[A2k] KEI Blog: DMCA rulemaking and current proposed exemptions

Mon Apr 27 19:06:05 2009

I just posted some information on the upcoming DMCA rulemaking hearings
to the KEI Blog. The rulemaking will evaluate 25 proposed exemptions to
the DMCA's anti-circumvention rule.

You can read the full blog here:
http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/04/27/dmca-rulemaking/#more-1566

DMCA rulemaking and current proposed exemptions
By Meredith Filak, on April 27th, 2009

Every three years, the Library of Congress solicits public proposals for
new (and renewable existing) exemptions from the anti-circumvention
provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  On May 1, and May
6-8, the Library of Congress=E2=80=99s Copyright Office will hold its trien=
nial
rulemaking session on the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA,
where they will host panel discussions on the 2009 proposed exemptions.

The May 1 hearing will be held in Palo Alto, California, in Room 80
(moot court room) of Stanford Law School, 559 Nathan Abbott Way.  The
May 6-8 meetings will be held in Washington, DC, and will begin at 10 AM
in room 408 of the Madison building of the Library of Congress. (Be sure
to get there early, as space is limited.) All hearings are open to the
public.

A full schedule of the hearing agendas, as well as panel speakers, can
be found here.

>From the Library of Congress=E2=80=99s website: =E2=80=9CThe purpose of th=
is proceeding
is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to
which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their
ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on
circumvention of access controls. This page contains links to published
documents in this proceeding.=E2=80=9D

The Copyright Office accepted comments from 6 October through 2 December
2008. You can see the Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking through the Copyright Office=E2=80=99s DMCA rulemaking website.

25 exemptions are up for discussion, implementation and/or renewal at
this year=E2=80=99s meeting. They are:

1. =E2=80=9CLiterary works=E2=80=9D distributed in ebook format, when all e=
xisting ebook
editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by
authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling
either of the book=E2=80=99s read=E2=80=93aloud function or of screen reade=
rs that
render the text into a specialized format. Proponent:  American
Foundation for the Blind [Renewal]

2. Subscription based services that offer DRM=E2=80=93protected streaming v=
ideo
where the provider has only made available players for a limited number
of platforms, effectively creating an access control that requires a
specific operating system version and/or set of hardware to view
purchased material. Proponent: Megan Carney

3. Motion pictures protected by anti-access measures, such that access
to the motion picture content requires use of a certain platform.
Proponent: Mark Rizik

4. Audiovisual works in the following categories:

4A. Commercially produced DVDs used in face=E2=80=93to=E2=80=93face classro=
om teaching
by college and university faculty, regardless of discipline or subject
taught, as well as by teachers in K=E2=80=9312 classrooms. Proponent: Gary
Handman, Media Resources Center, UC Berkeley

4B. Audiovisual works used by instructors at accredited colleges or
universities to create compilations of short portions of motion pictures
for use in the course of face=E2=80=93to=E2=80=93face teaching activities. =
Proponent:
Kevin L. Smith, Duke University

4C. Audiovisual works that illustrate and/or relate to contemporary
social issues used for the purpose of teaching the process of accessing,
analyzing, evaluating, and communicating messages in different forms of
media. Proponent: Renee Hobbs

4D. Audiovisual works that illustrate and/or relate to contemporary
social issues used for the purpose of studying the process of accessing,
analyzing, evaluating and communicating messages in different forms of
media, and that are of particular relevance to a specific educational
assignment, when such uses are made with the prior approval of the
instructor. Proponent: Renee Hobbs

4E. Audiovisual works contained in a college or university library, 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. Proponent: Peter DeCherney, et al,
University of Pennsylvania [Renewal]

4F. Audiovisual works contained in a college or university library, when
circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of
portions of those works for coursework by media studies or film
students. Proponent: Peter DeCherney, et al, University of Pennsylvania

4G. Audiovisual works included in a library of a college or university,
when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making
compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the
classroom by professors. Proponent: Library Copyright Alliance and Music
Library Association

4H. All audiovisual works and sound recordings =E2=80=98used in face=E2=80=
=93to=E2=80=93face
classroom teaching by college and university faculty, regardless of
discipline or subject taught=E2=80=99 and regardless of the source of the
legally acquired item. Proponent: Gail Fedak

5. Computer programs on wireless telecommunication handsets in the
following categories:

5A. Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute
lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is
accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such
applications with computer programs on the telephone handset.
Proponents: Fred von Lohmann, Jennifer S. Granick, Electronic Frontier
Foundation

5B. Computer programs that operate wireless telecommunications handsets
when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling
wireless telephones to connect to a wireless telephone communication
network. Proponent: MetroPCS Communications, Inc.

