FSF Celebrates New Copyright Exemptions, But Renews Call For Repealing all DRM Laws (fsf.org) 34
After the U.S. Copyright Office's once-every-three-years review of allowed exemptions, "We have some good news to share...." reads a new announcement this week from the Free Software Foundation:
The FSF was one of several activist organizations pushing for exemptions to the anticircumvention rules under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that make breaking Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) illegal, even for ethical and legitimate purposes. We helped bring public awareness to a process that is too often only a conversation between lawyers and bureaucrats.
As of late last week, there are now multiple new exemptions that will help ease some of the acute abuse DRM inflicts on users.
However, the main lesson to be learned here is that we should and must keep pushing. Individual, specific exemptions are not enough. The entire anticircumvention law needs to be repealed. We want to thank the 230 individuals who co-signed their names to our comments supporting exemptions across the board. We should take this as a sign that even though it can be difficult, anti-DRM activism yields practical results.
Section 1201 is one of the most nefarious sections of the DMCA. The provisions contained in 1201 impose legal penalties against anyone trying to circumvent the DRM on their software and devices or, in other words, anyone who tries to control that software or device themselves instead of leaving it up to its corporate overlords.... It takes the hard work of hundreds to secure the anticircumvention use exemptions we already have, and even more work to eke out a few more. Yet thanks to the support of citizens, activists, and researchers around the world, the U.S. Copyright Office has approved a few more, while at the same time demonstrating the DMCA's serious flaws.
In coverage of the new round of anticircumvention exemptions we've seen so far, something that stands out is the U.S. Copyright Office's approval for blind users to break the digital restrictions preventing any ebooks from being processed through a screen reader. At least at first glance, it looks like a big win for all of us concerned with user freedom, but a closer look shows something more sinister, as the U.S. Copyright Office refused to make this exemption permanent. The message this sends to all user freedom activists, but especially the visually impaired among us, is: "we're giving you this now because it would seem inhumane otherwise, but we hope that you'll forget to fight for it later so we can allow corporations to keep on restricting you...."
[P]articipating organizations have been able to make progress on other important exemptions, whether that's the right to install free software on wireless routers or the right to repair dedicated devices like game consoles. It's the coalescing of groups like these that is "chipping away" at Section 1201. At the same time, it's telling that we're forced to fight tooth and nail for the meager exemptions we're granted, even with such a broad base of support. The corporations who have a vested interest in the DMCA and Congress itself are content with the status quo, but we shouldn't be content with patches on a broken system. Incremental progress against Section 1201 is of course a good thing, but we shouldn't lose sight of our goal as user freedom activists: a complete repeal of Section 1201, and all other laws that codify or mandate DRM.
The Defective by Design campaign takes a radical stance when it comes to DRM and the laws that support it. We believe that they should not exist at all, under any circumstance, and we need your help to support this mission....
As of late last week, there are now multiple new exemptions that will help ease some of the acute abuse DRM inflicts on users.
However, the main lesson to be learned here is that we should and must keep pushing. Individual, specific exemptions are not enough. The entire anticircumvention law needs to be repealed. We want to thank the 230 individuals who co-signed their names to our comments supporting exemptions across the board. We should take this as a sign that even though it can be difficult, anti-DRM activism yields practical results.
Section 1201 is one of the most nefarious sections of the DMCA. The provisions contained in 1201 impose legal penalties against anyone trying to circumvent the DRM on their software and devices or, in other words, anyone who tries to control that software or device themselves instead of leaving it up to its corporate overlords.... It takes the hard work of hundreds to secure the anticircumvention use exemptions we already have, and even more work to eke out a few more. Yet thanks to the support of citizens, activists, and researchers around the world, the U.S. Copyright Office has approved a few more, while at the same time demonstrating the DMCA's serious flaws.
In coverage of the new round of anticircumvention exemptions we've seen so far, something that stands out is the U.S. Copyright Office's approval for blind users to break the digital restrictions preventing any ebooks from being processed through a screen reader. At least at first glance, it looks like a big win for all of us concerned with user freedom, but a closer look shows something more sinister, as the U.S. Copyright Office refused to make this exemption permanent. The message this sends to all user freedom activists, but especially the visually impaired among us, is: "we're giving you this now because it would seem inhumane otherwise, but we hope that you'll forget to fight for it later so we can allow corporations to keep on restricting you...."
[P]articipating organizations have been able to make progress on other important exemptions, whether that's the right to install free software on wireless routers or the right to repair dedicated devices like game consoles. It's the coalescing of groups like these that is "chipping away" at Section 1201. At the same time, it's telling that we're forced to fight tooth and nail for the meager exemptions we're granted, even with such a broad base of support. The corporations who have a vested interest in the DMCA and Congress itself are content with the status quo, but we shouldn't be content with patches on a broken system. Incremental progress against Section 1201 is of course a good thing, but we shouldn't lose sight of our goal as user freedom activists: a complete repeal of Section 1201, and all other laws that codify or mandate DRM.
The Defective by Design campaign takes a radical stance when it comes to DRM and the laws that support it. We believe that they should not exist at all, under any circumstance, and we need your help to support this mission....
