While there was a lot of talk after the White House agreed with an awful lot of people that mobile phone unlocking should be legal, there's been little real action. Part of the problem might be that the White House suggested that this could be fixed via telecom law, when the whole issue had nothing to do with telecom law, but the broken anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA, also known as 17 USC 1201. While Congress did put forth a bunch of bills, they were all lacking, and none seemed to really tackle the underlying problem: 17 USC 1201 is completely broken. It makes circumventing a technical protection measure a form of infringement, even if the circumvention has nothing to do with actual copyright infringement. Furthermore, it makes it illegal to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof," that is primarily designed for circumventing digital locks even if the end use is not infringing.

Thankfully, Rep. Zoe Lofgren has finally introduced a real reform bill that tries to tackle this issue, along with Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Jared Polis. The bill, called the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013, changes the law to make it clear: if you circumvent some sort of digital lock for a reason that has nothing to do with infringement, it would no longer be illegal. Basically, it would add the following:

It shall not be a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with a work protected under this title if the purpose of such circumvention is to engage in a use that is not an infringement of copyright under this title.

Similarly, circumvention tools that have primarily non-infringing uses would also be legalized. It would still be illegal to do that big list of things above if the intent is to infringe, but merely creating the tools for non-infringing purposes would be legalized. Thus, tools for unlocking mobile phone, and the act of unlocking mobile phones, would be legal.

The bill also has two other key pieces. First, it makes it clear that it is not copyright infringement to switch networks and then access or load a copy of software that is stored in RAM. This seems very specific, but some operators have argued that by putting in a clause in a user agreement that forbids switching networks, those who do so could infringe by then accessing software stored in memory.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill addresses the claims that fixing the DMCA would violate trade agreements (we've heard seven different trade agreements would be violated with this simple fix of the DMCA) by telling the President that Congress says he needs to fix those agreements. Nice and simple:

The President shall take the necessary steps to secure modifications to applicable bilateral and multilateral trade agreements to which the United States is a party in order to ensure that such agreements are consistent with the amendments made by this Act.

This is actually really important. Because (just watch) copyright maximalists love to scream about how changes like this would "violate our international obligations" (while leaving out the fact that they were the ones who wrote half of those agreements in the first place). But the fact is that Congress has authority over international trade, not the executive branch. So if Congress wants, as would be the case with this bill, it can order the executive branch to change or fix any international agreements that get in the way of good law.

Techdirt has been covering the UK's long-running saga of attempted copyright reform for some years. Most recently, we wondered whether even the Hargreaves Review's moderate suggestions would survive in the face of the usual frenzied lobbying from the copyright industry. Rather remarkably, they have, and the UK government has published a list of the legislative changes it proposes to make (pdf).

These are welcome but hardly revolutionary -- more a matter of dragging UK copyright law into the 21st century. They include:

a private copying exception that lets people make copies of content they have bought, but only for their personal use;

simpler rules for using copyright material in the education sector;

permission for the limited quotation of copyright works for any purpose, as long as the source is acknowledged;

a limited copying exception for parody, caricature and pastiche;

a research and private study exception;

permission to use published research results for data analysis, but only if it is for non-commercial purposes;

permission for people with disabilities to obtain copyright works in an accessible form if there is none on the market;

archiving and preservation exceptions, designed for museums, galleries and libraries;

wider exceptions for public bodies to share some third-party information online.

The government document provides plenty of background information on its thinking, and why it chose to make the exceptions it did. Along the way, it offers some fascinating insights into the submissions from the copyright companies, and how they attempted to stave off change once more. For example, perhaps aware that it would be unable to convince the UK government not to bring in a range of minor exceptions for the public, the copyright industry seems to have adopted a fallback position based around licensing contracts. Here's the issue:

One of the arguments made by creators and rights holders in consultation was that licensing should always preclude or override any exception to copyright: if there is a licence then people should purchase it.

If that reasoning were allowed, it would effectively gut all the new exceptions, since they could always be overridden by licensing contracts imposed on users. Apparently, some went even further:

Some responses to consultation suggested that allowing unlicensed use of works when a licence was available was necessarily a violation of the [Berne] three-step test. The Government believes this view to be incorrect, as the requirement of the three-step test is that the law "does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author", or conflict with the "normal exploitation" of the work.

As the UK government pointed out:

To argue that all exploitation of a work is "normal exploitation" is to reduce the three-step test to two steps, which is manifestly not its intent. Furthermore, a licensing override is potentially inequitable to users: some could be forced to buy licences for uses much broader than the permitted act in question, while others -- where there was no licensing scheme in place -- would pay nothing.

