Understanding the Library of Congress’ New DMCA Rules

It’s about more than just iPhone applications

As you may have read by now, the Library of Congress (LOC) released new rules for how to interpret the DMCA and its copyright access control anti- circumvention rules. The headlines on the new rules all seem to focus on the ability to jailbreak an iPhone. Well, great. I’m glad we can jailbreak legally, especially since it was definitely a gray area before.

I think it’s pretty clear to just about everyone that Apple, or any company, that uses the DMCA to limit our ability to modify hardware we buy is going too far.

I also think it’s reasonable that Apple and others can void your warranty if you do so, and the new rules don’t limit that. If you tamper with a device, then you void the warranty. It’s that simple. To me, this is fundamental to most rights, even with something elemental like the First Amendment: You have the right to say what you want, but there may be consequences after you’ve said it.

What I haven’t seen is a broader analysis of the rulings, so let’s have a go. (Keep in mind that I’m not a lawyer, and these are a layman’s interpretations.)

Section 1 – Motion Pictures on DVD

This section addresses the decade-old use case of whether I can crack the copyright protection on a DVD to gain access to the content for fair use reasons. The LOC splits out fair use conditions pretty explicitly, including educational use, documentaries, and noncommercial video. The latter condition is interesting: Would noncommercial use include using scenes from a movie as a backdrop in a YouTube video?

Being allowed to breach copyright protection on a DVD isn’t totally new, but it continues to be useless in most situations. Sure, your average geek is going to be comfortable doing this, but I don’t know many schools or libraries that will break out their DVD cracking software at the drop of a hat. In reality, how helpful is this exception on a wide-scale?

Section 2 – Telephone Headsets and Software

Very interesting. I didn’t realize this was an issue, but I can see where this comes up. My reading indicates that there are situations where headsets are being used to control software applications. Okay, nothing new to see here. But, if I read between the lines correctly, vendors of the software applications were claiming foul when this was done. Why? (Or am I missing something entirely?)

Section 3 – Telephone Handsets and Wireless Networks

Speaks on the use of wireless telephone handsets to connect to wireless telephone networks. Basically, this section gives you the ability to use a wireless handset (your cell phone) to connect to a wireless telephone network (your cell carrier), meaning you can use cell phones across carriers. This eliminates the control a phone manufacturer has in forcing you to use a specific cell network (e.g., AT&T). To me, this is one of the biggest wins, even though I don’t see any real short-term benefits—it’s all long-term. There is a huge technical issue to this section having a real impact: Cell phone carriers have incompatible networks. That means that even though you can legally use your Blackberry on any network you want, it may not happen in reality because the Blackberry doesn’t use technology that is compatible with your carrier of choice.

Section 4- Computer Games

If you unravel the copyright protection of a computer game, and your intention is to investigate or test the software, or find security vulnerabilities, you’re in the clear. Does this mean that game review sites can ignore the EULA and copyright protection and post a review of a game regardless of what the game company wants? I’d like clarification on this.

Section 5 – Computer Dongles

Very, very smart ruling. Basically, if software you are using relies on a hardware dongle, and that dongle is no longer manufactured, then you can crack the copyright protection scheme to use the software. Makes sense to me.

Section 6 – eBooks and the Disabled

The section doesn’t specifically mention disabled people, but it appears to me to be focused on that. Specifically, the ruling says that you are immune from prosecution if you circumvent the copyright protection on an eBook so that “enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format” is possible.

I read that as “It’s okay to crack the copyright protection if you want to have a book read to you by computer software”, which happens generally in one of two cases: Someone is visually impaired/blind, or you just want to listen to an audiobook-idized version of the eBook.

• Microsoft
• Copyright Protection
• DMCA
• iPhone
• Library of Congress