Category Archives: Uncategorized

Google Wins Another Fair Use Case

On May 26, 2016, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Google in its battle against Oracle.  Oracle brought suit claiming that Google infringed  by using Java application programming interface (API) in Android’s mobile operating system.  Google argued that its use of the code in the Android system, which relies partly on Java (an open source code that was acquired by Oracle in 2010), was fair use.

After three days of deliberation, the ten jurors unanimously returned a verdict in favor of Google, answering “yes” to the question of whether the use of Java API’s was fair use.

The jury’s decision is a welcome one and another win for fair use, particularly as developers continue to rely on open source languages to build new technologies.  This case demonstrates yet again why fair use has been called the “safety valve” of copyright, supporting the evolution and development of new technology.

For further reading:

Ars Technica: Google Beats Oracle–Android makes “fair use” of Java APIs

EFF: EFF Applauds Jury Verdict In Favor of Fair Use in Oracle v. Google

DisCo Project: Sanity Wins Again: The Jury Verdict on Oracle v. Google 

Civil Agencies, Law Enforcement Officials Threaten Meaningful ECPA Reform

On May 24, 2016, ARL joined a coalition of civil society organizations, companies and trade associations in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy supporting the Email Privacy Act (H.R. 699) as passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on April 26, 2016.  While the House-passed bill did not make all necessary reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), it represents a big step forward by imposing a warrant-for-content rule.  Importantly, the H.R. 699 did not include a civil agency carveout, ensuring that civil agencies do not have warrantless access to online communications such as e-mails or documents stored in the cloud.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) is a law from 1986 governing privacy for online communications and has long been in need of reform. ECPA was written in an era in which few individuals owned computers, most did not use e-mail, services like Facebook did not exist, and “the cloud” had not yet transformed the way people communicate and work. It reflects a poor understanding of the digital age and has clearly not kept pace with evolving technologies. ECPA allows the government to seize online documents and communications older than 180 days without a warrant, leading to an absurdity that grants greater protection to hard copy documents than to digital communication.  Essentially, ECPA reform seeks to ensure that the 4th Amendment applies equally to the digital age as it does to the analog world, requiring a warrant for the content of documents and communications.

Civil agencies, primarily the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), have repeatedly sought an exemption from the ECPA reforms and continue to do so as the Senate Judiciary Committee considers a vote.  These agencies would like to compel third-party providers to disclose the content of personal communications without a warrant, increasing their power beyond the existing tools they have at their disposal such as subpoenas.   Such an exemption threatens the reasonable expectation of privacy.

In addition to civil agencies seeking carveouts, law enforcement officials would like to broaden the emergency exceptions language in the ECPA reform bill despite the fact that current law already permits service providers to release information where there is an emergency involving the danger of death or serious physical injury.  Expansion of existing law in this area could be subject to abuse by government and law enforcement agencies who may try to overreach to access data.

ECPA is in serious need of reform and the Email Privacy Act passed last month by the House of Representatives–without modification or amendment–represents the appropriate vehicle to move reform forward.

California Assembly Aiming to Copyright All State & Local Government Works

*Guest post by Caile Morris, ARL Law & Policy Fellow*

On March 15, 2016, the California Assembly amended a Bill, AB-2880, dealing with state intellectual property. Introduced by Assemblyman Mark Stone in late February, the main goal of AB-2880 is to grant local and state governments the authority to create, hold, and exert intellectual property rights. The federal government is prohibited by the Copyright Act from claiming copyrights in any of the materials it creates. As TechDirt explains, the states are free to create their own approach on their copyright policies, and may decide what, if anything, a state can claim copyright in. This bill’s effect is incredibly detrimental, and if it is passed into law, it will deny California citizens the right to free and easy access to state laws and other government works.

Prior to AB-2880, California had one of the best state copyright law policies, and if AB-2880 is passed then it will drop to being one of the worst. EFF explains that previously, California forewent almost all copyright authority over works created by public entities, ensuring that the citizen tax dollars used to create the works ultimately benefits the citizens paying the taxes. California currently only has five special cases where it asserts copyright over public works. However, as EFF points out, if AB-2880 passes through the rest of the California Legislature then California state and local government agencies will “own, license, and if [they] deem appropriate, formally register intellectual property [they create] or otherwise [acquire].”

