to this problem.
Sell me one license to use/play/run whatever you are selling. Then let me use/play/run it wherever I want whenever I want, however I want.
Give me the right to give or sell my license to someone else, meaning I would no longer be able to use/play/run whatever you are selling anymore.
Let me worry about format shifts, backing it up, keeping track of my devices, etc.
> There's already an exception for computer software which is no longer supported.
> I think we need an exception for computer software that requires a potentially expensive phone call to activate.
> Needs a better argument than EA are idiots though. Having to call and explain why you've
> installed 3 times already doesn't sound such an onerous task until you have to actually do it.
Make it a bit broader. In any case where the manufacturer/activator fails to provide reasonable access to activation. Then we can start to define reasonable terms:
- local or toll-free activation number
- phones answered promptly at all hours
- activation phones properly staffed with people trained to resolve activation issues, not just read a script
- open reasonable hours; if the software is US only, minimum of say, 8 AM EST to 10 PM PST M-Sat. If worldwide, 24/7/365.
- permanent unlock option available if the support must be discontinued
- burden on manufacturer to unlock permanently if they fail to resolve recurring issues for a customer in a reasonably period of time.
- legally defined minimum definitions of reasonable time. Some already exist for other regulated industries; these might be used as a guideline.
And this should be extended to all "Digital Media."
Sorry folks, we're going to have to suck it up for a few years until we can make sure the Great Old Ones don't eat our brains.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Computer programs, video games, and multimedia content in digital format which, in order to operate in the desired manner, require activation to Internet servers which no longer function or are decommissioned. An Internet activation server shall be considered not functioning after one month of downtime.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Public trade in circumvention devices or software are allowed for the personal, non-redistributable use of the purchaser of a consumer product including, but not limited to, format shifting, provided that the reproduction already falls under the fair use provisions of the DMCA.
It doesn't change the letter of the DMCA exemptions, except to make the exemptions available to all citizens - not just those who can crack and code.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
7. no more lexar's
8. no more blizzard
please codify these with more finesse
(Sorry if this is redundant, I haven't had time to read submissions yet. I'm evil! Downmod me!)
Something like "Any material which has been legitimately purchased, where the purpose is to view/hear/otherwise use said material."
Another one:
Copying for personal backup, not to be redistributed. If they redistribute the copy, or even just carelessly allow an unencrypted version of something previously encrypted to go into the wild, they would be exposed to the full consequences of the DMCA, say.
Liberty uber alles.
Any work, which I lawfully own, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of exercising me fair use rights.
They'll take that one, right?
Correctness matters. Mercy matters more.
Freedom of speech should only be taken away when it's a matter of life and death, like shouting "Fire!" in a crouded theater, or giving away national security secrets. Speech that educates people on how to break DRM doesn't fall into that category, and should be protected.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
Hardware lock in / vendor lock in needs a exemption as well so we can.
*Not be locked to useing there INK / replacement parts with there hardware.
*Be able to install software like mac os x on any pc YES YOU STILL HAVE TO BUY IT AT THE STORE to be able to do that.
*Be able to jailbreak hardware to run open / 3rd party software on your OWN xbox, PS3, Cell phone, Iphone, PSP, DS, WII , and more.
*Region locks need to go
*Be able to use 3rd party on line severs with payed for games.
and more
Circumvention should be permitted for purposes of fair use.
This will never fly, of course, since one example of fair use is making backup copies, which is functional indistinguishable from making "backup copies."
The problem with the Real Media DVD copying box was that the DVDCCA thinks it violates the license that RM signed. Regardless of the legal status of any such boxes, companies that have signed license agreements with the DVDCCA can't produce them.
Nick
Copying for the purpose of sharing for free on P2P networks should be exempted because it's the polite thing to do and enriches our public culture. Also, it's going to happen anyway: any law that goes against the general consensus is unlawful in a democracy - we ought to make this a more law abiding society by updating the law! No more special protection for those who would rather steal from the commons than share with it! Copy copiously!
Stupidity is its own reward.
How about an exemption along the lines of:
Any work by a copyright holder who has knowingly filed a false DMCA takedown notice.
In other words: Abuse the bill, it stops protecting you. Sure, you'd need to prove the douche did their douchy act with full douchable knowledge, but it'll be pretty hard for someone to claim 'I didn't know better' after the first time they're caught doing it.
It'd be nice if that exemption could extend to the holder's entire library of IP...
UTF-8: There and Back Again
The links in the summary point to a pdf file and a third party site. Where is the site where you submit your comments to the copyright office?
This should be an easy one. In any case where you've purchased media and the vendor shuts down the DRM servers needed to install or play it or otherwise alters the terms of use after sale.
Less of a slam-dunk but fair: Whenever the cost to replace damaged media (including a lost digital file) exceeds the reasonable cost to manufacture that media and ship it. This should be presumed to be the case when the usual recourse to replace damaged media is to re-buy. Also presumed true when the 'damage' is reaching a re-installation limit.
If the vendor insists that a version update be part of repair or replacement of the media.
This one will never fly, but SHOULD: If the vendor's normal communication channels (helpline, etc) cannot give you a consistent answer on how many licenses and of what type you will need for a specific scenario.
When the copyrighted 'work' is nothing more than a token to enable use of the DMCA to protect non-copyrightable functionality. For example, to prevent a printer from accept a reloaded or 3rd party ink/toner refill. As far as I know, the act of printing even on a specific device is well outside of the scope of copyright. A token string that says accept this cartridge is not reasonably a 'work'
My personal department of evil thoughts would claim that if a violation of DMCA can be claimed, then the protection wasn't effective in the first place, so DMCA doesn't apply at all. But I have no delusions that that would pass!
Make it legal to circumvent the DMCA if you have permission from the copyright holder of the work to make or use a copy. This means that, for example, it would be legal to circumvent the protection on proprietary digital cameras (those ones that you have to bring back to the shop to get the photos out of for example), proprietary formats (camera RAW files etc), mobile phones (where the phone provider has locked down picture transfer) or other locked down technologies in order to get the content you created (and therefore hold the copyright to) off the device. It would also mean that it would be legal to circumvent the protection on a device containing free software (Linux for example) in order to replace the free parts of the software (since you have permission from the copyright holder to make a copy of the software that is already on the device and permission to use a new copy of the software).
How about: "None of the measures mentioned here shall be legally binding in a manner where they are used to disrupt legitimate public discourse."
You are in violation of Section Three of the Official Secrets Act. Slashdot does not have GAME ANDES REDSHIFT clearance. You'll be answering to the auditors for this one.
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
More or Less fundamentally, depending on how you look at it: Copyright exists to allow authors a monopoly for a LIMITED TIME. Because DRM systems will exist (whether or not they have included measures to somehow disable themselves) after that "LIMITED" time, any work which is "protected" by DRM should not be protected by any copyright law (as it never allows entrance into public domain)
Of course, the same applies to all closed-source software- if you don't release source code, and therefor do not give works a chance to ever enter the public domain in a reasonable fashion, your compiled programs should not be protected.
You can't get a patent on an invention without telling everybody how it works, you shouldn't automatically get "copyright" on something when you have gone out of your way to make sure people cannot usefully copy it once the copyright expires.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All