Bill Introduced To Fix Broken DMCA Anti-Circumvention Rules
from the but-will-it-get-anywhere dept
It's no secret that the DMCA's section 1201 is extremely problematic. It's the "anti-circumvention" part of the law, that makes it illegal to circumvent "technological protection measures" even if it's for non-infringing purposes. This is a mess -- especially in an age of DRM trying to lock up everything. Try to get around it, and it's a violation of the law -- even if you're not trying to infringe on the underlying material. This is why Cory Doctorow is running a new effort to eradicate DRM with a target placed firmly on Section 1201.So it's great to see Senator Ron Wyden and Rep. Jared Polis team up to introduce a bill to try to reform Section 1201. The full text of the bill (called the "Breaking Down Barriers to Innovation Act of 2015") has a lot of good things in it. It says that circumventing DRM or other technology protection measures for non-infringing reasons should no longer be considered against the law. It also expands other exemptions for things like security research and testing and reverse engineering. It also would automatically renew the exemptions the Librarian of Congress issues every few years so we don't have a repeat of the mess from a few years ago where the Librarian of Congress used the "triennial review" process to first grant an exemption to 1201 for unlocking mobile phones... and then to take that exemption away six years later.
Overall it's a good bill -- and I'm curious to understand how anyone could possibly push back on it, though Hollywood absolutely refuses to consider any changes to Section 1201. Unfortunately, it also seems unlikely that the bill has enough support to actually go anywhere. It seems a bit telling that Wyden released this bill the same day as the fast track bill, suggesting that it's a signal of some sort to people that he's not giving up on fixing copyright law. It's unlikely, however, that this gesture will mollify the folks who are upset that Wyden allowed the fast track bill to move forward in its current form.
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, anti-circumvention, copyright, dmca, dmca 1201, exemptions, jared polis, ron wyden, technological protection measures, triennial review
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You actually want the only way that rights holders have to protect their property taken away?
That's how it will be pushed back against. Is it a good argument? No, but pay enough and people in congress will agree with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1201 time?
The bill in question SOUNDS wonderful, but it opens up a can of worms. In particular,you hit the question of "non-infringing purposes". As an example, ripping a game or DVD or whatever that has DRM, and putting it on your own hard drive would appear to be okay. What if you upload it to a "backup" service? What if that "Backup" service allows others to access you files? At what point did it becoming infringing?
What happens if your "non-infringing" backup gets put on your network share drive, and your roommates or family members take a copy and share it with their friends. At what point was it for a non-infringing purpose?
Further, it would be clear that this change would make "ripper" tools entirely legal (ie, they would not be against 1201 because there would be "non-infringing uses"). Yet clearly, people would use these tools to rip stuff and put it on torrents or otherwise "infringe". What a change to 1201 would do would be to tip the balance that currently exists.
Wyden as always is really good at hopping on the bandwagon with things like this, introducing ANOTHER bill that clogs up the congress with unpassable legislation. There is little indication of wide bypartisan support for such a bill, if anything the US generally wants to protect IP and not make it many times easier for casual infringement to become the norm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Empty words and useless gestures
Maybe I'm just a little bit jaded by politics, but I'd say the fact that he sponsored both makes this particular bit of effort nothing but empty words with no other purpose than some good PR.
He's sponsoring one bill(FTA) that, unless he hasn't been paying the slightest bit of attention, he knows would completely negate the other. What does it matter if he proposes a bill that would remove the anti-circumvention aspect of the DMCA, when he has to know that doing so would undoubtedly be very much at odds with the corporate wishlist that is the 'trade' agreements after all?
If he hadn't been one of those involved in pushing for FTA, I might have believed he was genuinely trying to fix the problem, but as it stands I doubt this is anything more than a cheap PR stunt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1201 time?
I think you mean a balance that currently doesn't exist. Removing the anti-curcumvention clause would likely have a minimal impact on piracy, at most.
Really, copyright infringement is already illegal, do you honestly think someone involved in it pays even the slightest bit of attention to DRM beyond removing it when it bothers them(a trivial task in pretty much every case as I understand it)? Heck, I'd be surprised if even a quarter of those engaged in copyright infringement even knew about the anti-circumvention clause at all, so I rather doubt removing it would have any effect on them.
The only people DRM screws over are legitimate, paying customers, pirates aren't bothered by the infection in the least, so allowing people to strip DRM would be a great help to legitimate customers, while not affecting copyright infringers in the least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Even if they leave "all copying" in there, it's a big step.