The California Committee on Judiciary, which Assemblyman Stone chairs, responded to the criticism of AB-2880 by explaining in a policy analysis that the bill would not interfere with information requests through the California Public Records Act, and thus provides the requisite amount of transparency and access. However, this ignores the fact that the works created by the local and state governments should be available to the public easily and automatically, rather than through the arduous process of filing an information request. The policy analysis itself noted that, “state ownership of intellectual property might restrict the dissemination of information.” The California State Auditor also mentioned public policy considerations when recommending how to form a state-wide intellectual property policy: “the State can ensure that the public benefits from state-owned intellectual property . . . by placing it into the public domain free of cost.” She specifically cautioned against the use of copyright protection for government works because of:

[T]he need to balance the State’s interest in protecting government publications through the use of a copyright with the public’s right of access to government records . . . . [C]opywriting government publications can be controversial; given that taxpayers already paid once to support the creation of the work, one can argue that they should not have to pay royalties to use or reproduce the written work.

While some state officials and legislators note the public policy implications of passing AB-2880, many in the Assembly seem to believe that the bill’s effect on dissemination of information is negligible compared to the benefits of government ownership of government-created intellectual property.

The intentions under which AB-2880 was created are well meaning. In early March 2016, an ugly legal battle began between Yosemite National Park and Delaware North, the concessions vendor within the Park that trademarked many of the common names of landmarks and corresponding logos. However, the knee-jerk reaction to the actions of Delaware North by Chairman Stone and the rest of the California Assembly is a disservice to the purpose of intellectual property to “promote the progress of science and useful arts,” as well as to the constituents who rely on the Legislature to provide tax-funded works and laws to the public by default.

Furthermore, as the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) wrote in a 2014 hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary on State Laws and Building Codes Under Copyright,

[C]itizens must have free access to the laws that bind them. This fundamental policy is more compelling now than ever before. Government at all levels continually increases its regulation of the activities of citizens both at work and at home. Moreover, the Internet and other forms of technology, by integrating activities conducted at home with the outside world, are increasing the likelihood that private actions will be subject to legal rules governing the public sphere. Because their activities are more likely to be subject to regulations, citizens have a greater need to have easy access to the law so that they can better understand their expanding legal obligations.

As EFF explains, this kind of intellectual property ownership by California would have a chilling effect on free speech, restrict open government, and lodge a massive hit to the public domain. Both EFF and Creative Commons have called California residents to action by contacting their state representatives and demanding that the works created by the state and local government, paid for by tax dollars, remain in the public domain for all Californians to use.

A basic government function is to provide citizens with free access to the laws. If this function is not carried out at the state level, or requires a fee or license to view or reproduce these laws, it sets a dangerous precedent. Citizens who are increasingly regulated in their everyday lives have a substantially greater need for simple, cost-free access to state and local laws.

To withhold laws and other government works from citizens discourages informed participation in any form of governance, from the town hall meeting to petitioning state legislators for changes in the state laws. In addition, copyrighted government works could result in frequent law-breaking by citizens engaging in what they believe to be innocent activities, simply because those citizens cannot access the laws. Assemblyman Stone may have had good intentions when proposing AB-2880, but what he does not grasp is that this bill has far-reaching, detrimental effects and indeed is counterintuitive to the ideals of American democracy.

Chile Becomes 17th Country to Ratify Marrakesh Treaty

Chile recently became the seventeenth country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty to Faciltiate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.  Countries from nearly every region have ratified the treaty including: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, El Salvador, India, Israel, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, North Korea, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay.  The Marrakesh Treaty requires twenty ratifications before it enters into force and only three more countries are needed.

The Marrakesh Treaty sets forth minimum standards for limitations and exceptions to facilitate access to accessible format works.  It would also permit cross-border sharing of these accessible formats, allowing countries to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and resources in the creation of these accessible works.  Additionally, the Treaty would facilitate importation of works created in other languages.

With Chile’s ratification, eight countries in Latin America have now joined and will be able to share their accessible formats across borders.  Argentina has a relatively large collection of accessible formats available through TifloLibros which will benefit those in other Spanish speaking countries.  Should the United States ratify the Marrakesh Treaty, these ratifications in Latin American countries will be of great benefit to those who are print disabled in the United States that speak Spanish.  According to a 2015 study based on US census data, the United States has more Spanish speakers than Spain; only Mexico has a larger Spanish speaking population.

