I wrote and testified on behalf of an exemption for "ancillary audiovisual works distributed on DVDs encrypted by CSS." Today, that exemption was denied, see http://www.copyright.gov/1201/.
I will be writing an indepth analysis of the denial in the near future. However, I just wanted to note on this blog the following sentence from the recommendations that best summarizes the decision:
Encouraging circumvention of CSS even for laudable goals threatens to undermine [the] confidence [that CSS will protect DVDs against massive infringement].
For more coverage, see:
Seth Finkelstein
(DMCA censorware exemption win!) [CONGRATS SETH!]
Freedom to Tinker
(DMCA Exemptions Granted, Problems Remain)
A Copyfighter's Musings
(Copyright Office Grants Narrow Exemptions)
bIPlog
(Copyright Office Releases DMCA Exemption Hearing Ruling)
Furdlog
(DMCA Exemptions on Anti-Circumvention)
EFF
(Librarian of Congress Fails Public Interest in Copyright Regulation)
IP Justice
(US Copyright Office DMCA Ruling Issued: Consumers Still Unable to Make Lawful Use of Digital Media)
UPDATE 1730 PT
The Censorware Project
(Censorware Exemption to DMCA Anti-circumvention Provisions In Effect For Another Three Years)
UPDATE 1910 PT
C|Net News
(Feds grant DMCA exceptions)
Slashdot
(Librarian of Congress Posts DMCA Exemptions)
UPDATE 0250 PT 29 OCT 2003
WIRED
(New Ways to Skirt DMCA … Legally!)
The Register's use of §1201(f) in denying Static Control's exemption request raises some questions. The basic situation in Lexmark v. Static Controls (and the similar garage-door-opener case) is that an access control prevents an end-user from operating some physical device in concert with a second "unauthorized" device, because in operating the first device, its embedded driver software will be run, and that driver software is protected by an access control that checks via electronic "handshake" that the second device is "authorized."
Now, thanks to §1201(f), Static Controls may not have needed an exemption to develop its third-party component, but doesn't the end-user now need an exemption to use the unauthorized third-party component thereby developed? Or does §1201(f) cover the end-user? The Register discusses whether Sonic Controls violates the DMCA by reverse-engineering the handshake, and even by trafficking in the resulting product. The Register doesn't, however, directly address whether an end-user would violate the DMCA by using that product.
If §1201(f)(3) enables an end-user to use a reverse-engineered, unauthorized device containing reverse-engineered, unauthorized driver software and including a unauthorized, reverse-engineered access control "key" together with another device that includes an access control, for everyday uses, not just for reverse-engineering, then the logic of Lexmark's DMCA complaint against Static Controls would appear to collapse completely, wouldn't it?
Posted by David Carroll on October 28, 2003 11:39 PM | Permalink to Comment
Excerpt: See here.
Read the rest...
Trackback from A Copyfighter's Musings, Oct 28, 2003 4:04 PM