Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption Security Government United States News

DMCA Exemption Time 151

Posted by kdawson
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DMCA Exemption Time

Comments Filter:
  • by Apple Acolyte (517892) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @05:51AM (#25297343)
    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.
    • by adpsimpson (956630) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @06:41AM (#25297571)
      1. Remove "Fair Use" clause from US copyright
      2. Replace with 6 completely defined cases of limited scope
      3. ???
      4. Profit.

      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?"

      • >>>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)

          by adpsimpson (956630)

          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.

          • Oh.

            So nothing's changed then. The Commodore 64 games I copied back in the 80s are still illegal. (shrug). Pass the beer nuts.

        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You are not a library or an archive. This exemption does not apply to you.

          Most of these exceptions are incredibly narrow. Read carefully.

          IANAL, but my common-sense understanding says that it's not specifically permitted, which means it is at least ambiguous enough to tie you up in court for several thousand dollars to try to prove your use is OK.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Gewalt (1200451)

            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.

      • You should also add "working around fraudulent, malicious or incompetent 'copy protection' schemes wherein the DMCA is employed as a legal protection of 'snake oil.'" To me, this is the single largest issue: it's stupid to overemphasise the rights of corporate copyright holders at the expense of the citizens, but to pass a law that simply saying that something is a copy protection or encryption scheme makes it so is exactly like legislating that for some purposes pi is 3.
    • by JasterBobaMereel (1102861) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @08:03AM (#25297929)

      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 ...

  • I love how... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @05:57AM (#25297373)
    ... the exemptions are temporary but the law is permanent.
    • Re:I love how... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Z00L00K (682162) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @07:04AM (#25297655) Homepage

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Sun.Jedi (1280674)

        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.

        • by inphinity (681284)

          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.

          Shouldn't this be the burden of the music/film/literary industry rather than the federal government?

          If Fox wants to spitting out endless seasons of American Idol, let them. It's not the government's place to encourage creativity.

          • Re:I love how... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by WinPimp2K (301497) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @09:28AM (#25298601)

            " 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?

          • by Sun.Jedi (1280674)

            Shouldn't this be the burden of the music/film/literary industry rather than the federal government?

            This is what the music industry WANTS. They want to maintain the copyrights for life + forever so they can continue to make $$ off of the same stale material AND they seem to endorse a 'pay for play' scheme. I'm saying that 'life + n years' is wrong for a copyright. I'd be much more amenable to something like 5 years before works or IP were pushed to public domain and available.

            We are talking copyright, not trademark.

          • Re:I love how... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by MBGMorden (803437) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @02:03PM (#25302781)

            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.

        • by iplayfast (166447)

          Yup. A five year limit on copyright, with very strict penalties for infringement would be more in keeping with today's fast changing world.

          IMHO

        • Copyright, like patents, should be for fixed terms, not dependent on the health of the holder.

          life+t simply encourages Big Media to obtain the still-warm corpses of popular authors and preserve them with "extraordinary means" for as long as possible.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by hobbit (5915)

        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...

        • by pjt33 (739471) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @09:12AM (#25298445)
          Sure, but you don't want to encourage film directors to hire hitmen when authors refuse to sell them the rights to adapt their bestsellers.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by halcyon1234 (834388)

            Sure, but you don't want to encourage film directors to hire hitmen when authors refuse to sell them the rights to adapt their bestsellers.

            Hey, that sounds like a great idea for a bestseller. Might if I buy it off you?

      • Re:I love how... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rufty_tufty (888596) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @09:36AM (#25298685) Homepage

        "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...

        • How about something a little more reasonable, such as 25 years. Period. End of discussion. On all copyrighted works. By then, it either has no value at all, or has become part of the popular culture and should move into the public domain.
        • 20 years total should be plenty. That's an entire generation. It's ludicrous that works produced when you're a child will not be out of copyright before your grandchildren have passed.

      • by delt0r (999393)
        Fixed term would be my preference. say 10-20 years. 10 by default, and extra with fees. Keep em transferable, but after 20, not matter what its public domain.

        But the current terms are far too long. We need to redo the Bern convention. This goes for patents as well.
  • For that WoW Glider [slashdot.org] guy.
  • by grimJester (890090) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @06:14AM (#25297433)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by adpsimpson (956630)

      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.

      • by Overzeetop (214511) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @09:26AM (#25298581) Journal

        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.

        • by T-Bone-T (1048702)

          That is pretty much just like Prohibition. Alcohol wasn't prohibited but basically everything you wanted to do with it was prohibited.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Hatta (162192)

        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)

    by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @06:14AM (#25297439)

    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?

    • by PhilHibbs (4537) <snarks@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @06:37AM (#25297547) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • Between DVD encryption and that game with the scrambled picture and the missing square that you have to move around in order to figure out the picture?
    • by 91degrees (207121) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @07:41AM (#25297819) Journal
      Can anyone tell me: how strong does encryption have to be to make breaking it illegal?

      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by HungryHobo (1314109)

        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?

        • And if that formula is machine parseable since that's what code boils down to...

          I don't know why the FSF doesn't just ignore software patents and the DMCA. They should let this argument be taken to court so both of these rediculous restrictions can be shut the fuck down. I'm pretty sure the FSF, SFLC, and/or EFF have enough money to throw at it.

