Please consider adding [email protected] to your address book, which
will ensure that our messages reach you and not your spam box!
Read and share online: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/help_fight_against_dmca_anticircumvention_rules_december_7th
Dear Free Software Supporter,
The United States Copyright Office is now accepting comments in
support of exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA)
anti-circumvention provisions, and we need your help by December 7th
to ensure that every new exemption is granted.
The DMCA has been making headlines recently for all the wrong
reasons. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) recently
was able to temporarily have youtube-dl removed from GitHub, via a
poorly thought out take down notice. GitHub has now restored
youtube-dl, but not before forcing some changes to the
project. While the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA can have some
use, it's clearly an abuse for the RIAA to interfere with such a
project -- particularly given that part of their notice was a claim
about some sort of violation of YouTube's rights, not the RIAA's, and
was related to a different section of the DMCA, the section 1201
anti-circumvention provisions. Those provisions create legal penalties
for avoiding Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), and even harsher
penalties for sharing the tools to do so.
This last point -- the separate penalties for sharing tools used to
remove restrictions -- is especially important. Recently, Google
demanded GitHub take down tools used to work around its Widevine
DRM. This just underscores that users will be unable to take advantage
of even approved exemptions, unless they are able to write their own
tools from scratch to get the DRM out of their way. It's like saying
everyone is free to cook what they want in their own kitchen, but
buying and selling stoves is illegal.
The anti-circumvention provisions are destructive to the rights of
users, only marginally mitigated by a broken exemptions
system. As we wrote previously:
Every three years, supporters of user rights are forced to go through
a Kafkaesque process fighting for exemptions from the
anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA... In short, under the
DMCA's rules, everything not permitted is forbidden. Unless we expend
time and resources to protect and expand exemptions, users could be
threatened with legal consequences for circumventing the DRM on their
own devices and software and could face criminal penalties for sharing
tools that allow others to do the same. Exemptions don't fix the harm
wrought by the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, but they're the
only crumbs Congress deigned to throw us when they tossed out our
rights as users.
As luck would have it, as the RIAA is abusing the take down system,
the next round of this exemptions process is well underway. The
Copyright Office announced that they had compiled 17 classes of
proposed exemptions, and is now taking comments in support of those
exemptions. Each exemption has to narrowly target a particular use, so
while each one granted is a victory, it's only incremental
progress. While this system is unfair to users and activists, gaining
back even some control over our computing is important.
Of particular interest in this round of the exemptions process is
proposed Class 16: Copyright License Investigation. This class would
enable organizations like the Free Software Foundation to peek inside
DRM-encumbered software to find out if free software is locked
inside. Without this exemption, violators could hide behind DRM in
order to cloak their violations of the GNU General Public License
(GPL) or other copyleft licenses. This proposed exemption is not only
important for the FSF's work handling GPL compliance for the GNU
Project, but it also showcases the absurdity of the whole
anti-circumvention provisions regime. How can it be that those who
violate copyright can be shielded from discovery by a law ostensibly
meant to protect copyright? Why is any user at legal risk for
accessing software they are entitled to under the terms of a free
software license? Or for sharing tools to control that same software?
The answer, of course, is that DRM has nothing to do with enforcing
copyright law, and everything to do with control. It lets companies
control their users so they can't repair their own devices. It gives
governments extra-judicial control over their citizens. It lets
copyright violators control access to the evidence of their
violations. It's time we took back control!
We won't stop until the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are
repealed, and this mess of an exemptions process is ended. But for
now, we don't want to pass up on the opportunity to claw back at least
some of our rights. As we have repeatedly done over the decades since
the DMCA was enacted, we are once again supporting each and every
proposed class of exemptions. From exemptions for librarians wanting
to preserve our cultural heritage, to exemptions for activists working
to improve accessibility via transcription, to exemptions for users
wanting to jailbreak streaming devices, and yes, even exemptions for
nonprofits fighting to keep free software free: we want every right
that was stolen from us returned to us all.
As we have in years past, we're asking everyone to join in our
comments in support of each and every exemption. Every voice makes a
difference. Will you aid us in taking back control? Here is how you
can help:
Support our comments for new exemptions by emailing us at
[email protected] by December 7th. We just need your name and
state (or country, if you are outside the US) to add your voice to
the chorus. With the US exporting its software and bad laws around
the world, we need all the help we can get. Keep up to date on this battle and the larger fight against DRM by
subscribing to the Defective by Design mailing list.
You can also support our work in this area by becoming an associate
member. The FSF is in the middle of our annual fundraiser,
and associate members offer the continued support the Defective by
Design campaign needs to continue the fight to take back control.
Sincerely,
Donald Robertson, III
Licensing & Compliance Manager
|
