Bill Introduced To Fix Anti-Circumvention Provision Of DMCA

from the well-needed dept

Thu, May 9th 2013 11:13am — Mike Masnick

While there was a lot of talk after the White House agreed with an awful lot of people that mobile phone unlocking should be legal, there's been little real action. Part of the problem might be that the White House suggested that this could be fixed via telecom law, when the whole issue had nothing to do with telecom law, but the broken anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA, also known as 17 USC 1201. While Congress did put forth a bunch of bills, they were all lacking, and none seemed to really tackle the underlying problem: 17 USC 1201 is completely broken. It makes circumventing a technical protection measure a form of infringement, even if the circumvention has nothing to do with actual copyright infringement. Furthermore, it makes it illegal to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof," that is primarily designed for circumventing digital locks even if the end use is not infringing.

Thankfully, Rep. Zoe Lofgren has finally introduced a real reform bill that tries to tackle this issue, along with Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Jared Polis. The bill, called the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013, changes the law to make it clear: if you circumvent some sort of digital lock for a reason that has nothing to do with infringement, it would no longer be illegal. Basically, it would add the following:

It shall not be a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with a work protected under this title if the purpose of such circumvention is to engage in a use that is not an infringement of copyright under this title.

Similarly, circumvention tools that have primarily non-infringing uses would also be legalized. It would still be illegal to do that big list of things above if the intent is to infringe, but merely creating the tools for non-infringing purposes would be legalized. Thus, tools for unlocking mobile phone, and the act of unlocking mobile phones, would be legal.

The bill also has two other key pieces. First, it makes it clear that it is not copyright infringement to switch networks and then access or load a copy of software that is stored in RAM. This seems very specific, but some operators have argued that by putting in a clause in a user agreement that forbids switching networks, those who do so could infringe by then accessing software stored in memory.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill addresses the claims that fixing the DMCA would violate trade agreements (we've heard seven different trade agreements would be violated with this simple fix of the DMCA) by telling the President that Congress says he needs to fix those agreements. Nice and simple:

The President shall take the necessary steps to secure modifications to applicable bilateral and multilateral trade agreements to which the United States is a party in order to ensure that such agreements are consistent with the amendments made by this Act.

This is actually really important. Because (just watch) copyright maximalists love to scream about how changes like this would "violate our international obligations" (while leaving out the fact that they were the ones who wrote half of those agreements in the first place). But the fact is that Congress has authority over international trade, not the executive branch. So if Congress wants, as would be the case with this bill, it can order the executive branch to change or fix any international agreements that get in the way of good law.

Unlocking Technology Act Lofgren 042913 (PDF)Unlocking Technology Act Lofgren 042913 (Text)

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: 1201, anna eshoo, anti-circumvention, circumvention, digital locks, dmca, jared polis, mobile phone unlocking, thomas massie, trade agreements, zoe lofgren

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

pixelpusher220 (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 11:19am

Netflix?
If circumvention isn't illegal anymore, could Netflix decrypt DVDs and stream without the ridiculous royalties? ala making it much more like the DVD rental side. Just paying the royalty on a DVD and reusing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cpt kangarooski, 9 May 2013 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re: Netflix?
  No. DVD rental doesn't involve any royalties (unless the renter wants it to, for some inscrutable reason, I suppose). Per First Sale, any lawfully made copy, i.e. the plastic video disc, can be rented as the owner of the copy (as opposed to the owner of the copyright) sees fit. No royalties are due, no permission is needed, and there's nothing special about the copies. Netflix could buy DVDs from BestBuy or Amazon, put a sticker on them, toss them into envelopes, and be all set.
  
  Transmitting is a different kettle of fish, and first sale will not help. I suppose they could pull a Cablevision and rent individual discs to customers without the discs leaving the premises. The discs would then be loaded into players (or would permanently live in them) and the video would be streamed to the individual renter. But this is rather more annoying for Netflix to implement as opposed to what Cablevision or Aereo set up, and I doubt they would.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 12:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Netflix?
    Is it more annoying than mailing the disc with a return envelope?
    
    The cost of simply buying a DVD player for each DVD (and possibly buying fewer DVD) might make it worth going the cablevision route. After all in bulk the players might only be $5-$10 each.
    