On the other hand:

users and institutions serving users felt that a failure to address the possibility of contract override could and did render permitted acts meaningless, and their benefits wholly or partly unrealised. They argued this was a problem now. Consumers were not in any position to negotiate the terms on which copyright goods were sold or licensed, and even larger users such as institutions argued that negotiation was so resource-intensive as to be effectively impossible as a general rule; prices were not transparent and there was little or no choice of supplier.

Fortunately, the UK government agreed:

to the extent that is legally allowed, the Government will provide for each permitted act considered in this document that it cannot be undermined or waived by contract. This may include a prohibition on licensing override of permitted acts, or restricting the terms on which licensing may impact on permitted acts. The aim is not to establish contract as superior to permitted act or vice versa, but to ensure licensing does not restrict acts that are beneficial to society as a whole.

However, there is one area where the proposals fall short: dealing with DRM, or "technical protection measures" (TPM) as the document puts it. The problem is that DRM, like contracts, could easily block many of the new exceptions that the UK government is proposing. Unfortunately, European law does not allow the UK government simply to grant users the right to circumvent DRM in such cases. Instead, there is an incredibly clumsy and inconvenient procedure that must be followed:

In the UK, if a person cannot carry out a permitted act due to a TPM, and the rights holder has refused to provide a 'workaround', the mechanism used is that a user may issue a notice of complaint to the Secretary of State (SoS). The SoS can issue 'directions' to ensure that the permitted act can be carried out.

In other words, if you want to make a backup of an ebook, or transfer a music file to another medium, but are stymied by DRM, you have to write directly to the minister concerned, and ask him or her to contact the copyright holder to provide a copy in some way. Convenient, no?

This ridiculous approach, which will inevitably be ignored by most people as they continue to turn to "alternative" channels to access material they have paid for, is a consequence of the 2001 European Copyright Directive (the European equivalent of the DMCA), which places limits on what the UK government may do in the area of TPMs.

The fact that the UK government is being forced to adopt such a manifestly impractical solution to DRM's override of the proposed copyright exceptions is a stark reminder of the effect other treaties like ACTA and TPP would have, since these too will oblige all signatories to adopt certain minimum legal requirements for copyright and other areas whether or not they think them reasonable or wise. Indeed, it's clear that the copyright maximalists have shifted their attention to such multilateral treaties because they neatly circumvent democratic discussions that can happen within individual nations, substituting instead secret negotiations behind closed doors that members of the public can't even follow, much less influence.

Given these constraints, the UK government has perhaps done the best it could as far as DRM is concerned. The same could be said about the rest of the proposals. None of them is radical or revolutionary, but the fight that it has taken to get them is a reflection of the extraordinary success the copyright companies have had in blocking even the mildest attempt to update copyright legislation in the UK and make it fit for the digital age.

The UK government has stated that it wants to bring the new exceptions into force by October 2013. After all these years, that day cannot come soon enough.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

The clause-by-clause review of Bill C-11, Canada's new copyright legislation, has concluded. Michael Geist tirelessly live-Tweeted the committee discussion, and as it progressed one thing became clear: Canada is almost certainly going to be saddled with a DMCA-style anti-circumvention law (more commonly referred to here as the "digital locks" law) that would make it illegal to bypass copy protections, even for the purposes of making a completely legal, non-infringing copy such as a personal backup of a DVD. Both the Liberals and the NDP brought forth amendments that would have fixed this by clarifying that bypassing copy protection is only illegal if it is for the purposes of making an illegal copy, but the ruling Conservative government was unwilling to budge. They also defeated an amendment that would have fixed the digital locks exception for people with disabilities—an exception which exists, but is largely toothless as currently written.

The news isn't all bad—none of the more extreme changes lobbied for by the entertainment industry were accepted, and most were not even seriously considered:

The government's decision to leave the digital lock rules untouched is unsurprising but still a disappointment, since both opposition parties were clearly persuaded that such a change was needed. On the other hand, given the heavy lobbying by many groups demanding changes to fair dealing (all parties rejected calls for a new fair dealing test or limitations on education), user generated content (there were multiple calls for its removal), statutory damages (there were calls for unlimited damages), and Internet liability (there were calls for notice-and-takedown and subscriber disclosure requirements), the government's proposed amendments [were] relatively modest.