Of course, ratification would not only benefit those in the United States (such as those requiring accessible formats in Spanish), but also individuals with print disabilities in other countries who could import books from the relatively large collections of accessible formats in the United States.

While the Obama Administration sent the Marrakesh Treaty to the U.S. Senate in February of this year, it has not yet been scheduled for a hearing or vote.  Earlier this year, Canada tabled Bill C-11 to prepare for implementation and accession to the Marrakesh Treaty though it also has not yet come up for a vote.

Australian Productivity Commission Recommends Fair Use, Shorter Copyright Terms

On April 29, 2016, the Australian Productivity Commission issued a nearly 600 page draft report on Intellectual Property Arrangements recommending a number of positive changes to provide better balance to the intellectual property system, including recommendations on fair use, shorter copyright terms, and specifying that copyright licensing does not override limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.

In the overview, while the Commission acknowledges the importance of incentivizing creation, the report also notes that

the use of an idea by one party does not reduce its capacity for use by another, and and that ideas provide economic and social value as other parties draw on existing knowledge to create their own.  Since new ideas are a major source of economic growth, any defects in IP arrangements intended to encourage their creation and diffusion can be very costly

[ . . .]

Indeed, overly strong restrictions on diffusion can be so detrimental to innovation that it can undo the benefits of the IP system in the first place . . .

The Commission begins a section entitled “Copy(not)right” by pointing out that “Australia’s copyright arrangements are weighed too heavily in favour of copyright owners, to the detriment of the long-term interests of both consumers and intermediate users.”  Much of the framework emphasizes balance and also recognizes the need for adaptability.

The Commission’s report also points out the importance of erring on the side of weaker IP protections because:

Recent experience would also tend to suggest that it is easier to extend IP rights than narrow them, especially where international agreements are concerned.  Given the asymmetric nature of how policy can be changed, the Commission considers it is appropriate “to err on the side of caution” where there is imperfect information, and deliberately set weaker parameters in the way that rights are assigned, used or enforced.  Extending rights should only occur after careful consideration of how such a change might affect future innovations, whether IP rights are the best way to drive the desired outcome, and how it might affect the greater number of consumers relative to producers of IP.

Ultimately, “the current Copyright Act is weighted too heavily in favor of copyright owners, to the detriment of the long-term interests of users.”

Fair Use

The Commission examines fair use and fair dealing exceptions and explains that Australia’s fair dealing exception provides a closed list of uses.  The US fair use approach, by contrast, relies on factors to determine whether the exception applies.  Thus, “In Australia, legislative change is required to expand the categories of use deemed to be fair.  In contrast, US courts have latitude to determine if, on the facts, a new use of copyright material is fair.  This allows the exception to be flexible and adaptive over time.”

The draft report includes a illustrative list of uses considered to be fair use in the US which would require a license in Australia, as it is not permitted by the current fair dealing provision.  These uses include: an internet search engine’s publication of thumbnail images in search results; an author’s quotation of unpublished letters in a biography; an artist’s collage using images from a photography book; a searchable database of TV clips; the use of scenes from a film for a biographical film about the lead actor; text and data mining, among others.

The Commission rejects the argument that fair use is too uncertain and therefore should not be adopted:

In the Commission’s view, legal uncertainty is not a compelling reason to eschew a fair use exception in Australia, nor is legal certainty desirable in and of itself.  Courts interpret the application of legislative principles to new cases all the time, updating case law when the circumstances warrant it.  To say otherwise would be to argue that all laws should be prescriptive — a doctrine that is inconsistent with many laws across all social and economic arenas, and completely inimical to the common law.  In addition, even under a fair use regime it is possible to specify a non-exhaustive list of illustrative purposes which provides strong guidance to parties.

Additionally, the Commission points out that there are similarities between the US’ fair use factors and the factors within Australia’s current fair dealing exception for research or study and that fair use may not be as uncertain as suggested.  The report points out that, while not binding, Australia could also look to US court opinions for guidance on fair use.

In 2014, the Australia Law Reform Commission recommended inclusion of a fair use provision with illustrative examples including those found in the US fair use statutes as well as parody or satire; professional advice; quotation; non-commercial private use; incidental or technical use; library or archive use; and access for people with disabilities.  The Productivity Commission states that “the ALRC’s recommendation on fair use represents the minimum level of change the Australian Government should pursue” and recommends expansion of a fair use provision to apply to orphan works and out-of-commerce works (meaning that these would be included in the non-exhaustive illustrative list of purposes).

