Slashdot Log In
DMCA Exemption Time
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Oct 08, 2008 04:39 AM
from the circumvent-with-daring-and-whimsy dept.
from the circumvent-with-daring-and-whimsy dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Since the Summary Is Poor. . . (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Since the Summary Is Poor. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
I suggest the exemption "Works protected by copyright where copying or circumventing technical protection measures is performed for purposes that would be traditionally considered fair use?"
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
>>>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.
>>>
Awesome! That means I can freely copy Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Colecovision, and other ancient videogames. Cool. Because my Atari died long ago (making my 60 carts unplayable), and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This exemption is talking about the right to circumvent copy prevention, not actually the right to copy the media, if I understand it right.
As such you are not breaking the pro DRM clause of the DMCA, but may still be foul of copyright law. Of course, this is where "fair use" becomes relevant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are private libraries invalid in your world? They were extremely important as the foundation of public libraries. You know why? buncha idiots thought asinine restrictions were good for sales.
Re:Since the Summary Is Poor. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
7. Any encrypted or protected media - so the lawful user can utilise it on any one device at a time
This would make the real purpose of the DCMA pointless but make the stated purpose still valid ...
Parent
Re:Since the Summary Is Poor. . . (Score:5, Funny)
I can only think of two exemptions.
1. Software
2. Hardware
There may be others, but that's all I can come up with.
Parent
I love how... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I love how... (Score:5, Insightful)
Until someone decides to invalidate the law.
Just keep copyright bound to a person and not to a company. And let the copyright be valid only 5 years after the death of that person to let it be able to cover for funeral costs in case that's needed.
For computer software there should only be copyright if there is support for the software.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just keep copyright bound to a person and not to a company.
I generally agree.
And let the copyright be valid only 5 years after the death of that person to let it be able to cover for funeral costs in case that's needed.
I disagree. We should not have laws or rules on the books which -encourage- the one hit wonder, or the 'create ONE work, live forever off of it' mentality.
Public Domain is our friend.
Re:I love how... (Score:5, Insightful)
" It's not the government's place to encourage creativity"
Umm.. better re-read the little phrase in the Constitution that authorizes copyrights and patents. You know, the bit about promoting progress in the useful arts and sciences. It explicitly is the govenrment's place to encourage creativity. It's a pity that the govenrment seems to limit said encouragement to creative accounting practices nowadays.
Perhaps you meant it is not the government's place to discourage mindless banal entertainments?
Parent
Re:I love how... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the government's place to encourage creativity.
That's the entire point of copyright laws. The NATURAL order of things would be that anybody can copy anything they want. That's the way society worked for generations. If Ugg stole Zar's spear or hatchet they were gonna fight. If Ugg saw Zar using them, and decided to go out and grab some rocks and sticks and make his own spear or hatchet, then nobody gave a damn. Under that natural system there would be no "owners" of ideas. If you could create or duplicate of any item that another person possessed or invented using your own physical resources, then all was well. Copyright was established in order to grant creators a limited monopoly during which to profit from their works in order to . . . encourage creativity.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
let the copyright be valid only 5 years after the death of that person to let it be able to cover for funeral costs
Could even be shorter than that... corpses start to smell after a while...
Re:I love how... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, that sounds like a great idea for a bestseller. Might if I buy it off you?
Re:I love how... (Score:4, Interesting)
"And let the copyright be valid only 5 years after the death of that person to let it be able to cover for funeral costs in case that's needed."
A problem with death + 5 years is that for very lucrative works (e.g. Harry Potter) then it becomes profitable for people to assassinate the author simply in order to get rid of copyright on a work.
Death + 50 years or at a push 20 years might do it, and the current 75 years is too long - especially when it is extendable e.g. Mickey Mouse never going out of copyright...
Parent
Within a single device... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about a simple exemption for "fair use?"
This would of course cover your examples, plus the 6 already listed and any number of other situations where the value of the intellectual property is not in any way lessened.
Re:Within a single device... (Score:5, Interesting)
It already exists. The problem is that it's illegal to sell, trade, or give away any program or information which helps the end user circumvent the protection for any purpose, including fair use. It's like making guns legal, but outlawing the manufacture and publication of instructions on how to make guns, ammunition, and propellants.
Parent
Re:Within a single device... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the law is very specific in preserving existing fair use rights. What it prevents is anyone providing the means for circumvention to exercise those rights. So if you are allowed, under fair use, to format shift then you are allowed to do so for a DRM encrypted file as well. The only challenge is that it is illegal for anyone to sell software to crack the encryption. Note that I didn't say that it was illegal to buy cracking software - only to sell it. It's like telling you that you can drink as much as you want, but it is illegal for anyone to give or sell you anything to drink. You can't even pay someone to dig a well for you, or sell you a pump - you have to do it yourself, or find someone who is outside of US jurisdiction to do it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bingo.