      • As a cryptographic specialist, I feel required to point out that all common encryption algorithms are "representation changes." Modern ciphers are just complicated combinations of substitution and transposition at a sufficiently abstracted level. The term S-box is an abbreviation of "Substitution box."

    • Where's the line?

      The line is where it is perceived to, now or in the future, cost a company money.

    • by wisty (1335733)
      Tb gb wnvy. Tb qverpgyl gb wnvy. Qb abg cnff Tb. Qb abg pbyyrpg 200 qbyynef.
    • I've been wondering about this a long time, myself.  Another example: What if I'm just some kind of super genius who can look at an encrypted stream of CSS data and manually decode it in my head?

      Which I'm not even sure I'd WANT to be that smart!
  • Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tm2b (42473) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @06:20AM (#25297471) Journal
    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 [wikipedia.org].
    • by PhilHibbs (4537)

      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".

    • by nabsltd (1313397)

      There is a broad exemption for fair use in the DMCA.

      From 17 USC 1201(c)(1):

      Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

      Chapter 12 of copyright law is where the DMCA ended up.

      • by compro01 (777531)

        Sure, you have the fair use rights, but you can't break any sort of content protection/DRM/etc. to exercise those rights.

        Basically, you can copy anything you like under fair use, so long as the producer/distributor made no effort whatsoever to prevent you from doing so.

        • by nabsltd (1313397)

          No, you can break the DRM...that's the point of the paragraph.

          The "nothing in this section shall affect" means that if something in this section says that an action would be illegal, but that you are doing that action to use your fair use rights, then the action is not illegal in that instance.

          The problem is that the DMCA also includes the "trafficking" parts, which prohibit distribution of a device or software with a primary purpose of circumvention. This part of the DMCA is not protected by fair use, bec

          • by compro01 (777531)

            No, you can break the DRM...that's the point of the paragraph.

            The "nothing in this section shall affect" means that if something in this section says that an action would be illegal, but that you are doing that action to use your fair use rights, then the action is not illegal in that instance.

            that's still up for debate, as AFAIK, there has been no definite court ruling regarding the intersection of fair use and the DMCA, though that may be forthcoming in movie studios v. real networks when the case is ruled on sometime next decade.

            • by nabsltd (1313397)

              Like anything else in the law, it can certainly be debated, but the text is fairly clear in this case, and it's fairly standard.

              If the "nothing in this section shall effect" for this section gets thrown out, then most of the rest of recent copyright law will alos be able to change meaning, and the MPAA and RIAA really don't want that to happen. Basically, it means that either way a ruling goes on this section, the MAFIAA loses, and that's why they don't really want a case to go to court.

  • First Sale (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lord Bitman (95493) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @06:32AM (#25297537) Homepage

    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)

    by acedotcom (998378) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @06:40AM (#25297561)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PhilHibbs (4537)

      And of course if this software is open source, you can just remove the MovieData->ReEncrypt() call and re-compile.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ePhil_One (634771)

      "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

    • 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.

    • Software circumvention of protection can be allowed for personal use in the event that no more then one copy is made

      So you don't backup your hard drive?

  • Why Only CDs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EzInKy (115248) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @06:41AM (#25297569)

    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.
       

    • Probably because any music disk that has a copy protection cannot be legally called a CD.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Dear DMCA staff.

    Just exempt every content which has once been recorded on a technical medium.

    Thanks.

  • by Aphrika (756248) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @06:56AM (#25297625)
    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...
  • by Luthair (847766) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @07:41AM (#25297821)
    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.)
    • by aurispector (530273) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @08:19AM (#25298025)

      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?

      • by dwandy (907337)
        While I agree that this should also be legal, I would like to add a consumer protection act that requires going-concerns to never turn off an authentication server or be 100% liable for the products replacement ... this might have slowed companies like walmart who won't go under, but do turn off their servers.
    • 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.

      This is so similar to the case of DRM'd music tracks where the DRM servers have been turned off that it would probably be easy to get an exception for decrypting those tracks. Interestingly, there isn't a known way to do that once

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zzatz (965857)

      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.

  • Not fun. (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's not fun to stay at the |) /\/\ ( /-\ !
  • by 91degrees (207121) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @07:48AM (#25297855) Journal
    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.
    • > 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.

  • 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)

    by Daryen (1138567) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @08:42AM (#25298193)

    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.

    • I have a much better idea. Sell a copy, not a license. This idea that when you buy a physical object you're really just buying a license is insane and needs to die.

  • While the last round clearly gave some neeeded exemptions, given the impending start of CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN there's very little chance that the restrictions will be lifted this time. Without serious restrictions on the ability to transfer Dho-Na geometry information between devices the Feds are screwed since we don't have the infrastructure to handle something like the Brit's SCORPION STARE conversion of their traffic cams.

    Sorry folks, we're going to have to suck it up for a few years until we can make

  • by DragonTHC (208439) <Dragon&gamerslastwill,com> on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @09:32AM (#25298647) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by msouth (10321) on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @09:46AM (#25298803) Homepage Journal

    (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.

  • 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."

  • Removal of Rights (Score:3, Insightful)

    by halcyon1234 (834388) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Wednesday October 08, 2008 @02:31PM (#25303345) Journal

    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...

  • 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

  • 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

  • How about: "None of the measures mentioned here shall be legally binding in a manner where they are used to disrupt legitimate public discourse."

If a listener nods his head when you're explaining your program, wake him up.

Working...