The bill is now on its way to the House of Commons for its third reading, with some of its best elements—expanded fair dealing, no notice-and-takedown—intact, along with its worst element: the digital locks provision. Though C-11 is not law yet, it's passage is all-but-guaranteed at this point, which means we may one day see a situation in this country like that in the US, where people have faced jail time for modding an Xbox (yes, that charge was later dropped, but a citizen never should have been dragged before a judge for modifying hardware they legally own in the first place). It's still important to make your voice heard: if you want to let the government know that you don't support the indirect criminalization of legal copying accomplished by the digital locks provision, today is the day to contact your Member of Parliament. Although the Conservative majority is putting its weight behind the bill, we learned with SOPA/PIPA that copyright and internet freedoms are not a partisan issue. It may be too late to stop the digital locks provision, but it would be good to see some serious debate in the House, and send a message that Canadians recognize what has happened: the Conservative government has used its majority to foist a bad law upon us at the behest of industry powers and U.S. diplomats, over the objections and best interests of the citizens it is supposed to serve.

It's that time again when the Librarian of Congress is considering special exemptions to the DMCA's anti-cicrumvention provisions. One of the key proposals, which we discussed earlier, was Public Knowledge's request to allow people to rip DVDs for personal use -- just as we are all currently able to rip CDs for personal use (such as for moving music to a portable device). The MPAA (along with the RIAA and others) have responded to the exemption requests (pdf) with all sorts of crazy claims, but let's focus in on the DVD ripping question, because it's there that the insanity of Hollywood logic becomes clear.

Effectively, the MPAA is arguing that there is no evidence that ripping a DVD itself is legal, and since anti-circumvention exemptions are only supposed to be for legal purposes, this exemption should not apply. Leaving aside the sheer ridiculousness of the fact that we need to apply for exemptions to make legal acts legal (I know, I know...), this is quite a statement by the MPAA. While it's true that there hasn't been an official ruling on the legality of ripping a DVD, the fact that CD ripping is considered legal seems to suggest that movie ripping is comparable.

But the bigger point is that the MPAA is arguing that because they offer limited, expensive and annoying ways for you to watch movies elsewhere, you shouldn't have the right to place shift on your own:

Copyright owners include with many DVD and Blu- Ray disc purchases digital copies of motion pictures that may be reproduced to mobile devices and computers pursuant to licenses. Blu-Ray disc purchasers can also take advantage of "Managed Copy" services that are scheduled to launch in the U.S. later this year. Movie distributors and technology companies are also making available services such as UltraViolet, which enables consumers to access motion pictures on a variety of devices through streaming and downloading. Many movies and television shows are also available online through services such as Comcast Xfinity, Hulu and Netflix, or websites operated by broadcasters or cable channels, which consumers can enjoy from any U.S. location with internet access. With all of these marketplace solutions to the alleged problem PK points to, it is unlikely that the presence of CSS on DVDs is going to have a substantial adverse impact on the ability of consumers to space shift in the coming three years.

Notice that almost all of these "market solutions" mean you have to pay multiple times for the same content -- and they ignore the fact that these offerings are all very limited and may not have the content on the DVDs people have. Public Knowledge has a quick summary of how these "solutions" are not solutions at all:

The MPAA had two specific suggestions. First, consumers could re-purchase access to a subscription service such as Netflix of Hulu. They did not dwell on the fact that 1) this would require you to pay again to access a movie you already own; 2) these services require a high speed internet connection in order to work; 3) There is a reasonable chance that the movie you own is not available on any of those services at any given time; and 4) MPAA member studios regularly pull videos that were once available on those services off of those same services.

The MPAA’s second suggestion was even less helpful. In their comments, they pointed to Warner Brothers’ DVD2Blu program. This program allows people to use their existing DVDs as a coupon towards the purchase of a handful of Warner Blu-Ray disks. They did not dwell on the fact that 1) this program is limited to Warner Brothers films; 2) the program is limited to 25 exchanges per household; 3) while some Blu-Ray disks include digital copies that can be moved to other devices, it is unclear how many of the disks in the DVD2Blu program include that option; 4) only 100 movies are included in the entire program; and 5) each exchange costs at least $4.95 plus shipping (which, for the record, is about as much as it would cost to buy the digital file from Amazon.).

When you think about it, this is really quite crazy. They're saying because they offer you an option to pay for a way too expensive, very limited option that might not really exist, you shouldn't have the right to rip your DVDs. This would be like the recording industry claiming you can no longer rip CDs because they offer a limited locked down selection of music in an online store. People would revolt at such a claim, and they should find the MPAA's ridiculous claims here equally as revolting.

