Copyright Office Extends Anti-Circumvention DMCA Exemptions To All Filmmakers, Not Just Documentarians
from the victory dept
Earlier this year, we wrote a bunch of posts on the Copyright Office's request for comment on changes needed to the DMCA's anti-circumvention exemption list. There were lots of interesting submissions, but one that caught my attention was a whole bunch of film association groups, most of them for documentarians, advocating that the anti-circumvention they enjoyed to be able to use clips from other films and content be expanded to include filmmakers generally. This would address the copyright industries' cynical attempt to route around Fair Use usage by filmmakers by simply locking up their content behind all kinds of DRM that, unless you're a documentarian, you can't circumvent. The MPAA, as you would expect, said that allowing for this would kick off "widespread hacking" of all the DVDs on the planet, while all it was really concerned about was the licensing agreements it was able to secure by filmmakers who didn't want to violate the DMCA to get the Fair Use clips they wanted.
Well, the Copyright Office made its decision and the exemption will now be offered to filmmakers en masse.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) exemptions aren’t just for documentary filmmakers any more. The U.S. Copyright Office and Library of Congress last week broadened a DMCA exception to now allow more filmmakers to circumvent anti-copying technology and rip short video clips for purposes of commentary and criticism.
“This is huge for the independent film industry,” said Michael Donaldson, an attorney who argued for expanding the exemption before the Copyright Office, in a written statement. “The use of fair use material by narrative filmmakers has exponentially increased to the point where expanding the exemption to fiction films was absolutely necessary.”
What this means is that more filmmakers will now be able to simply rip clips from protected DVDs to use in their own creative works, as long as the purpose of the clip is used for parody or to demonstrate biographical or historically significant information. This opens up all kinds of uses, of course, but all of them will still be subject to being truly Fair Use cases. That, of course, is a defense, so you can expect lawsuits to be filed before we settle into some kind of a norm here.
Still, this is a good decision by the Copyright Office. The idea that the MPAA and others could lock up content that could otherwise be fairly used behind DRM obviously doesn't comport with the purpose of the law.
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: circumvention, copyright, copyright office, dmca, dmca exemptions, drm, fair use, filmmakers, library of congress, parody, triennial review
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Speaking of wins for the people...
Come and see what a REAL Competition Commission can do!!
"Last year, former NBN Co boss Bill Morrow called for a tax on mobile broadband services, in what was seen as a bid to restrict competition when it launched.
Then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull quickly shot down the idea, but the apparent concern by the NBN's operators has led the ACCC to issue a warning.
"What we must NEVER DO, however, IS seek to restrain others in order to PROTECT THE NBN business model. This would be a disaster for consumers," Mr Sims said. "
https://www.qt.com.au/news/could-superfast-and-widely-available-5g-be-the-fin/3566586/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now we need the Copyright Office to ask YouTube if they would let up on the gotdamn film/TV/anime criticism videos that get hammered by DMCA takedowns/copyright holds more often than not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Always 10+ years too late
Ripping DVDs has been standard for the masses for some time now. Talk about worrying about the barn door after the horse is not only gone, but has made many ponies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big loss for the MPAA, IMO
Things just got more expensive for the MPAA, as well as more complicated - which also means more expensive. Funny how that works, almost as if someone had employed a business model based on exploiting that very concept.
Hmmmm, I wonder if we'll ever figure out that conundrum...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's 1
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MPAA lawyers don't want to lose a lawsuit on fair-use grounds, as it would effectively enshrine a certain kind of usage as fair use for everyone. After seeing what's been happening to IP trolls, they also are reluctant to demand settlements for suspected infringements they have no intention of taking all the way to trial.
Instead, they know it is usually better to do nothing and accept a status quo where the question of "is this fair use?" remains uncertain, causing some to just not risk using the content at all, and some portion of the rest just licensing the content because they don't want to risk being sued (even if they're pretty sure they'd win).
The MPAA knows that most producers will never allow even the briefest snippet of a copyrighted movie or TV show in a new work without a license. There is nothing about this recent ruling that will change that in any way, nor does it change the risks involved in using clips under a presumption of fair use.
All that has happened is a conflict in the law was resolved: instead of fair use being an impossibility when DRM had to be circumvented to get the content, it is now the same possibility as when no circumvention was needed. This does not open up any new avenues for mass piracy, and the MPAA knows it is being disingenuous by saying so; they really just didn't want to lose the ability to sue fair-users on a technicality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: law was reseolved ?
________
But it was "resolved" by a new/modified 'law' issued by a Federal agency with absolutely NO authority to legislate or adjudicate anything. Thus a much larger problem for American governance presents itself here.
"Well, the Copyright Office made its decision and..."
The Constitution gives Congress (and only Congress itself) the power to enact and modify copyright laws in the U.S.
The U.S Copyright Office is merely an administrative bureaucracy established by Congress -- a support agency with zero legal authority to impose or interpret any new "rules" (de facto laws) upon the U.S. public.
Folks here who sincerely believe they strongly support the rule of law ... have no clue how the American legal system actully operates day to day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
They aren't doing their job of running those presses!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Always 10+ years too late
Display and distribution..
which is funny when you got the the store and find Barrels of $3-5 DVD's..
BUT STILL, there are collections that have ne ver been converted, NOR released..
The word collections is special, as Groups and person have Bought certain films, and this has Nothing to do with those movies..they are in private hands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
Constitution Article I, Section 1: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"
Constitutional Law precisely defines who has authority to make any and all Federal laws -- the formal House & Senate.