5C. Computer programs in the form of firmware or software that enable
mobile communication handsets to connect to a wireless communication
network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of
lawfully connecting to a wireless communication network. Proponent: Paul
Posner, Youghiogheny D/B/A Pocket Communications [Renewal]

5D. 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,
regardless of commercial motive. Proponent: Jonathan Newman, Wireless
Alliance et al.

6. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to
malfunction or damage or hardware or software incompatibilities or
require obsolete systems or obsolete hardware as a condition of access.
Proponent: Joseph V. Montoro, Jr. [Renewal]

7. Computer programs [for forensic  analysis].  Proponent: Glenn
Pannenborg

8. Circumstances of good-faith testing, investigating, and correcting
security vulnerabilities, in the following categories:

8A. Literary works, sound recordings, and audiovisual works accessible
on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures
that control access to lawfully obtained 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. Proponent: J. Alex Halderman,
University of Michigan [Renewal and expansion]

8B. Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by
technological protection measures that control access to lawfully
obtained 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.
Proponent: J. Alex Halderman, University of Michigan

9. Digital Television, in the following categories:

9A. =E2=80=9CDigital Television/Broadcast Flag=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 Audiovisu=
al works delivered by
digital television (=E2=80=9DDTV=E2=80=9D) transmission intended for free, =
over-the-air
reception by anyone, which are marked with a =E2=80=9Cbroadcast flag=E2=80=
=9D indicator
that prevents, restricts, or inhibits the ability of recipients to
access the work at a time of the recipient=E2=80=99s choosing and subsequen=
t to
the time of transmission, or using a machine owned by the recipient but
which is not the same machine that originally acquired the transmission.
Proponent: Matt Perkins

9B.=E2=80=9DICT=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 Audiovisual works embedded in a physical=
 medium (such as
Blu-Ray discs) which are marked for =E2=80=9Cdown-conversion=E2=80=9D or
=E2=80=9Cdown-resolutioning=E2=80=9D (such as by the presence of an Image C=
onstraint
Token =E2=80=9CICT=E2=80=9D) when the work is to be conveyed through any of=
 a playback
machine=E2=80=99s existing audio or visual output connectors, and therefore
restricts the literal quantity of the embedded work available to the
user (measured by visual resolution, temporal resolution, and color
fidelity). Proponent: Matt Perkins

10. Sound recordings, audiovisual works, and software distributed
commercially online, in the following categories:

10A. Lawfully purchased sound recordings, audiovisual works, and
software programs distributed commercially in digital format by online
music and media stores and protected by technological measures that
depend on the continued availability of authenticating servers, when
such authenticating servers cease functioning because the store fails or
for other reasons. Proponent: Christopher Soghoian

10B. Lawfully purchased sound recordings, audiovisual works, and
software programs distributed commercially in digital format by online
music and media stores and protected by technological measures that
depend on the continued availability of authenticating servers prior to
the failure of [authenticating] servers for technologists and
researchers studying and documenting how the authenticating servers
thatDMCA rulemaking and current proposed exemptions
By Meredith Filak, on April 27th, 2009

Every three years, the Library of Congress solicits public proposals for
new (and renewable existing) exemptions from the anti-circumvention
provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  On May 1, and May
6-8, the Library of Congress=E2=80=99s Copyright Office will hold its trien=
nial
rulemaking session on the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA,
where they will host panel discussions on the 2009 proposed exemptions.

The May 1 hearing will be held in Palo Alto, California, in Room 80
(moot court room) of Stanford Law School, 559 Nathan Abbott Way.  The
May 6-8 meetings will be held in Washington, DC, and will begin at 10 AM
in room 408 of the Madison building of the Library of Congress. (Be sure
to get there early, as space is limited.) All hearings are open to the
public.

A full schedule of the hearing agendas, as well as panel speakers, can
be found here. The Copyright Office accepted comments from 6 October
through 2 December 2008. You can see the Notice of Inquiry and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking through the Copyright Office=E2=80=99s DMCA rulemaking
website here.