Sell, or give away. At least within US Jurisdiction. Thankfully, the Internet is global.
My own personal addition would be:
"Sales or gifts of software designed to aid in the decryption of protected works where that decryption is performed for uses defined under Fair Use principles."
Let's just get the Copyright office to gut the law this time around.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Any right they can take away from you, they can sell back to you. So, from a publishers point of view, all fair use rights lessen the value of a work.
Making math illegal. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Making math illegal. (Score:5, Informative)
There is no line. If the case goes to court, the judge or jury will make a decision. It's impossible to draw a line in a situation like this. Also it doesn't have to be a device, CSS keys posted on Digg and elsewhere have been slapped with DMCA take-down notices before now - although just because some company issued a take-down notice, that doesn't mean it would stand up in court. Also DeCSS source code has been taken down as well.
In the case of the Caesar cypher, I think the (specific to my media or not) is important, it has to be specific to your media in order to infringe your rights under the DMCA. If you're daft enough to use some media format that is so common that there might actually be ROT13 code out there that already works on it without modification, then you'd probably be thrown out of court.
Parent
Re:Making math illegal. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's up to human judgement. You would need to convince the court that your "encryption" is a mechanism for preventing unauthorised access. Your opponent would try to convince the court that it isn't. You may want to find a cryptography specialist as an expert witness
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?
See above. Most cryptography specialist would point out that this is just a data representation change.
Is thinking about breaking encryption illegal?
No.
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?
It's manufacturing, importing or distributing a device that is intended for circumventing encryption. Probably wouldn't apply to a formula.
Is it illegal to give the formula to people? How about emailing it to people?
Depends on your motivations. This is different from your stated motivations. If you're clearly lying when you're saying it's for academic study only then it's still not legal.
Where's the line?
There is no line. This is why humans interpret the laws rather than machines. We can handle fuzzy logic.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's manufacturing, importing or distributing a device that is intended for circumventing encryption. Probably wouldn't apply to a formula.
And if that formula is machine parseable since that's what code boils down to...
Depends on your motivations. This is different from your stated motivations. If you're clearly lying when you're saying it's for academic study only then it's still not legal.
Where did I say it was for academic study? Does it mention it in the DMCA? Is it one of those screwup pieces of legislation where it's legal if I print the source code for a copy protection cracker in a book (think PGP) and mail it to someone but illegal if I email it to them. Or would both be illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the line?
The line is where it is perceived to, now or in the future, cost a company money.
Re:Making math illegal. (Score:4, Funny)
Your IP has been recorded
I hope they are not using the MediaSentry method of IP recognition and determination.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dammit, you people just don't give up on your quest to copy every bit of Intellectual Property you can find!
One more bit copied.
Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way such a broad exemption is going to get anywhere. Essentially you're saying "it would be really nice if they'd just open the flood gates for any circumvention at all".
First Sale (Score:3, Interesting)
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".
here is a good one (Score:3, Interesting)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And of course if this software is open source, you can just remove the MovieData->ReEncrypt() call and re-compile.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"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."
Why limit it to 1 copy? This just forces another layer of DRM to manage that one copy.
1) Circumvention is allowed for transfer to player devices (ipod, home media system, etc.) by individuals
This would also cover other home media devices and library systems as well, even Linux and open source media players. Exempt the intent (to play).
2) Circumvention is allowed for creating personal use duplicates for the purpose of use in high risk environments such as automobiles and children's use for personal u
Why Only CDs? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why Only fitness of purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I can take my car apart piece by piece if I wanted to and reassemble it to my liking without breaking any laws. Why? Because my car is my property. Having "reasonable access" to something is no where even close to being the same as owning something.
Parent
Consumables... namely printer carts (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
DRM Music where 'Managing Server' is Gone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM Music where 'Managing Server' is Gone (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the only comment I've read so far with a reasonable idea for submission. Anything that had DRM that depends on an outside source should automatically be fair game if they shut down the servers. Movies and video games included. What happens if Steam goes belly up?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution to this is simple: if the DRM servers are shut down, all content protected by those servers lose copyright unless replaced.
Copyright CAN be revoked when misused. It needs to happen in these cases. Record companies need to know that there is something worse than buyers making casual copies for friends, that if the buyer loses the ability to play their purchase, everyone in world will gain the right to make unlimited legal copies.
Definitely need a tougher exception for Spore (Score:4, Insightful)
Tougher exception for all Digital Media (Score:3, Interesting)
> 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.
Nothing but a fig leaf. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
A solution (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Not going to get much this time around (Score:2)
Sorry folks, we're going to have to suck it up for a few years until we can make
someone submit this for me: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
A narrow example of fair use, maybe? (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.
Removal of Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
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...