If the MPAA stopped there, it would be crazy enough... but no, in the mind of Hollywood, they have to take it even further. They claim that because the ability to rip your DVD might take away their ability to keep charging you for the same content over and over again, that it goes against the purpose of copyright law. Seriously. They're actually claiming that their ridiculous "windows" are "new business models" that copyright law is designed to encourage:

In fact, granting PK’s proposed exemption would be directly counter to the purpose of this rulemaking. It would undermine emerging business models that increase access to creative works in precisely the manner Congress intended the DMCA to promote.

But that's pure bullcrap. The business models in question do not "increase access." They increase the ways in which you can pay. If they want to increase access, they would let you rip your damn movie.

It is clear that access controls have increased consumers’ options with respect to motion pictures in digital formats. The Register should not interfere with that progress. Instead, she should endorse it.

Up is down, black is white, day is night. Controls have increased consumer options? No freaking way. Controls have limited options... but have allowed the MPAA studios to set up tollbooths and charge people multiple times for content they legally had purchased the rights to.

While there's still a fight over whether or not SOPA and PIPA will pass, it seems that people are already working up basic hacks to make the laws obsolete, should they pass. The folks behind MAFIAAFire, the browser plugin designed to route around ICE seizures has created a new offering, dreadfully named "The Pirate Bay Dancing," which will route around any DNS or IP blocking by using a rotating list of proxy servers. If you thought that ICE was upset about MAFIAAFire, you'd have to imagine they won't be at all pleased about this bit of code. Of course, SOPA does have an anti-circumvention clause in there, which would effectively make this plugin illegal. Of course, I can't see how they could possibly enforce something like that. Using a proxy in general is legal. How will they know if you're using a proxy to get around these particular blocks? Either way, it's yet another example of why the MPAA's insistence that DNS blocking remain in the bill shows (yet again) how technically clueless they are. DNS blocking is a total waste of time. It makes the internet less secure. It fragments key pieces of the internet. Breaks the basic agreement of how the internet is supposed to work... And all for what? To create a system that won't actually block much at all?

If you're going to censor the internet, I guess you also have to criminalize attempts to get around the filters. That appears to be what's happened in Iran, where any kind of system to get around the filters, including VPNs, has been criminalized. Iran now gets to join Pakistan in banning VPNs.

“Based on the law, the use of VPNs or other antifiltering software is forbidden and considered a crime,”

Amusingly, the reasoning given is that VPNs are part of a "soft war" from Western countries, and blocking them is a way to "confront" such Western aggression.

We've been expecting Canadian politicians to re-introduce last year's bad copyright reform bill without any changes. Despite widespread public complaints over the bill, the supporters of the bill (who are being pressured heavily by US lobbyists and diplomats), insist that there's no real issue and that those arguing against the bill are merely radical extremists.

Of course, as Michael Geist has discovered, by obtaining last year's clause-by-clause document that explains the bill to Canadian Ministers, that those behind the bill seem to recognize that it goes way beyond copyright law in the arena of digital locks. That is, it's against the law to circumvent digital locks even for non-infringing works and the common defenses against infringement are not allowed for the digital locks/anti-circumvention rules. This is not unlike the US, but it's still quite troubling. Remember, this is from the Canadian government itself:

The Bill introduces new causes of action (such as those relating to TPMs and RMIs) that could be used in civil lawsuits regardless of whether or not there has been an infringement of copyright.

[....]

Generally, an owner of copyright in a work or other subject matter for which this prohibition has been contrevened has the same remedies as if this were an infringement of copyright (proposed s.41(2)). However, a contravention of this prohibition is not an infringement of copyright and the efences to infringement of copyright are not defences to these prohibitions.

As Geist notes, this might make the bill unconstitutional:

The constitution grants jurisdiction over copyright to the federal government, but jurisdiction over property rights is a provincial matter. Digital lock legislation that is consistent with existing copyright law - ie. one that factors in existing exceptions - is more clearly a matter of copyright. The C-32 provisions are arguably far more about property rights since the provisions may be contained in the Copyright Act, but they are focused primarily on the rights associated with personal property and expressly exclude copyright defences.

What amazes me is that this remains such a big issue. I can't believe anyone can credibly claim that it makes sense to block all circumvention of digital locks even in the cases of non-infringement. I know we have some supporters of such laws who read this site, and I'd like to see an honest explanation for why an anti-circumvention provision cannot include a clear exception for cases of non-infringement, and why standard defenses to copyright infringement can't apply to breaking digital locks?