    Not that I see Netflix trying it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re: Netflix?
  No, because streaming the film would be considered a copyright violation, and then it would still run afoul of circumvention since it's done for infringement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re: Netflix?
  Don't think so. The copyright owner still owns rights to copying, performing, and distributing. This bill is for all the dmca abuses that have nothing to do with copyright privileges (e.g. garage door openers, phones, etc.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re: Netflix?
  Netflix will still have to pay licensing frees to stream. The only difference is that it would no longer be illegal to break the copy protection to stream, as long as they held the applicable licences to stream.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 10 May 2013 @ 1:14am
  
  Re: Netflix?
  I suspect that Netflix's activities would be covered by contracts and licenses that prevent would them from doing this.
  
  However, I do wonder if it would mean that tools could become available to allow offline play of Netflix's content (for example, if a program was created to bypass Netflix's DRM and save a copy of a film locally but delete it after one play, is that an infringing action or merely VCR-like time shifting)?
  
  There's some interesting questions to be raised here, for sure, but I doubt that large players currently locked into contracts with content owners are going to be the ones taking advantage of this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 11:24am

re: Trade Agreements
Isn't it going to be unconstitutional for Congress to assign the President the power to modify the trade agreements?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 11:33am
  
  Re: re: Trade Agreements
  I think it's more to prevent future trade agreements like the TPP to usher in a cell phone unlocking ban that would circumvent this bill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cpt kangarooski, 9 May 2013 @ 12:40pm
  
  Re: re: Trade Agreements
  Superfluous only, I think. IIRC Congress has the power to regulate foreign commerce, the President has the power to negotiate and agree to treaties, and the Senate has the power to ratify treaties. Congress isn't ever bound by treaties, and can override them as they see fit. This may cause problems with our international relations, but that's the President's problem.
  
  At worst they can't force him to do anything, but it's more a political problem than anything where unconstitutionality would pose a problem for passing the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 11:28am

May finally be legal to play DVDs on Linux
And if this circumvention amendment occurs, it may finally be legal to distribute a copy of Linux that can play legally-purchased DVDs (without going through some crazy hurdle of licensing the playback software).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Shmerl, 9 May 2013 @ 11:50am
  
  Re: May finally be legal to play DVDs on Linux
  If this bill passes, we'll finally see libdvdcss2 and etc. in primary Debian repos. Let's hope it will break the sickening atmosphere that DMCA creates.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 11:53am
    
    Re: Re: May finally be legal to play DVDs on Linux
    I emailed my representative urging him to support this amendment... that's the least I can do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: May finally be legal to play DVDs on Linux
      unfortunately, unless you register as a lobbyist, and donate a chunk of change to your representative (and a couple more, just to be safe)... it is probably the most you can do also.
      
      you could create a grass-root PAC, but you will run the risk of getting sidetracked or derailed by maximalists.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 1:05pm
    
    Re: Re: May finally be legal to play DVDs on Linux
    I vote for libaacs and libbluray as well. It's really quite stupid considering that the person has a valid copy of the disc, and it's just a player that is needed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shmerl, 9 May 2013 @ 2:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: May finally be legal to play DVDs on Linux
      Interestingly enough, libaacs and libbluray already are present in Debian repos. I think they are different in a sense that they don't actually break the DRM like libdvdcss does, but allow accessing the data if decryption keys are present (without keys they won't really help). See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/BluRay
      
      May be that's the reason why Debian let them in, but not the libdvdcss, but I'm not sure 100%.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 6:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: May finally be legal to play DVDs on Linux
        yes, this is correct.
        
        Not all DVDs are encrypted. Distros can (and do) legally include player -- and copying -- software, just not the decryption software. So out of the box, you can play DVDs -- just not the encrypted ones until you obtain and install the decryption software from elsewhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shmerl, 9 May 2013 @ 2:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: May finally be legal to play DVDs on Linux
      Actually libaacs and libbluray are already present in Debian repos. May be that's because unlike libdvdcss they don't actually break the encryption, but allow accessing the data if decryption keys are available, and without them they won't really help. But I'm not sure 100%.
      