Permanent (Score:2)
I've read Section 1201 for a class. The problem is that the Copyright Office does not have the power to make the exception permanent.
Re: (Score:3)
A government body doesnt have the power to make or change laws, only grant specific, time limited exemptions.
If you want the law changed, thats a job for the elected law makers, not the unelected government workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court are all government bodies. Federal agencies are empowered to enforce various law by writing specific regulations as well. So yes, indeed, they do have considerable power to make and change laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) specifically requires a review every three years. The LoC is not authorized to create permanent exemptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll make a deal with the FSF. We repeal all DRM if they repeal all piracy. Deal?
Nice move there, Mr. AC Shill! I bet your masters just love that you're equating piracy with putting software of my choice on hardware that I purchased, and further confusing the issue.
The DMCA was never about piracy. It was about corporate control over end users' lives, along with control of artistic output which in many cases they themselves stole from the artists who created it. Piracy was just the "I'm shocked and appalled" talking point meant to confuse both the average folk and some of the creators it
Re: (Score:3)
The proper place to repeal or amend a law is congress. Whether SCOTUS can right the wrongs doesn't matter.
The current copyright law is endangering passing on of knowledge and information to future generations. The legal copyright holders are pretending themselves the creators when they are usually just financial lords of the creators. Intellectual "properties" are legally protected monopolies of information and knowledge. Such monopoly privileges shall never be treated the same as physical properties, es
Re: (Score:2)
Contemporary intellectual property law has many issues. I think we can refine it to two primary problems: copyright is far, far too long, and software patents should not be permitted. Reducing copyright to, say, 20 years rather than the current "as long ago as Mickey Mouse was first published" policy lobbied and supported by Disney has destroyed sane copyright policy. Coupled with software patents which are difficult to discern and are issued far too broadly, much of intillectual property law is dominated b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We repeal all DRM if they repeal all piracy. Deal?
They are not trying to ban DRM. If you want to DRM your product, feel free.
The problem is laws enforcing DRM. That is using my taxes to support your broken business model.
Why is it my problem if your DRM is buggy and can be bypassed by teenagers?
Here we go again, (Score:2)
A crummy lock is not a valid defense against "break and enter".
Re:Here we go again, (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM criminalizes activities that no one should consider "stealing", such as making backup copies or continuing to use purchased media after an OS upgrade.
Copyright infringement is normally a civil offense, not a crime. If you want to enforce your copyright, you sue the infringer. You don't call the cops. DRM makes a civil offense into a crime and then criminalizes non-infringing fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
Teenagers (and people of all other ages) bypass the age old laws around ownership of physical objects as well - ie steal them. Is Walmarts business model broken as well?
I know that people dont like to admit it, but all property ownership law is enforced by services paid for by taxes - its laws and the police which stop someone else considering your car parked by the side of the road to be fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM doesn't have anything to do with stealing and "property ownership law", no matter how much owners try to push that wrong simplification that "proppity is proppity". You tried to equate copying with shoplifting. Seriously? You've been here long enough to know better. Might as well cry that eating from Burger King is stealing from McDonald's.
It bears repeating, until a solid majority gets it: copying belongs to the masses now, and it's a huge social good. Much of our education is copying, in order
Re: (Score:2)
See, you didn't actually respond to my points, other than to spout the same old bullshit "but its DIFFERENT when it comes to copyright!" and then something inane bollocks about McDonalds and BK.
Nah, it's not different, not at all - it's the same legal fiction whether it's a physical object or not.
And yes, I've been around these parts for 20 odd years, but that doesn't mean my stance in this area is the same as yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually I did respond to your points. Then you responded with the by now very tired approach of dismissing my response as the "same old bullshit", as if the status of copyrighted information as property in the same sense as a material good, is beyond debate.
It is in fact DIFFERENT when it comes to copyright. It is totally DIFFERENT. TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Shoplifting is the taking of items possessed of scarcity. Data is not scarce. That is the difference, and that difference is of overriding and o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We repeal all DRM if they repeal all piracy. Deal?
Funny thing, vinyl records have been outselling CDs for awhile now. The format predates DRM (CDs technically have a very weak form of DRM). It turns out that if you have a product people want to buy, they will, even if it can be easily copied. In fact, the music industry dropped DRM from digital downloads a few years ago, and the sky didn’t fall.
Re: (Score:3)
At least Blu-Ray and modern video formats have found themselves constantly updatable with new keys, and have foiled the pirates for 10+ years
Nope. Copying/ripping Blu-Ray is a thing that happens all the time. TPB is still AOK. You can get movies for free. The thing is, most people are willing to pay ten-ish bucks a month to watch a whole bunch of stuff, then switch and pay ten-ish bucks a month to watch a whole other bunch of stuff, so even though it's possible to download a lot of content for free basically anyone with money is willing to pay.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to end piracy give people cheap and easy access to content. Like streaming services did with music. Hardly anyone pirates MP3 files nowadays.
I keep pirating movies because across Netflix/HBO/Amazon I don't have access to all movies I want. Usually old ones, which should be in public domain for a long time already (but because Disney are not).