DMCA Exemptions Announced; Exemption For DVD Ripping Rejected; Phone Unlocking Going Away
from the ridiculous dept
It's that time again, when the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyright announce their triennial "rulemaking" on DMCA exemptions for the anti-circumvention clause. Just the fact that they have to do this every three years should show how ridiculous the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA is. Basically, it's so screwed up that, every three years, the Librarian of Congress gets to randomly decide when the law can be ignored. Maybe... instead of doing that, you fix the law? There are some interesting exemptions, though they're limited. For example, people making "noncommercial" remix videos can apparently use clips from DVDs with specific limitations.Motion pictures, as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System, where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary because reasonably available alternatives, such as noncircumventing methods or using screen capture software as provided for in alternative exemptions, are not able to produce the level of high-quality content required to achieve the desired criticism or comment on such motion pictures, and where circumvention is undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures for the purpose of criticism or comment in the following instances: (i) in noncommercial videos; (ii) in documentary films; (iii) in nonfiction multimedia ebooks offering film analysis; and (iv) for educational purposes in film studies or other courses requiring close analysis of film and media excerpts, by college and university faculty, college and university students, and kindergarten through twelfth grade educators. For purposes of this exemption, "noncommercial videos" includes videos created pursuant to a paid commission, provided that the commissioning entity's use is noncommercial.In explaining this, they specifically call out the examples of remix videos as to why this should be allowed:
Creators of noncommercial videos provided the most extensive record to support the need for higher-quality source material. Based on the video evidence presented, the Register is able to conclude that diminished quality likely would impair the criticism and comment contained in noncommercial videos. For example, the Register is able to perceive that Buffy vs Edward and other noncommercial videos would suffer significantly because of blurring and the loss of detail in characters' expression and sense of depth.Of course, it's not all good news. Public Knowledge had put forth a request for an exemption for being able to rip legally purchased DVDs for the sake of watching them on a computer or tablet. This is something that a ton of people already do, but which technically violates the anti-circumvention part of the DMCA. Unfortunately, this request was rejected -- even though it's already acknowledged as legal to do the same thing with CDs -- and, as PK's Michael Weinberg points out, even movie studio bosses seem to recognize that it should be legal to rip your own movies:
And the RIAA and the MPAA agree with you. In 2005, their lawyer (now the Solicitor General of the United States) assured the Supreme Court that "The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."So what is the reasoning for the rejection? Well, they argue that space shifting might not be legal after all, despite all of the above. They claim that key cases involving the VCR and the mp3 player -- both of which were found to be legal -- do not "provide the legal basis for a broad declaration that space shifting of audiovisual works is a noninfringing use." Think about that for a second.
Movie executives agree as well. Mitch Singer, the Chief Technology Officer of Sony Pictures Entertainment explained to author Robert Levine that the idea for the movie industry's UltraViolet program evolved out of Singer's own frustration with transferring movies between PCs in his home.
So do members of Congress. Earlier this year, Representative Darrell Issa did a IAmA on Reddit. Rep. Issa told Redditors that it was already perfectly legal to make personal copies of DVDs for their own use.
Also troubling: phone unlocking -- which was an exemption for the past few rounds -- will no longer be an exemption:
In 2006 and 2010, the Librarian of Congress had permitted users to unlock their phones to take them to a new carrier. Now that's coming to an end. While the new rules do contain a provision allowing phone unlocking, it comes with a crippling caveat: the phone must have been "originally acquired from the operator of a wireless telecommunications network or retailer no later than ninety days after the effective date of this exemption." In other words, phones you already have, as well as those purchased between now and next January, can be unlocked. But phones purchased after January 2013 can only be unlocked with the carrier's permission.And politicians wonder why no one respects copyright any more.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anticircumvention, copyright, dmca, dvds, exemptions, fair use, movies, ripping
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just think of having to sign a license agreement before you can consume food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's fine. I'm willing to return their property to them after I've processed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually it is GROW food.
Think Monsanto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's hope they get very, very sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(wtf, TD, y'all had to "moderate" this??)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> point out that the Emperor is completely butt nekkid
Well, actually, if you consider the original story, a major lesson was that the vast majority of people were too afraid to (be the first person to) point that out. Which only emphasizes the great value to society which anonymity on the net provides --- with it, anyone can be a "little boy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
that one ne'er-do-well who works up the gumption, and with a weak and wavering voice says 'Now, wait a minute...', and then another has the courage to say 'Yeah, what he/she said...', and that small crack in the facade gives comfort to everyone else speaking up to say 'YEAH, WTF is going on here...'
out of such seemingly small and insignificant squeakings, great movements are born...
everybody squeak up !
