|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Happenings on the DMCA front

It has been a busy week for those who watch the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and its effects. Here's a quick summary of what has been happening.

Every three years, the Librarian of Congress must consider applications for exemptions to the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. The decisions for this cycle have just been posted; they may be downloaded in PDF format. Four applications were granted this time:

  1. Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software applications... Interestingly, the exemption explicitly does not extend to anti-spam blacklists.

  2. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete.

  3. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access.

  4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work ... contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.

Many other proposals were turned down. As Ed Felten notes, "My own exemption request, asking for exemptions for information security researchers, was denied as expected." Blanket exemptions for (otherwise) non-infringing uses, or for fair use were turned down as not properly specifying which works should be exempted. A requested exemption for making backup copies of DVDs went down because it did not show, to the Librarian's satisfaction, that DVDs are fragile or that making a backup copy is a noninfringing use.

Static Control Components has been engaged in a DMCA fight with Lexmark over printer cartridges. SCC makes toner cartridges which work in Lexmark's printers; Lexmark has made the claim that SCC's products, by circumventing a printer "feature" that causes it to not function with cartridges manufactured by others, violate the DMCA. As part of its fight, SCC asked for an exemption specific to printers that would make its products unambiguously legal. The proposed exemption was turned down because, according to the Librarian, the existing interoperability exemption covers this case. Thus, in losing its exemption, SCC appears to have won its case with Lexmark; the company lost no time in issuing a press release to that effect.

Speaking of press releases, 321 Studios, a company which sells a DVD-copying program, has announced that it will be appealing the ruling on the making of backup copies of DVDs.

Finally, there is a growing case involving numerous people - mostly college students in the U.S. - who are fighting DMCA takedown notices from Diebold Election Systems. Diebold is a manufacturer of computerized voting machines. These students came into possession of some internal Diebold correspondence which shows a distressingly cavalier attitude toward the accuracy of election votes and the integrity of the election process in general. Diebold, rather than facing up to its problems, is simply trying to suppress the incriminating memos. For those who understand the net, the results of this effort have been entirely predictable: copies of the correspondence have now been distributed worldwide. The organizers of this effort are calling for help, however, in the form of additional mirrors and publicity. This effort deserves support; transparent and accurate management of elections is too important to be pushed aside by the DMCA.


to post comments

Happenings on the DMCA front

Posted Oct 30, 2003 0:49 UTC (Thu) by ninjaz (guest, #2083) [Link]

If the Librarian needs to see proof of the fragility of DVD's, I invite the Librarian to rent a copy of Harry Potter or Shrek (or seemingly any movie popular with children) which has made it past the "New Release" phase at a local video store. I'm 2 for 2 so far this month.

SCC press release

Posted Oct 30, 2003 3:50 UTC (Thu) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link]

Does the Library of Congress's statement automatically dismiss the case
against SCC or was the press release a little premature? I would think
the judge would have to rule on a motion to dismiss citing the Librarian's
statement. I'm not sure if the judge would be forced to grant the motion
or if he or she could ignore the rejected request for an exception.

Diebold and DMCA

Posted Oct 31, 2003 1:29 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link] (1 responses)

I read some of the material on the Diebold cease and desist letters, and I don't see any DMCA angle. What I see is Diebold alleging that someone stole documents from it and people are distributing them without permission in violation of copyright. No defeat of technological measures is mentioned.

Diebold and DMCA

Posted Oct 31, 2003 2:10 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Anti-circumvention is only one part of the DMCA. Another part is the whole takedown/"safe harbor" part. Diebold is using the takedown part of the DMCA to try to get its dirty laundry off the net.

Happenings on the DMCA front

Posted Oct 31, 2003 21:06 UTC (Fri) by bchapman26 (guest, #4565) [Link] (1 responses)

Where does making copies of a DVD fall under thye DMCA? If I copy (to make a backup) a DVD bit for bit without unencrypting the DVD, did I violate the DMCA?

Happenings on the DMCA front

Posted Nov 8, 2003 11:21 UTC (Sat) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]

If I copy (to make a backup) a DVD bit for bit without unencrypting the DVD, did I violate the DMCA?

No you didn't. The only problem being that your typical backup with consumer-grade equipment is not a bit-for-bit one (remember that most movies are still larger than the capacity of recordable DVDs).


Copyright © 2003, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds