Disabling text-to-speech (TTS) triggers DMCA exemption: YOU ARE ALLOWED TO REMOVE DRM

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

This is a test of your critical thinking skills. Read the above quotes. Think about it until tomorrow, and then tell me why I am wrong.

Please post a direct quote from the law with the words "blind", "visually impaired", or "disabled" highlighted in the text. None of your quotes contained any mention of those words.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Please post a direct quote from the law with the words "blind", "visually impaired", or "disabled" highlighted in the text. None of your quotes contained any mention of those words.

I agree, but it does include: (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities). From bookshares status as authorized entity:

"authorized entity" means a nonprofit organization or a governmental agency that has a primary mission to provide specialized services relating to training, education, or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind or other persons with disabilities

This implies that the DMCA anti-circumvention exception it is seeking accessibility for the visually impaired. The unresolved question is what happens if an "authorized entity" has a copy but you are not qualified to download it and yet you are "adversely affected" by the lack of TTS.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Yes, yes they are.

No the are not.

[JSWolf]

Nate, not being able to use the eBook in a noninfringing way to have the TTS work means I am adversely affected.

[JSWolf]

The real question is does the DMCA have the right to trample our fair use rights? if not, then the DMCA is a load and needs to be flushed. And the only way we'll know this for sure is for this to go to court.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

I agree, but it does include: (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities). From bookshares status as authorized entity: This implies that the DMCA anti-circumvention exception it is seeking accessibility for the visually impaired. The unresolved question is what happens if an "authorized entity" has a copy but you are not qualified to download it and yet you are "adversely affected" by the lack of TTS.

That is talking about the Chafee Amendment, which is an entirely different part of copyright law. It is unrelated to the DMCA exceptions. Maybe that is why people are getting confused?

Your quote is talking about exceptions to copyright itself. What we're talking about are exceptions to the DMCA and removing DRM, not the entire copyright. They are two completely different things.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That is talking about the Chafee Amendment, which is an entirely different part of copyright law. It is unrelated to the DMCA exceptions. Maybe that is why people are getting confused?

Your quote is talking about exceptions to copyright itself. What we're talking about are exceptions to the DMCA and removing DRM, not the entire copyright. They are two completely different things.

I am talking about what "authorized entities" means, and as you suggest, what it means comes from the Chafee Amendment. Recall that the anti-circumvention exemption in question says:

Literary works distributed in e-book format when all existing e-book editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

I am talking about what "authorized entities" means, and as you suggest, what it means comes from the Chafee Amendment. Recall that the anti-circumvention exemption in question says:

That definition of "authorized entity" is coming from Chapter 1 Section 121 of copyright law, which is specifically about "Limitations on exclusive rights: reproduction for blind or other people with disabilities". In the scope of Section 121, they're talking about limitations of copyright itself in the case of people with disabilities. That part of copyright law has nothing to do with DRM.

What we're talking about is Chapter 12 Section 1201, which is specifically about "Circumvention of copyright protection systems", specifically circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to a copyrighted work (aka DRM). That section has nothing to do with being disabled, blind, or visually impaired. If there is a digital text edition from an authorized entity available without TTS restrictions, then that particular work probably fails the "all existing ebook editions of the work" clause. However, nothing in this Section of copyright law says you have to be disabled in order to qualify for the exception if there are no existing ebook editions available that allow TTS.

In other words, if there are versions available with TTS, then use them. If there are not, then you are allowed to bypass the protection system. The only qualification is that it is for a non-infringing use and that you are adversely affected. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are disabled.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

If there is a digital text edition from an authorized entity available without TTS restrictions, then that particular work probably fails the "all existing ebook editions of the work" clause. However, nothing in this Section of copyright law says you have to be disabled in order to qualify for the exception if there are no existing ebook editions available that allow TTS.

I agree. But as I said in my original post:

The unresolved question is what happens if an "authorized entity" has a copy but you are not qualified to download it and yet you are "adversely affected" by the lack of TTS.

This seems to be a Catch-22. The exemption applies to anyone "adversely affected", but many people who are affected can't access versions from an "authorized entity" and any such version presumably voids the exception.

[Elfwreck]

"Authorized entities" may be entitled to create and distribute digital editions of books that have not been released as ebooks; those may only be available to people who can prove some specific level of visual impairment. (Or they may just be allowed to distribute, potentially in direct competition with the publisher's ebook edition.)

Individual ability to circumvent DRM seems to be allowed to anyone adversely affected by the restriction of TTS, but individuals have no additional right to share/transfer their nonDRM'd versions with others.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

This seems to be a Catch-22. The exemption applies to anyone "adversely affected", but many people who are affected can't access versions from an "authorized entity" and any such version presumably voids the exception.

I think we're agreeing that the DMCA exception is not dependent on being disabled.

As far as what happens if an ebook version exists but you are not allowed access to it for whatever reason, we're probably getting into areas where lawyers will fight it out in court. Personally, what I read is that it says "made available by authorized entities". If that entity does not allow someone access (for whatever reason they choose), then they are not making it available to them. This, in my mind, would still qualify that person for the exception.

Of course, that also makes me wonder what would happen if a non-disabled person sued the "authorized entity" for discrimination for refusing to sell to them... but that's an entirely different topic.

[kamm]

So it's been over a year but now it's been re-inforced: today's DMCA changes EXPLICITLY CONFIRM that YOU CAN INDEED LEGALLY ALLOWED TO REMOVE DRM to enable read-aloud functionality:

(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

Full text copy of the Final Rule from the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/d.../RM-2008-8.pdf

THANK YOU, EFF!!!

[llreader]

WOOHOO!!!

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If you do not _need_ the TTS ability (by being visually impaired, for example) then you are not adversely affected by its absence. Wanting the ability is not the same thing.

It doesn't say that you have to be adversely affected, just that if the protection blocks the use of TTS or rendering the text into a specialized format (such as Braille), you may remove it.

Even if you are correct, what is the limitation for adversely affected?

[wallcraft]

The "read-aloud" exception is not new, but it has been renewed for 3 years.

Since I am not a lawyer I can tell you what I think this means:

It is available to everyone (not just the blind and visually impaired).

It might not apply to a Kindle ebook with TTS disabled, if either a) another version of the same ebook (e.g. in LIT format, say) allows read-aloud (which is very unlikely), or b) an "authorized entity" makes TTS enabled versions for the blind and visually impaired. Some publishers do have arrangements with various organizations to make TTS versions, and this might protect them from this exception. Also, a Kindle version with TTS enabled nullifies this exception for (say) ePub versions which don't allow read-aloud. This is on its face ridiculous, but that is what the exception says.

As a practical matter, no one is ever going to be sued under the DMCA for circumventing ebook DRM for the purpose of format shifting for personal use. The "read-aloud" exception make this even less likely for ebooks than other copyrighted material.