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A fitting analogy then for an equally stupid restriction - we're supposed to pretend that DVD encryption is a securing technology when everyone on the planet apart from the **AA knows otherwise whether talking about it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much did Verizon pay for that one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Payola is payola; and if you think it's acceptable, you best throw your entire morality framework down the nearest toilet, and flush twice; because that's all it was worth to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/09/verizon-ships-its-iphone-5-unlocked/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nonsense
> as well as those purchased between now
> and next January, can be unlocked.
> But phones purchased after January
> 2013 can only be unlocked with the
> carrier's permission.
I don't care what the Librarian of Congress says. If I buy a phone, it's my phone and I can do anything I want with it. I'm not renting or licensing the phone from anyone else and they don't have any say over what I do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nonsense
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS6.pdf
go ahead and take a peak, I will wait.
So while you may own the phone, you license the boot loader and all software, and they do have some pretty tight restrictions. No thank you Apple.
Then of course there is that pesky TOS you signed along with the contract when you got your phone for far less than retail. It has its share of restrictions as well.
Let me make it really simple to understand. You don't OWN anything anymore. At least not anything that has a microchip in it. However, companies are more than willing to grant you a license if you are willing to part with your dollars. They of course reserve the right to change the deal at any time, for any reason with or without notice. If you do not agree to the new terms you may stop using the product immediately.
The day is coming when the people are going to rise up and say enough! OR they will bury their head in the sand and live with whatever crap someone sets in front of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "live with whatever crap someone sets in front of them"
You are WAY behind the times, WAY too optimistic.
People now actively seek out crap, compulsively, full time, wallow in it, shun and deride anything decent; they'll never get off the couch. There's a fellow by name of Dick_Helmet who bragged of watching 3 screens of sports at once, as if an accomplishment, not shameful. And he brags of being an expert on beers so no doubt dulls his mind every way that he can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "live with whatever crap someone sets in front of them"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "live with whatever crap someone sets in front of them"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "live with whatever crap someone sets in front of them"
Do whatever the H_ _ _ they want anyway, regardless of any restrictions. (Jailbreak, Phone unlock, crack, copy, rip, share...) Oh wait, they already are.
I guess that could be considered rising up. After all you can't put everyone in jail.
There really is no need to actively seek crap out (though I am certain some do) We are already hip deep in crap. All the excessive, over reaching laws, crazy licensing structures...
People must be related to frogs. You know the old adage; If you place a frog in hot water, it will jump out. If you place a frog in room temperature water and slowly raise the temperature it will cook to death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "live with whatever crap someone sets in front of them"
Basically he actively seeks out what he considers crap, compulsively, full time, and wallows in it.
Then he complains that Dick_Helmet doesn't have a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nonsense
Android phones on the other hand can be legally rooted, and therefore allowing the rooted phone to be switched between carriers at whim.
Why Android phones are ok you ask? Because they use open source software so no EULA that can restrict you.
The contract on the other hand is the problem and always has been even with the legality of rooting your phone. The TOS though has no bearing unless it is part of the contract.
Basically what it boils down to is that the rest of the world, dependant on the contract (or lack thereof) can do what they want with ANY phone but the USA will only be legally allowed to do this with Android phones when they come out of contract (easier to buy your phones outright).
To me this is a great marketing idea for Samsung, HTC, Huawei, etc where they can say - no matter what the carrier wants - "Hey - want to switch providers at some time? Buy Android" in other words this will harm Apple (and to a certain extent Win Phones) more than it will harm other manufacturers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
'Want to try a phone out but not sure you want to stick with the same service? Well with (insert brand here), you can.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
That is EXACTLY why I own an Android phone, and an Android Tablet (both rooted). Me thinks my carrier is not too happy with me, since my phone no longer has their crapware and carrier restrictions.
Your right, it could be a great marketing tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nonsense
No, they like to pretend I don't. I actually do and I'll do whatever I like with my own phone.
Fuck them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
If I recall correctly they remotely wiped the device. Depriving the purchaser, the use of the device and of all content placed on the device. Then repeatedly told the purchaser to F off.
So what the purchaser ends up with is a device that won't work. Sort of like the bully that takes your lunch, spills it out all over the floor steps on it and walks away. It's still your lunch, but not worth eating anymore.
This happens far more often than people realize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
> earlier this week about the
> person with the e-reader?
Sure. Which is why I don't put myself in a position where I spend a lot of money on something that some company can take away at its whim.
The ebooks I have are stripped of DRM and backups are stored on media that no one but me has access to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
I don't subscribe to that, but that is what you would be told.