We've discussed many times just how easy it is to get around the NY Times' paywall. I've never run up against it because I don't have javascript enabled, and the whole system is javascript based. We have wondered, however, if doing this is technically a violation of the DMCA -- specifically the anti-circumvention clause. After all, I am circumventing technical protection measures. That I have javascript automatically turned off for all sites doesn't much matter.

Of course, now that the paywalls been out for a while, people are finding even more ways to get around the paywall, including merely removing the string at the end of the URL. This is so simple, that someone made a 27-second video showing people how to "hack" the NY Times paywall: Of course, I'm wondering if just this video alone violates the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. Section 1201 of the DMCA says (in part): "No person shall... offer to the public... any technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." Is putting up a video that shows an incredibly easy way to get around the NY Times protection measures a violation?

One of the worst parts of the DMCA is the anti-circumvention clause, which makes it a separate violation just to circumvent various "protection" measures -- usually DRM. There is a separate clause related to this, which focuses on altering "copyright management information" which most people have always believed to mean the digital information about the copyright holder associated with the DRM. However, a court case involving some naked DJs is putting that to the test. THREsq explains the details of the case:

In 2006, New Jersey Monthly magazine hired photographer Peter Murphy to shoot WKXW hosts Craig Carton and Ray Rossi for a "Best of New Jersey" issue naming the pair as "best shock jocks" in the state. The two radio hosts were photographed standing, apparently nude, behind a WKXW sign.

Later, after the magazine had come out, the WKXW website took a scanned copy of the photograph and put it on its website, inviting its fans to take the image, manipulate it, and submit the results. The station stripped away NJM's caption and Murphy's photo credit and never got permission to use the copyrighted photograph.

There are a variety of legal issues raised in the case (including a defamation claim for how the DJs reacted after Murphy complained), but the interesting one is that Murphy claimed that simply removing the credit line on the photo is an entirely separate DMCA violation, whether or not the use of the photo infringes itself, because it messed with the "copyright management information." The radio station and the DJs reasonably argue that this is preposterous, and the lower court agreed, granting summary judgment. However, the appeals court feels differently, and thinks it's an issue worth exploring, and sends it back to the district court to explore.

The court goes through what feels like a tortured reading of the DMCA to come to this conclusion, and determines that while this result may not be "desirable, it is not absurd." Really? It seems pretty absurd that you can violate a separate part of copyright law just by removing a credit. If this actually is ruled reasonable in court, it could mean that even in cases of fair use, if you remove the credit, you could still end up violating the DMCA. That doesn't make much sense.

Bunnie Huang is no stranger to absolutely ridiculous legal claims concerning trying to hack an Xbox. After doing so, he had trouble publishing a book on the subject, over fears that telling people how to modify a piece of electronics they had legally purchased might somehow violate copyright law (anyone else see a problem with that?). Now, techflaws.org points us to the news that Huang is scheduled to testify on behalf of a guy facing jailtime for modifying Xboxes. But US officials are trying to bar his testimony, claiming it's "not legally relevant." Technically, they're probably right. But, from a common sense standpoint, Huang is trying to make a bunch of important points.

First, let's take a step back, and realize just how ridiculous this situation is. If you buy a piece of electronic equipment, should you ever deserve jailtime for then modifying it? With most things you buy, you have every right to then make changes to it. Yet, when it comes to gaming consoles, suddenly that can get you jailtime. The culprit? Of course, it's the ever-present DMCA, and its anti-circumvention clause, which lets any device maker put in some "technological protection measures," and suddenly it's illegal to modify what you thought you legally owned.

Now, supporters of the DMCA will note that every few years we have the lovely "exceptions" process, whereby the Librarian of Congress gets to (somewhat arbitrarily) choose what things won't get covered by the anti-circumvention clause. Just a few months ago, for example, it was deemed "ok" to jailbreak your mobile phone. So, here's the conundrum: it's perfectly legal to jailbreak your iPhone, but you can get thrown in jail for jailbreaking your Xbox. Explain that.

Huang wants to testify on behalf of Matthew Crippen, who would jailbreak Xboxes. Huang planned to show the jury just how easy it was to mod an Xbox. While he doesn't say so, my assumption is that the idea is to show that, and then suggest that the anti-circumvention provision does not apply because it shows that the Xbox's technological protection measures are not "effective," and the anti-circumvention provisions are only designed to apply to "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." Similar arguments have actually worked in Europe, though I'm not sure if they'll work here.

Either way, I'm guessing the court won't allow Huang to testify for a variety of legal reasons, but even if he doesn't, it would be nice if the court and anyone else could explain why jailbreaking an iPhone is fine while jailbreaking an Xbox gets you jailtime.