This bill would fix the extreme bullshit cases of circumvention without a whiff of a copy. Like Lexmark (toner cartridge auth), Chamberlain (garage door opener interop), etc. Those are the real abuses of 1201, when the DMCA is pulled way out of the arena of copyright to try and prevent some integration. Since the 9th Circuit explicitly rejected Chamberlain in a case I know well (cough), this would mean you can finally sell Skylink garage door opener fobs in California without threat of a copyright (!?) lawsuit.
While it would be nice to codify that only infringing copies made after circumvention are violations, you can still sweep those under the rug and wind up with a very useful bill. It's one which, as Mike notes, Hollywood should fight tooth and nail, even if it doesn't affect their business model a bit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1201 time?
The same argument applied even more so to firearms, which people use to kill and indeed are designed primarily for the purpose, or knives... or... well computers in general or really, pretty much anything at a stretch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1201 time?
Why does it matter, and what does this have to do with circumvention? What are you trying to say, that non-infringing activities should be illegal because it's hard to determine whether they're infringing? Should we do away with fair use too, because some things are fair use and other things are not, and it's hard to tell sometimes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Even if they leave "all copying" in there, it's a big step.
Should, or will?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Even if they leave "all copying" in there, it's a big step.
So, yeah, they will. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just today...
After installing the "restricted" software by following directions I found on the internet, I still couldn't get it to play. Then I tried to compile/install libdvdcss myself and it still doesn't work. It says it finds the CSS key, but then fails on playback.
Why must something so obviously legal have to be such a headache as a result of this anti-circumvention law?
Most of my DVDs have been ripped and stored on the NAS - which simplifies finding and playing my collection of movies - but goddamnit if I don't occasionally pick up a new DVD and want to watch it without format-shifting it first...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 1201 time?
There are very, very, very few instances where the restrictions in 1201 get in the way of meaningful work. Security experts are perhaps the exception, but that is still a fairly narrow concept that doesn't require throwing out the baby with the bathwater to fix.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
There are very, very, very few instances where the restrictions in 1201 get in the way of meaningful work.
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1201 time?
You could make the exact same argument about DRM free music, such as MP3 files. Should DRM free music be illegal because someone might upload copies of it?
People have been using knives to kill other people since the beginning of recorded history. It's the most commonly available murder weapon. Why aren't they illegal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 1201 time?
Removing DRM isn't always a trivial task.
There are some games where it seems there's no one cracked (DRM removed) copy that works for everyone. For example, I wanted to get the game Alice: Madness returns. I was prepared to buy the game (at least a used copy) until I learned that it requires online activation. I refuse to pay for any game that comes with a digital leash attached to it. I own a legitimate copy of the original Alice game, but I'm not going to pay for the sequel and then have to ask EA's permission to play it.
So I looked online for a pirated copy. They exist, but when you read the comments, they don't work for everyone. Sometimes the game doesn't work at all, sometimes a particular level doesn't work, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
For one, I have never seen work produced by an author after he kicked the bucket despite the fact that he hold onto the copyrights as a corpse. You, on the other hand, consider this scenario meaningful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
Also, the "upon death of author" would lead to the inevitable BS legal defense of "I didn't publish without permission, I read on the internet that he was dead".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
Also, the "upon death of author" would lead to the inevitable BS legal defense of "I didn't publish without permission, I read on the internet that he was dead".
At which point the status of the creator would be checked, and the defense either upheld if they were dead, or tossed if they weren't. The 'problem' would be at most minor, and is hardly an effective argument.
However, you could solve that given problem fairly simply, with just two simple changes. Make copyright duration based upon publication date, so there's absolutely no room for confusion, and require registration for a work to be covered under copyright(which would also solve various other problems like orphaned works). No confusion, as a simple check would allow people to know exactly when something entered the public domain, or if it was still locked up.
This would also have the not-so-minor benefit of making sure that anything created would make it to the public domain eventually, as it could be automatically released once the duration was over, and registration would mean that a usable copy would always be available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
The sentiment is nice, but an unproven concept at best. I am never a big fan of the strip mining mentality that seems to exist, hoping to find a gold nugget while ignoring the effects of the mining itself. The 90% crap figure you suggest is both painful and a whole lot of discouraging poor quality content to wade through.
"Make copyright duration based upon publication date"
Again, great sentiment, but the results would be the same: The copyright expiration would be extended to meet the requirements of the mouse and others, and thus the results would be the same as you have today.
Requiring registration to have copyright is wasteful, expensive, and creates an incredible amount of doubt in the public's mind as to what is and what is not copyright. Today's system is simple: Someone has copyright on it (even if it is a monkey). There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind right now that a work is copyright.