They take your computer... and fine you $50,000 per illegal copy, finally throwing you in the clink for 10 years so you learn your lesson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
> violating the DCMA, as well as an
> EULA and TOS
Yeah, that's why I said 'fuck them'.
> They take your computer... and fine
> you $50,000 per illegal copy,
> finally throwing you in the clink
> for 10 years so you learn your lesson.
Yeah, I'm losing sleep over that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nonsense
Get a minor to press the button to agree with the EULA and/or TOS. Last I checked, in most countries, minors can't sign contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
Stupid, Yes. But there you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, what they are saying is you now have to get the wireless carrier's permission because when that permission was meaningless, they frequently gave it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridiculous!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ridiculous!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ridiculous!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
December 31st / January 1st
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!
I hope you all note that this clear rule doesn't even get near the question of ripped files in "file lockers" for anyone to download. That lack is a good measure of how far your piratey views are from fair use or legality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!
Borrow it to family and friends? Can do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!
Copy relevant passages for reference and reuse? Sell it when I've finished with it or swap for another title? Loan it to friends, family and strangers if I want to? Use it for kindling or toilet paper if I get desperate?
OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!
You say it's ok to ignore this ruling because no one is going to bust down my door will lead to exactly this thing.
You try to come off as law abiding and in favor of the rights holders but, you very carefully ignore the impact these situations/rulings/laws lead to. I cannot imagine the loss of civil liberties you so carefully put a blind eye to is ok with you or your family.
While I agree that rights holders need to get their due, we fundamentally disagree on the net results on civil liberties.
I admit I am an old man and these rulings will not impact me in the long run. I do worry about my grandchildren and this country.
I wish you could at least see this point of view when you so callously pontificate on the importance of these topics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treat it like a book, as outlined Borland Turbo Pascal, ca. 1983.
) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public" display). In the absence of physical media, there's no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treat it like a book, as outlined Borland Turbo Pascal, ca. 1983.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treat it like a book, as outlined Borland Turbo Pascal, ca. 1983.
Are you on the edge of your seat?
Have you got the rant written out already?
I mean, you already admitted you didn't read the articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treat it like a book, as outlined Borland Turbo Pascal, ca. 1983.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treat it like a book, as outlined Borland Turbo Pascal, ca. 1983.
The comments here are supposed to be about the article not your incessant ramblings!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Treat it like a book, as outlined Borland Turbo Pascal, ca. 1983.
At least here, he can leach off of Techdirt's traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treat it like a book, as outlined Borland Turbo Pascal, ca. 1983.
Jesus, that explains so much. Like why nothing you say makes any damn sense, amongst others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just limited to copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do they continue to mislead the public into thinking that they own what they paid for, instead of telling them straight on that they're just licensing it? It would be more sincere and forthcoming to replace that "BUY" button in the iTunes window with "LICENSE".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I know, right? The corporates falsely presume that by trading words, i.e. 'Buy' > 'License', they're redefining ownership vs temporary permission to use. When you pay for a product, you become the rightful owner once that transaction is complete, not merely a "licensed user" or whatever jargon they're spewing. Any attempt by the seller to revoke ownership or otherwise impede access/usage is to defraud the consumer (e.g. the recent Amazon debacle).
"Why do they continue to mislead the public into thinking that they own what they paid for, instead of telling them straight on that they're just licensing it? It would be more sincere and forthcoming to replace that 'BUY' button in the iTunes window with 'LICENSE'."
The very fact that these elites sit in a room, deliberate and decide what we're allowed to do with the stuff we purchase is a joke. No, I don't purchase music via iTunes because I'm not paying a preminum for a truncated 320kbps .mp3 file. Further, I don't trust Apple and for good reason: due to a obscure alteration to their privacy policy, they've granted themselves the extraordinary power to track you should you elect to use their service. No thanks, I'll stick with physical discs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's like they didn't want my money at all.
On the other hand, something like Mojang's Minecraft was free from these regional rubbish, so I happily bought a copy for my sister and would gift it to any of my close friends who would want it. The fact that they ALLOWED my to pay them ensured they got my money.
It's been said far too often, the reason copyright infringement is so rampant is because they offer a superior product (DRM-free) at a price (free) that people can afford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course region-locking is just a pathetic means of attempting to lock consumers into each respective territory, but there are ways around it. The way I see it, if you purchased something, whether foreign or domestic, it's yours to use and you don't need a company's permission. Next thing you know people will be paying a premium for a specifically limited amount of listens to a song or views of a movie before the content holders take it down and demand more. Oh wait... they already do. That's why I'll never trust anything which I do not have FULL control over, stored on my computer or on a physical item.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, so they haven't done it to the microwaves yet. But how long do you think it will take before companies start 'licensing' TVs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a rather poor substitute for ripping your own Blu-rays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOJ
I think that the proble the DOJ sees is that Kim Dotcom's lawyers are being paid to do something the DOJ NEVER does...their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phone Locking Scam
Apple highlights this. If you look at the price of an iPhone 5 in the UK �799 and the cost of the top iPad with mobile �659, you have to ask; in what world does this make sense?
