US Copyright Office wants to know which forms of DRM should be allowed to be cracked

[MrsJoseph]

Still nothing

[DiapDealer]

Apparently, the correct link is: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/commen...ubmission.html

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Apparently, the correct link is: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/commen...ubmission.html

Thank you!

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Apparently, the correct link is: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/commen...ubmission.html

Thanks! Letter sent.

[ApK]

Here's what I intend to submit. Any comments from the membership before I do?
---
Comment on Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies
To Whom It May Concern,
The rules should state clearly that circumvention is not prohibited when it is done for non-copyright-infringing use. If it must be prohibited at all, then it must only be prohibited if that circumvention directly results in or was clearly intended to result in a copyright violation.
It should be made clear that circumvention is allowed in order to exercise fair use of the material.
As a specific example, the rules should make clear that circumventing DRM on ebooks and sound recording is permitted for the purpose or exercising permitted rights, such as personally reading or listening to the material, in a format or on a device of the user's choosing. Copyright law should not be used to force consumers to use one manufacturer's equipment over another.
Thank you.
----

[Kevin8or]

I like it, ApK. It's clear and concise. Bravo.

[detayls]

Originally Posted by ApK

Here's what I intend to submit. Any comments from the membership before I do?
---
Comment on Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies
To Whom It May Concern,
The rules should state clearly that circumvention is not prohibited when it is done for non-copyright-infringing use. If it must be prohibited at all, then it must only be prohibited if that circumvention directly results in or was clearly intended to result in a copyright violation.
It should be made clear that circumvention is allowed in order to exercise fair use of the material.
As a specific example, the rules should make clear that circumventing DRM on ebooks and sound recording is permitted for the purpose or exercising permitted rights, such as personally reading or listening to the material, in a format or on a device of the user's choosing. Copyright law should not be used to force consumers to use one manufacturer's equipment over another.
Thank you.
----

You should add the phrase "on ebooks that you have personally paid for" so the sentence should read:

"As a specific example, the rules should make clear that circumventing DRM on ebooks and sound recordings, on ebooks that you have personally paid for, is permitted for the purpose or exercising permitted rights, such as personally reading or listening to the material, in a format or on a device of the user's choosing."

[ApK]

Originally Posted by detayls

You should add the phrase "on ebooks that you have personally paid for" so the sentence should read:

"As a specific example, the rules should make clear that circumventing DRM on ebooks and sound recordings, on ebooks that you have personally paid for, is permitted for the purpose or exercising permitted rights, such as personally reading or listening to the material, in a format or on a device of the user's choosing."

1. Thanks for the comment!
2. Thanks for helping me catch a typo....I meant to write "purpose of..
3. Your rephrased sentence has "on ebooks" a redundant second time. ;-)
4. I disagree. It doesn't matter if the book was free, or a gift, or what have you. As long as I have the right to consume the content, I believe there should not be arbitrary interference on my exercising that right. Personally paying is not relevant.

ApK

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ApK

4. I disagree. It doesn't matter if the book was free, or a gift, or what have you. As long as I have the right to consume the content, I believe there should not be arbitrary interference on my exercising that right. Personally paying is not relevant.

You could use "legally acquired".

[Kevin8or]

[sufue]

My comment is in...

[detayls]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You could use "legally acquired".

Yes, "legally acquired" is better.

There's no way that you can be allowed to remove DRM from a book that has not been paid for.

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Originally Posted by detayls

Yes, "legally acquired" is better.

There's no way that you can be allowed to remove DRM from a book that has not been paid for.

In my letter, I specified "paid content" and "legal free" content upon first mentioning for clarity, and then went to "legally acquired." Plenty of free books, music, demos, etc are available legally, and often DRM'ed.

[ApK]

Rulemaking cycle is still going on. I just happened to see this while checking up on it:

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2011/initial/

It's kind of cool seeing my name in the Comments column by Class 10B:
Makes me feel like I'm really part of the process!
Win or lose, at least it shows someone's listening.

ApK

[curtw]

Originally Posted by ApK

Rulemaking cycle is still going on. I just happened to see this while checking up on it:

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2011/initial/

It's kind of cool seeing my name in the Comments column by Class 10B:
Makes me feel like I'm really part of the process!
Win or lose, at least it shows someone's listening.

ApK

Hey, I'm there too! Hard to believe there weren't more.