Perhaps better would be a "public domain registry" where creators could register their work(s) as in the public domain and free of copyright. Such an official move would certainly be a lot more clear than the near endless variations of creative commons licenses that always seem to have some sort of hold back or hidden restriction in them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that in the US at least, nothing enters the public domain, unless it's well over a century old at the very least. Kinda hard to test how a more robust public domain would lead to increased works when it's never allowed to grow, and certainly never allowed to grow with anything relevant to current culture. I suppose you could always look to other countries, but given how much the USG loves pushing it's laws elsewhere in the interests of 'harmonizing' them, it's just a titch difficult to find examples to look at with regards to how things might have gone with saner durations.
I am never a big fan of the strip mining mentality that seems to exist, hoping to find a gold nugget while ignoring the effects of the mining itself.
What 'strip mining' would that be exactly? If something is in the public domain, everyone gets to use it and create works based upon it. 'Strip mining' suggest that something is being lost, when in fact other than parasites who had nothing to do with the creation losing their monopoly rights to something, shorter terms and more robust public domains instead increases what is gained.
The 90% crap figure you suggest is both painful and a whole lot of discouraging poor quality content to wade through.
That '90% crap' is going to happen regardless, whether there's a lot of works being created, or only a few. By enlarging the amount of works created, while that does increase the amount of crap that gets created, it also increases the amount of good works that are created as well.
Again, great sentiment, but the results would be the same: The copyright expiration would be extended to meet the requirements of the mouse and others, and thus the results would be the same as you have today.
Which is why you stop extending the duration. If the terms offered were good enough when something was created, then there's absolutely no need to extend them after the fact just because certain companies are feeling parasitic and/or don't feel like competing with older works.
Requiring registration to have copyright is wasteful, expensive, and creates an incredible amount of doubt in the public's mind as to what is and what is not copyright.
Did you miss the whole point about registration making it so people could easily check whether or not something was under copyright still, or if it had entered the mythical realm known as the public domain? That's pretty much the exact opposite of creating doubt.
With regards to 'wasteful', if it will help deal with the orphaned works problem, where who knows how many works are basically sitting in limbo, because no-one knows who has the rights to them, and no-one feels like getting sued to find out, then that sounds like a good cost for copyright 'ownership' to me. Works languishing, with no-one to claim them, and no-one able to use them because of it, sounds quite a bit more 'wasteful' than some simple paperwork to me.
With regards to 'expensive', well, I keep hearing about how valuable copyrights are, how infringing, even accidentally, on one is grounds for massive monetary fines due to the immense 'harm' suffered by the copyright owners, and if they are so very 'valuable', then registering them, for a minor fee, should be seen as a worthwhile investment. Wouldn't even need to be that expensive, a simple fee to cover filing costs should be sufficient, and given the benefits that being covered under copyright grants, a small fee to cover the paperworks hardly seems excessive.
Today's system is simple: Someone has copyright on it (even if it is a monkey). There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind right now that a work is copyright.
(Well except for the fact that no-one owned the copyright to the monkey selfie, despite claims by some to the contrary...)
Unless it's an older work, or you don't know who owns it, which makes it impossible to figure out when the copyright duration will eventually lapse, or you want to know who has the rights so you can contact them for whatever reason...
Unless of course you meant that due to the fact that nothing enters the public domain, ever anymore in the US, it's safe to assume that everything is covered, in which case I might agree with you, though that still doesn't solve the problem of knowing who has the rights to something, and when the theoretical expiration of the copyright term is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
That's because it's a pain in the ass, not because it's illegal. Making circumvention illegal has approximately zero influence on the difficulty of the circumvention itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
"The sentiment is nice, but an unproven concept at best."
I like how you just switch debate tactics 180 degrees depending on what will support your position at the moment. It helps demonstrate that you are saying whatever is necessary to support your agenda, not striving to arrive at a factual conclusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
I never said there was any relation between the law and the difficulty of circumventing DRM. The OP said he understood that removing DRM was a pretty trivial task and I provided an example of why that's not always so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1201 time?
Also, if you're downloading a copy that you don't have rights to, it's infringement. If not, it's not infringement. Simple. Also, you'd have to be an idiot to use a backup service where anyone could look at your files, unless you're expressly sharing the contents of your hard drive with everyone.
DRM is a failure. Full stop. It has been defeated by pirates, usually very quickly, because the designers of such a system believe they are smarter than the sum total of everyone who doesn't like DRM. It has failed in "protecting" their IP and serves only to inconvenience legitimate users. Begone, shill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1201 time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]