[conspire] (forw) Re: UPDATE: U.S. Copyright Office requiring proprietary software for DMCA anti-circumvention comments

[Rick Moen]

Reassuringly, they were on top of this, and their action does make
sense.

----- Forwarded message from Donald Robertson <donald at fsf.org> -----

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 01:50:33 -0500
From: Donald Robertson <donald at fsf.org>
To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>, Joshua Gay <jgay at fsf.org>
Subject: Re: UPDATE: U.S. Copyright Office requiring proprietary software for
	DMCA anti-circumvention comments



On 02/27/2016 12:33 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Good people of the Licensing and Compliance Team:
> 
> I know you're busy, and don't want to chew up your time.  (No response
> needed.)  Just wanted to point out an angle you might not have
> considered.
> 
> I note with appreciation your recent message:
> 
>>    Last week, working with our Defective By Design team, [2]we asked
>>    people to co-sign a comment that we, the Free Software Foundation
>>    (FSF), will be submitting to the U.S. Copyright Office for their study
>>    of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. 1201). Our
>>    comment sends a simple and clear message: the DMCA's anti-circumvention
>>    provisions, including the triennial exemption granting process, are
>>    broken beyond repair and the only way to fix this law is to repeal it
>>    altogether. The Copyright Office has extended the comment period, and
>>    so our [3]comment is now open for public co-signing until noon EST (5pm
>>    UTC) on March 2nd.
>> [...]
> 
> Comment'[3]' is a hyperlink to
> https://my.fsf.org/civicrm/profile/create?gid=439&reset=1, including
> your Copyright Office comment's text.
> 
> Comment is that DMCA anti-circumvention provisions should be
> repealed, and the triennial process to enact exemptions (to the
> prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control
> access to copyrighted works) ended.
> 
> There's a problem:
> 
> U.S. Copyright Office's authority to pass regulations permitting
> exceptions to anti-circumvention law arises from primary (Congressional)
> legislation that enacted 17 U.S.C. 1201.  Copyright Office has only
> rulemaking powers governed (and, in Federal jargon, 'enabled') by the
> statute.
> 
> FSF's comment appears to ask Copyright Office to revise primary
> legislation.  They can't.  They have no authority to do so.  Congress
> does.  


Thank you for your feedback. This is not a notice of proposed rulemaking
(where the Copyright Office would be changing rules), it is a study
undertaken at the request of Congress. Once the Copyright Office
receives comments and replies, they'll put together a
report/recommendations for Congress and Congress will make the ultimate
determination of what to do with the results of the study. So we should
be on track already. Thanks again for looking into this, and for any
help you can provide in spreading the comment to your friends and
colleagues.

> 
> Your comment _could_ be amended to ask Copyright Office to recommed such
> a change to Congress.
> 

-- 
Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Copyright & Licensing Associate
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone +1-617-542-5942
Fax +1-617-542-2652

----- End forwarded message -----