The price of phones would drop like a stone if that price fixing scam were ever to end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, CD ripping has not been acknowledged as legal
Is it, though? The RIAA website actually only ever said that ripping "won't usually raise concerns". That's not the same thing as it being legal. There's no explicit exception in the law, and no court has actually weighed in on it.
In court cases against file-sharers, industry reps didn't hesitate to characterize ripped files on defendants' hard drives as "illegal" and "stealing". See RIAA Believes MP3s Are A Crime: Why This Matters (Wired)
The closest a court came to ruling on it was in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, but that case was only about whether the manufacturer of the Rio (iPod predecessor) was required to pay royalties to the music industry under the AHRA-mandated system that imposes a levy on DAT recorders and blank "audio" CD-Rs. The answer was no, because the Rio was not technically a "recording device" as defined by the AHRA. The court, citing the Congressional Record, did comment that space-shifting (from a hard drive to a Rio-like device, at least) appears to have been intended by the AHRA. However, the final language of the AHRA only ended up permitting copying with or to certain digital "recording" devices or media, which the court ruled did not include the Rio, and which almost certainly does not include hard drives in general. And since the comment wasn't pivotal in the court's decision, it's unlikely to be interpreted in future cases as an actual ruling on that issue.
When circumventing CD copy protection was proposed for the 2006 round of DMCA exemptions, the RIAA argued that "creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use, for reasons similar to those the Register canvassed in detail in her 2003 determination that back-up copying of DVDs cannot be treated as noninfringing. [...] there is no general exception to the reproduction right to allow back-up copying."
Further, RIAA boss Cary Sherman, when asked on NPR about Don Verrilli's oft-quoted from the MGM v. Grokster case ("The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now..."), insisted that Verrilli "misspoke" and that the RIAA has never actually taken a stand on the legality of ripping. When the interviewer asked him point-blank whether ripping was legal, Sherman was evasive, only stating that they had not yet taken anyone to court over that issue alone. Listen to his weasly blather here: Rip This and Sue That (NPR)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, CD ripping has not been acknowledged as legal
These are the same people who get paid off the artists' backs in order to live a life of luxury, looking for any loophole in the law they can exploit (or sending out their lobbyists to create new ones) in order to extract as much money from the public as they possibly can. So, really, this is as absurd as taking moral lessons from Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, CD ripping has not been acknowledged as legal
I don't care, they can copy protect, say it is illegal and bla bla bla, but I still rip it anyway.
I got my hands on the 5 seasons of Stargate Atlantis, there are 35 DVD's(with 250 GB of data) in that collection which I ripped to a 2 TB HDD.
Audio CD's I don't even bother ripping anymore, I have 3 CD's of music, which I don't listen to, those 3 CD's have zero copy protections because the Red Book defining the standard for audio CD's is so old, any copy protection implemented today probably will not play somewhere because it is not following the standard thus causing problems, this is why there are so few audio CD's copy protected, not that the industry didn't try to change that, they tried new standards that nobody bought, they tried the DRM like Sony did with their rootkit with code stolen from open source projects and failed and today the other schemes that exist are not good enough to even stop anybody from dragging and dropping the files to a PC.
On this point I just say "screw the law" and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, CD ripping has not been acknowledged as legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, CD ripping has not been acknowledged as legal
I've never seen an audio CD that had copy protection requiring circumvention (the Sony rootkit doesn't count, as it doesn't require circumvention, just that you don't have autorun enabled -- which you shouldn't have anyway.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The law and what's right are two different things, and they are sometimes (often, if you count business & corporate law) at odds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is one long run-on sentence! how did the person writing this get through Grade School?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh oh
I don't think I ever heard of something like this before: "Members, Staff, everyone, I have a sad message to report, we are about to go bankrupt. Everyone: Why?! Because some people are modding there own console and there video game. We have lost so many sales." And I don't think that will ever connect to that.
Anyway, if I own my thing I bought it's mine.. Not there's. Best thing to do is ignore what they say for your rights. :/
Even if it's illegal I guess. Lot's of people need to stand up more.
But if people go to jail for this, then wow.. What are you in for?: "Umm, I killed a man" "I robbed someone's house" "I just played a rom on my computer". You can clearly see, something does not fit here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what a surprise...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA Exemptions Announced by Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]