      See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/BluRay
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Shmerl, 9 May 2013 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: May finally be legal to play DVDs on Linux
        Sorry, it looked like the site ate the previous comment, so I had to rewrite it, but now it showed up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich, 9 May 2013 @ 11:37am

This is awesome, but what chance does the bill really have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  About the same chance as all the other bills introduced by Google.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 12:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    OOTB, is that you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00007479&cycle=2012
    
    Yeah, she's really pushing forward a Google bill when they donated only $20,000 to her in 2012.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 12:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    As opposed to bills introduced by MPAA/RIAA (SOPA)?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 10:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You mean a lesser chance cause they don't bribe congress as much as **IAs do?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 9 May 2013 @ 11:05pm
  
  Re:
  The firestorm of lobbying that's about to erupt from the copyright and wireless carrier industries will make congress grind to a halt, and the amount of money that will be spent doing so will stun you speechless. I rate the chances as "practically zero".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 11:37am

And hundreds of trolls cried in despair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kelledin (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 12:03pm

Cue apoplectic MPAA/RIAA temper-tantrum in 5...4...3...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
St. Patrick, 9 May 2013 @ 12:03pm

All of this is assuming that Congress actually passes it, and quite frankly, that's a big if.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
President of the Anti-Fandom Association, 9 May 2013 @ 12:19pm

BE A FAN GO TO JAIL
I am sick and disgraced of this legislation allowing cell phones to be jailbreaked. Not only that but they are trying to get this country on the Special 301 watch list.

Switching providers with the same cell phone is still illegal and it should remain illegal.

McCain's bill and Lofgren's bill violates ACTA, WIPO audiovisual treaty and the proposed TPP, TTIP (TAFTA) and WIPO Broadcast Treaty.

As for McCain's bill, I am not happy he ain't backing the broadcasters to close Aereo down, but to aid piracy with Aereo, that goes the same for lofgren. I urge the Senate to vote No on McCain's bill and I urge the House to vote No on Lofgren's bill. I also urge the House and Senate to revive SOPA, PIPA, and the CFSA (Commerical Felony Streaming Act) and make sure we lock those fandom nerds up for good. Fandom nerds need to get a real job and a real life. Artists, publishers, media and record companies need to end this right now.

I am a copyright maximalist and I'm proud of it. And the RIAA, MPAA, Copyright Alliance are so proud of me expressing against fandom garbage.

Our motto is written in the subject column above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 5:07pm
  
  Re: BE A FAN GO TO JAIL
  I voted this funny before even scrolling to see the whole thing.
  
  Why? No anti-fandom association would call themselves the "Anti-Fandom Association". Not enough doublespeak.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 12:24pm

Wait...
You mean...

If this passed...

I could legally jailbreak my PS2, 3DS, ETC to play Japanese games?

...

Holy mother of Christmas! It is the end of the world!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 12:27pm

There is a reason.....
"manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof,"

If you ever heard of the Atari Games (Atari's Arcade division) subsidiary Tengen....you will understand why that bit is (stupidly) in place. Although things got settled outside of court so we got to play great Atari Arcade ports on the NES....and a few extra golden gems as well (namely Skull And Crossbones).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 1:46pm

Nice idea, but too big
This law--or at least the counter-anti-circumvention provision quoted above--is 22 words too long. DRM is an abomination, as is any legal protection thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 1:46pm

I don't know about other agreements, but I did see once in a leaked ACTA text that any country wishing to leave ACTA would have to give at least 6 months notice.

So any repeal of the anti-circumvention laws would have to wait until at least 6 months for the United States to have legally dropped out of ACTA, since ACTA requires such anti-circumvention rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 4:27pm
  
  Re:
  No, since the United States never legally entered into ACTA in the first place. It was illegally signed by President Obama under false pretenses, but to be valid the Constitution requires that it be ratified by Congress. That never happened.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 9 May 2013 @ 2:42pm

Well, whoop-de-freakin-do. How does this bill define "non-infringing"? Whether infringing or non-infringing, people break the anti-circumvention clause all the time anyway and what happens? Nothing. The whole anti-circumvention thing is pretty well unenforceable to begin with. If I want to back up my purchased DVDs or burn off rented DVDs (which I do), what's to stop me? Again, nothing. I have anti-circumvention tools like DVDFab Decrypter and Any DVD on my computer and use them all the time. So this bill is just as meaningless to me as the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 2:46pm
  
  Re:
  Want to be able to jailbreak your Android device which YOU OWN and HAVE NOT subsidized? If the answer is yes, then this proposed amendment will do it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 4:17pm
  
  Re:
  Hint: it's only legal to distribute those tools from outside the U.S.
  
  The fact that you can obtain them and use them without getting caught doesn't make it any more legal... it just proves how pointless the law is to begin with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 9 May 2013 @ 5:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That's my point.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2013 @ 11:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      For corporations who wish to distribute circumvention products, it matters quite a bit... in our (my) case, operating systems with encrypted DVD playback support.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]