There is no clause permitting Congress Congress to 'delegate' its legislativ authority to anybody else !
Of course Congress does routinely delegates its legislative authority to hundreds of Federal persons and agencies.
That is not any problem at all ... unless you really think the Constitution is a fundamental LAW itself (most Americans do not think so, or choose to avoid such troublesome thoughts)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
It will be hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
No need to inquire about your legal credentials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CR is interesting..
50 years is 2.5 generations.. 4 persons per gen, is 8+ people depending on it..
70 years 3.5 generations.. 12+ people..
But how much of this goes to taxes?? lawyers? A company that bought it??
Waiting for them to extend this to Artwork...And artist gets a yearly payout.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
Go read the United States section of this page, especially:
Unless and until SCOTUS overrules this, you're wrong: they can delegate their legislative power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
You want legal facts? Your "arguments" about the "constitutionality" of regulators would be even more pointless if not for when the Supreme Court gave itself the power to determine constitutionality. 1803, Marbury v. Madison.
If you knew anything about the Constitution, you'd know the people who wrote it considered certain powers "implicit," such as judicial review and delegation of power. How much of that power can they delegate? As much as they want, it's their power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CR is interesting..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: That's 1
Blind squirrels get nuts handed to them as long as they kick a portion back to certain politicians. What a racket.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: law was reseolved ?
What other yet undiscovered laws lurk in the Constitution?
(HINT: they made it up from thin air)
But at least you are using a reasoned argument here instead of empty personal insults.
Basic problem in your SCOTUS argument is that the Constiutional text nowhere grants SCOTUS the legal authority to independently modify/void the Constitution's provisions nor any laws duly enacted by Congress; Marbury vs. Madison was simply Chief Justice John Marshall inventing a totally new "supremacy" power ("judicial review") for himself and SCOTUS. The Constitution says SCOTUS is 'supreme' only over lower federal courts-- not over the other two branches of government nor the Constitution itself. If SCOTUS justices legally object to any Congressional laws/actions -- SCOTUS can readily refuse to enforce those laws in Federal courts, thus depriving Congress of enforcement power for unconstitutional laws.
Immediate issue here is that U.S. Copyright Office blithely altered a formal law (1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act) enacted by Congress and signed by President Clinton. If bureaucrats in federal agencies can simply make/remake laws... why do we need a formal legislature of elected representatives? How do American citizens know what the laws are if the laws are so unpredictable, many, often unknowable beforehand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But how will music recordings fit in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But how will music recordings fit in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
Since you're simple, I'll try to use simple words.
The Constitution itself says you are wrong, so I'll let it speak for itself.
Article 3, section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Section 2, clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.
I think "all cases" is pretty clear, no? "All cases" includes cases about, and by, Congress. The only exception is impeachment. The Supreme Court, using it's authority to decide in "all cases", said it was permissible. Suck it up.
Another point you seem unable to comprehend is that the exemptions are EXPLICITLY allowed for within the DMCA, including the 3 year exemption cycle. Of course, I would expect that an expert such as yourself would have actually read the law you know so much about? Or at least the Cliffs Notes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
At this point, wouldn't it just be easier on you to deal with reality, rather than addressing the overly complicated and illogical fiction you keep going for? It's not even good fiction, let alone a useful straw man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
DMCA itself is an awful, bizarre, and non-Constitutional product.
In a just world, no copyright laws would exist.
Stunning that the "Library of Congress" can hand out "exemptions" to Federal criminal law!
gotta luv that ruleoflawstuff
the Feds can fool most of the people most of the time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Keep counting your days Masnick. The police are coming for you. Any day now. Almost at your door. Can you hear them?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
The SCOTUS, using it's constitutional duty to review "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority," came to the decision that Congress had the right to delegate it's powers in the suit J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928). Including the power to alter what a law covers, as long as there are clear and limited guidelines involved.
The DMCA is awful, bizarre, and completely constitutional, since copyright and it's management is a power granted to Congress, that they (constitutionally!) partially delegated to the Copyright Office/Library of Congress.
Also, copyright is civil law. Not that it matters. You're either a complete moron, or an unskilled troll. Either way, I've made myself more knowledgeable about the subject.
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
"But it was "resolved" by a new/modified 'law' issued by a Federal agency with absolutely NO authority to legislate or adjudicate anything. Thus a much larger problem for American governance presents itself here."
Yes...and then again, no.
Law enforcement has no ability to amend or adjust legislation. But it does have the ability to decide operational procedure.
In this case congressional protection of copyright exists, but the constitution doesn't specify how this protection is to be carried out. The copyright office's amendment on this issue will probably stand until successfully challenged in a court of law.
And that's going to boil down to a court decision on to what extent copyright protection can be considered proportional and justified - a principle the copyright cult has historically tried to keep as far away from a decision-making authority as possible. The precedent offered by Valenti's crusade against the VCR which resulted in home taping being considered fair use is still a bad memory for copyright maximalists everywhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: CR is interesting..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: law was reseolved ?
Do you mean in a different way? DMCA wasn't in the USA constitution and it might be possible that some federal laws can be argued as unconstitutional or party. But I agree it's awful and bizarre but I don't think it's constitutional to not allow people to bypass copy protection code of legal software they own. DMCA was an extra law added, that even if something was not Copyright infringement, it could still violate DMCA sometimes.
Sorry if I misunderstood. I just found your comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]