Explaining the problem of orphan works, the Commission states that it “is not aware of any country that has fully resolved the issue of orphan and unavailable works” then examines the three approaches others are considering including: requiring a statutory license, creating an exception for the use of orphan works (such as the EU directive) and limitations on damages and remedies (proposed by the US Copyright Office).  The draft report concludes:

in the case of orphan and out-of-commerce works, creators are not actively exploiting their creation in order to generate an economic return.  Proposals to create licensing schemes, whereby consumers can pay to access such works, is one approach to unlocking their value, but likely represents a windfall gain to producers.  The Commission considers it unlikely that a creator, prior to investing the time and effort in a new work, does so on the basis that their work will have an initial commercial life, a period ‘out of the market’, and a subsequent revival perhaps decades down the track.  While this does occur for many works, it is largely by happenstance rather than design.

The Commission recommends that, “At its heart, Australia’s exception for fair use should allow all uses of copyright material that do not materially reduce a rights holder’s commercial exploitation of their work at the time of use.”

Copyright Term

The Commission’s report points out that a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years is excessive.  While it acknowledges that Australia is bound to its long copyright terms as a result of trade agreements, it recommends international negotiations to lower the term.  The Commission notes:

An effective and efficient copyright system sets term at a level that encourages creation without unduly constraining access to creative works.  Since it is not possible to define terms specific to each given work, an “optimal” term is a period that, on average, creates reasonable incentives for creation while avoiding the consumer losses associated with exclusivity.  The situation is conceptually similar to that apply to patents.  Australia’s copyright term provides protection for the author’s life plus 70 years . . . Providing financial incentives so far into the future has little influence on today’s decision to produce.  For example, the addition of twenty years of protection many years in the future, such as occurred when Australia increased term from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years . . . only increases revenue by 0.33per cent.  Such a small increase in revenue “offers at most a very small additional incentive for an economically minded author of a new work.” (citations omitted)

The Commission also reports that “evidence suggests the vast majority of works do not make commercial returns beyond their first couple of years on the market” and that the average commercial life of music is 2-5 years, for literary works 1.4-5 years, for visual artistic works 2 years, and for film 3.3-6 years.

In addition to the financial costs of copyright term extension in which consumers pay higher prices for a longer period of time, the report also acknowledges other costs such as orphan works.

Ultimately, the Commission finds that “While hard to pinpoint an optimal copyright term, a more reasonable estimate would be closer to 15 to 25 years after creation; considerably less than 70 years after death.”  The Commission acknowledges, however, that “Australia has no unilateral capacity to alter copyright terms, but can negotiate internationally to lower the copyright term” and “the Commission considers that there are strong grounds ofr Australia to work with other countries to attempt, over the long term, to achieve a system that gives greater recognition to consumer interests.”

Relationship Between Contracts and Limitations and Exceptions

The Commission examines the Australian Law Reform Commission’s 2014 recommendation that would prevent copyright licenses from relying on limitations and exceptions and concludes:

exceptions play an important role in balancing the interests of copyright producers and users.  Given the evidence presented by the Australian Libraries Copyright Committee, the Council of Australian University Libraries and National and State Libraries Australasia, the problems appear to mainly relate to libraries and archives, rather than other users.  Given this, the Commission considers that copyright license in the digital world should maintain the copyright exceptions for libraries and archives.

Because “It is less clear license conditions for digital content are undermining consumers’ ability to use Australia’s current copyright exceptions,” the Commission requests more information on this issue beyond the impact on libraries and archives.

Parallel Importation

The Commission also recommends repeal of Australia’s parallel importation restrictions on books and that the reform take effect no later than the end of 2017.

Trade Agreements

The draft report points out some of the harms of increasing intellectual property rights in trade agreements.  For example, with respect to copyright term extension implemented as a result of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, the estimated cost to Australia was $88 million per year.  The report points out that “A similar obligation to New Zealand as a result of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was estimated to cost $55 million per year.”

Another key point from the report was that “Multilateral and bilateral trade agreements are the primary determinant of Australia’s IP arrangements.  These agreements substantially constrain domestic IP policy flexibility.”

