Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?

from the please-explain dept

A few months back, Public Knowledge released its five ideas for copyright reform, and we asked people to defend why any of them didn't make sense. Oddly -- despite the vast number of copyright system defenders who populate the comments around here -- not a single person suggested any reason why the five suggested reforms didn't make sense. Some people suggested other ideas for reform, but the regular defenders of the system miraculously disappeared when asked to defend the current system. I'd say it was funny... but, really, it's just sad.

PK is now drilling down deeper into each of the five topics, and the latest one is the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA, which makes circumventing any kind of "technical protection measures" illegal -- even if you are doing it for perfectly legal reasons. It also makes it illegal to make or distribute tools that can be used to circumvent DRM. In PK's rewrite, those specific problems are fixed:

To remedy the situation, PK proposed two simple changes to the DMCA. First, Section 1201(a)(1), which now bans circumventing a technological protection measure which that "controls access" to a copyrighted work would should be changed "to allow circumvention for the purpose of making a non-infringing use of the protected work."

Second, Section 1201(a)(2) and Section (b)(1), which ban the making and distribution of circumvention tools, should be amended to permit the making and distribution of tools capable of enabling substantial non-infringing use of a work, in order to give those making lawful uses the practical ability to circumvent.

So, once again, I will ask the copyright defenders among the community here: what's wrong with this proposal? I'd like to understand a defense of an anti-circumvention law that makes the tool, rather than the uses, illegal -- and which makes a perfectly legal action illegal just because of the method used. Because, frankly, I've never understood how either provision in today's law makes sense, and I'm sure there must be someone out there who thinks they do make sense.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, copyright, copyright reform, dmca, drm
Companies: public knowledge

Time To Change (Or Ditch) The USTR Special 301 Process That Pressures Other Countries To Adapt US IP Laws

from the get-rid-of-it dept

A few days ago, you may remember, I posted the comments I submitted to the USTR on the Special 301 report, where I pointed out the value of allowing countries to set their own intellectual property policy, rather than forcing everyone to follow US faith-based intellectual property policy. Traditionally, the Special 301 process was a way for industry lobbyists to get the US gov't to put countries they didn't like on a special "watch list," that would lead US diplomats, who didn't even understand the lack of factual basis for the report, to start putting pressure on other countries to change their intellectual property policies to make them more draconian (funny, isn't it, that they only went in one direction?). Basically, lobbyists would submit the details of countries whose IP policies they didn't like, and the USTR would basically turn around and put out a list based on what was submitted, with little effort to actually look at the situation. This year, at least, the public was able to submit comments (such as mine, linked above), but it's unclear how much of an impact that will have.

In the meantime, EFF and Public Knowledge have teamed up to ask the USTR to change the process and, at the very least, stop taking the word of industry lobbyists as if it were gospel. They also suggested that the USTR be more flexible in allowing countries to set their own IP policy -- noting, amusingly, that the US itself famously didn't implement its "international obligations" in the Berne Treaty for decades, because the country felt differently about certain aspects of copyright law. Hell, even today we're not in full compliance with Berne. But for some reason the USTR acts as if other countries need to fall in line with US IP policy, even as we've chosen to go in a different direction when we felt it was warranted.

Of course, the best thing to do isn't to change the Special 301 process, but to ditch it entirely. It serves no reasonable purpose and has been abused by industry representatives for years. It puts a strain on US relations with other countries, and harms the ability for other countries to craft IP policy in the way that they feel will best serve culture and innovation.

Filed Under: copyright, eff, public knowledge, special 301, ustr
Companies: eff, public knowledge

Public Knowledge Points Out MPAA's Lies On Why It Wants To Break Your TV

from the nice-work dept

For quite some time now, the MPAA has been asking the FCC for permission to break your TV, so you won't be able to record certain movies shown on TV. Specifically, it wants to be allowed to use something called "Selectable Output Control" to tell DVRs that they can't record a show. It's basically the whole "broadcast flag" concept all over again. The MPAA's argument for why it needs this makes no sense at all. It basically makes two arguments, neither of which are true. The first is that they need this in order to be able to put movies on TV earlier. This is not true. There's nothing stopping the studios from putting movies on TV earlier, other than a misguided fear that people will "pirate them." And that's the second problem: even the industry admits that the movies they'd release on TV are already pirated and available on file sharing networks, so it's not like having this would stop that. The movies will still get out there. SOC won't stop piracy at all -- but it will piss off a ton of people who bought a DVR expecting to be able to record what they want to watch.

Consumer rights group Public Knowledge, thankfully, has now sent a letterexplaining all of this to the FCC:

"The MPAA has submitted no proof that grant of the waiver will serve the public interest at all. To the contrary, what proof exists in the record shows that the 'problem' of a longer window for release of movies to MVPDs than for release on DVDs is a business decision made by MPAA's members. Rather than shed crocodile tears for the poor shut-ins and busy parents who must either subscribe to NETFLIX to get the earlier window or wait a whole thirty days, MPAA's members could simply negotiate a shorter release window."

Hopefully the FCC listens.

Filed Under: drm, dvr, mpaa, selectable output control, soc
Companies: mpaa, public knowledge

EFF, Public Knowledge Drop ACTA Lawsuit, Realizing 'National Secrets' Claim Will Block Them

from the really-unfortunate dept

With the Obama administration bizarrely claiming that documents pertaining to negotiations over ACTA, the industry-written treaty that will push countries to change their copyright laws, are somehow a state secret, EFF and Public Knowledge have reluctantly decided to drop their lawsuit to try to open up the proceedings and get access to the documents (freely shared with industry lobbyists, but kept secret from consumers or consumer watchdogs). Basically, they realized that by claiming it's a national secret, there was no way the lawsuit would get anywhere. The whole situation is really unfortunate. What a shame that the administration would be covering up for an entertainment industry's attempt to increase protectionism for its own broken business model, by claiming it was a "national secret."

Filed Under: acta, lawsuit, national secrets
Companies: eff, public knowledge