ARL Celebrates House Passage of Email Privacy Act; Urges Senate to Pass Quickly

*Cross-posted from ARL News*

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) applauds today’s 419-0 vote in the US House of Representatives passing the Email Privacy Act (H.R. 699), a bill that updates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Passed in 1986, ECPA has not kept pace with evolving technologies and has led to an absurdity that affords greater protection to hard-copy documents than digital communications.

House passage of the Email Privacy Act today signals an important recognition that Fourth Amendment protections extend to online communications. As libraries and universities move services into the cloud and more communications take place online, ensuring the protection of information long considered to be private—including what individuals are reading or researching—is essential.

“Reform of ECPA is long overdue and today’s vote in the US House of Representatives demonstrates overwhelming support for bringing privacy laws in line with the digital age,” said ARL president Larry Alford. “The Email Privacy Act will restore a reasonable expectation of privacy in online communications, requiring the government to obtain a warrant for content, and is a key step forward in updating a 30-year-old law governing digital privacy. ARL applauds today’s vote and urges the Senate to quickly move forward to pass this bill.”

The Senate version of the bill, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015 (S. 356), has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. The Association of Research Libraries strongly encourages the Senate to pass this legislation soon.

ARL Urges Congress to Pass ECPA Reform

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) is a law from 1986 governing privacy for online communications and has long been in need of reform. Congress has the opportunity to rectify the deficiencies of this law that denies individuals a reasonable expectation of privacy for the content of their online communications.

ECPA was written in an era in which few individuals owned computers, most did not use e-mail, services like Facebook did not exist, and “the cloud” had not yet transformed the way people communicate and work. It reflects a poor understanding of the digital age and has clearly not kept pace with evolving technologies. ECPA allows the government to seize online documents and communications older than 180 days without a warrant, leading to an absurdity that grants greater protection to hard copy documents than to digital communications.

The Email Privacy Act would rectify this absurdity and restore Fourth Amendment protections to the digital world by requiring a warrant for content, just as a warrant would be required for a copy of a document stored in a file cabinet. The bill has overwhelming bipartisan support with 314 cosponsors, a super majority of the House of Representatives. It was passed unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee on April 13, 2016. This support demonstrates a clear recognition that ECPA is outdated and most be reformed to reflect the way people communicate in the digital age.

While the bill as passed by the House Judiciary Committee is not perfect, it is an important step forward and includes the critical warrant for content standard. ARL calls on the House of Representatives to pass the Email Privacy Act and protect privacy in the digital age.

Supreme Court denies Authors Guild Petition for Certiorari

The Supreme Court of the United States has denied the Authors Guild for petition of certiorari in Authors Guild v. Google.  This decision leaves the Second Circuit’s opinion affirming fair use in the Google Books case intact.  In the Second Circuit’s opinion from October 2015, the court released its unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Leval, affirming that Google’s copying of books and display of snippets in a search index is transformative and a fair use.  Additionally, the Second Circuit found that Google’s provision of digital copies to its partner libraries that submitted the particular work is not an infringement.

ARL Joins More than 50 Organizations and Companies Supporting Manager’s Substitute on ECPA Reform

On April 13, 2016, ARL joined a coalition of more than 50 civil society organizations, trade associations and companies in writing to support the Manager’s Substitute Amendment to the Email Privacy Act (H.R. 699), a bill to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), in advance of the bill’s markup.  ECPA, a law passed in 1986, has not kept pace with evolving technology and allows government agencies to access private communications stored in the “cloud” without a warrant.  ARL has long supported reform of this outdated law to ensure that Fourth Amendment protections extend to the digital world.

The Email Privacy Act has enjoyed broad support with 314 co-sponsors.  While the coalition letter supports the Manager’s Substitute, it notes:

The Manager’s Substitute does not achieve all of the reforms we had hoped for. Indeed, it removes key provisions of the proposed bill, such as the section requiring notice from the government to the customer when a warrant is served, which are necessary to protect users. However, it does impose a warrant-for-content rule with limited exceptions. We are particularly pleased that the Manager’s Substitute does not carve out civil agencies from the warrant requirement, which would have expanded government surveillance power and undermined the very purpose of the bill.

Markup of the bill will happen in the House Judiciary Committee today, April 13, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.

The time for ECPA reform is long overdue and while the Manager’s Substitute rolls back some of the positive aspects of the original bill, it still represents a step forward in protecting privacy in the digital age.

LCA Submits Comments on Section 1201 to the Copyright Office

*This post is written by Caile Morris, ARL Law and Policy Fellow*

The Copyright Office published a notice of inquiry on December 29, 2015, announcing a public study to “assess the operation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code, including the triennial rulemaking process to adopt exemptions to the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works.” ARL, along with the American Library Association and the Association of College and Research Libraries, submitted comments and reply comments through the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA). Both the comments and reply comments expanded on section 1201’s fatal flaw: that the language of the statute has the potential to prohibit circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs) for lawful purposes.

Comments

On March 3, 2016, LCA filed comments on section 1201 in response to the Copyright Office’s notice of inquiry. The core message is that the failing of 1201 is its potential to prohibit not just unlawful infringing activities, but also circumvention for lawful purposes. The comments explore section 1201 prior to enactment, efforts to amend 1201 following enactment, the circuit split that has resulted from the flawed language, and recommendations for how 1201 might be amended.

LCA points out the difficulties in applying 1201, as evidenced by the current circuit split. Critics have noted that 1201 could chill legitimate purposes, such as research into computer security and prevent lawful copying under the fair use doctrine or library exception codified in the Copyright Act, and generally promote anti-competitive effects. As LCA’s comments point out,

These critics’ worst fears about the anti-competitive effect of the statute seemed to be validated when two dominant companies attempted to use section 1201 to threaten competitors in aftermarkets. The [Federal Circuit’s] Chamberlain case involved universal transmitters for garage door openers, while the [Sixth Circuit’s] Lexmark case involved toner cartridges for printers. Fortunately, the judges in these cases interpreted section 1201 in a manner that prevented its anti-competitive use. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in MDY v. Blizzard, however, has challenged this interpretation.

The LCA comments address the triennial rulemaking to adopt temporary exemptions to section 1201(a)(1)’s prohibition on circumvention as “an exercise in legal theatre” because the rulemaking only applies to the prohibition against circumvention of TPMs, but not to the prohibition of the development and distribution of circumvention tools. This, in effect, makes a legally permitted activity difficult to carry out, as the tools necessary to do so are potentially illegal to acquire. Other burdens of the process include high costs in time and money, lack of representation for the average member of the public, the language of the exemptions becoming increasingly convoluted, and having to petition for previously granted exemptions every three years de novo.

LCA’s comments recommend several possible amendments to section 1201 in order to resolve the flaws. For example, LCA endorses the approach of the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 which attaches liability to circumvention only if infringement is enabled. In the alternative, additional permanent exceptions should be enacted for educational uses, the print disabled, and embedded software. Additionally, the rulemaking should apply not only to section 1201(a)(1), but also to sections 1201(a)(2) and (b). LCA also recommends that final rulemaking authority be shifted to the Assistant Secretary of Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, because that office has more expertise in evaluating adverse effects of a circumvention prohibition. Furthermore, an opponent of a previously granted exemption should bear the burden of demonstrating why the exemption should not be renewed or modified, which is under the purview of the Copyright Office to change; nothing in the language of section 1201 dictates that review of the triennial rulemakings should be de novo. Finally, the language of the exemptions should be broader and simpler, promoting easier application of the exemptions by the public.

Reply Comments

On April 1, 2016, LCA submitted reply comments primarily responding to the comments of other participants in the notice of inquiry, while reiterating the importance of amending the central flaw of section 1201.

The reply comments identify a “leap of logic” by many content and rights holders industries comments that TPMs would fail but for the legal prohibitions on their circumvention and the creation and distribution of circumvention tools. In particular, the joint comments of the Association of American Publishers, the Motion Picture Association of American, and the Recording Industry Association of America argues that “the protections of Chapter 12 have enabled an enormous variety of flexible, legitimate digital business models to emerge and thrive….” In reply, LCA points out, “if TPMS are so weak that they must be bolstered by legal protections, then why employ TPMs in the first place?” Just because TPMs are important for a business model does not diminish their effectiveness absent legal protection. In addition, there is no real evidence that legal protection of TPMs has contributed to how effective they are. LCA argues that even if there is positive impact from section 1201 as currently written, that the negative impact far outweighs the positive, and revision is justified.

Going forward, the Copyright Office will hold public roundtables to continue its study of section 1201 on May 19 & 20, 2016 in Washington, DC, and May 25 & 26, 2016 in San Francisco, CA. Members of the public are invited to participate, and must submit a request form by April 18, 2016.