Thu Mar 28 08:20:10 2024
EVENTS
 FREE
SOFTWARE
INSTITUTE

POLITICS
JOBS
MEMBERS'
CORNER

MAILING
LIST

NYLXS Mailing Lists and Archives
NYLXS Members have a lot to say and share but we don't keep many secrets. Join the Hangout Mailing List and say your peice.

DATE 2018-12-01

HANGOUT

2024-03-28 | 2024-02-28 | 2024-01-28 | 2023-12-28 | 2023-11-28 | 2023-10-28 | 2023-09-28 | 2023-08-28 | 2023-07-28 | 2023-06-28 | 2023-05-28 | 2023-04-28 | 2023-03-28 | 2023-02-28 | 2023-01-28 | 2022-12-28 | 2022-11-28 | 2022-10-28 | 2022-09-28 | 2022-08-28 | 2022-07-28 | 2022-06-28 | 2022-05-28 | 2022-04-28 | 2022-03-28 | 2022-02-28 | 2022-01-28 | 2021-12-28 | 2021-11-28 | 2021-10-28 | 2021-09-28 | 2021-08-28 | 2021-07-28 | 2021-06-28 | 2021-05-28 | 2021-04-28 | 2021-03-28 | 2021-02-28 | 2021-01-28 | 2020-12-28 | 2020-11-28 | 2020-10-28 | 2020-09-28 | 2020-08-28 | 2020-07-28 | 2020-06-28 | 2020-05-28 | 2020-04-28 | 2020-03-28 | 2020-02-28 | 2020-01-28 | 2019-12-28 | 2019-11-28 | 2019-10-28 | 2019-09-28 | 2019-08-28 | 2019-07-28 | 2019-06-28 | 2019-05-28 | 2019-04-28 | 2019-03-28 | 2019-02-28 | 2019-01-28 | 2018-12-28 | 2018-11-28 | 2018-10-28 | 2018-09-28 | 2018-08-28 | 2018-07-28 | 2018-06-28 | 2018-05-28 | 2018-04-28 | 2018-03-28 | 2018-02-28 | 2018-01-28 | 2017-12-28 | 2017-11-28 | 2017-10-28 | 2017-09-28 | 2017-08-28 | 2017-07-28 | 2017-06-28 | 2017-05-28 | 2017-04-28 | 2017-03-28 | 2017-02-28 | 2017-01-28 | 2016-12-28 | 2016-11-28 | 2016-10-28 | 2016-09-28 | 2016-08-28 | 2016-07-28 | 2016-06-28 | 2016-05-28 | 2016-04-28 | 2016-03-28 | 2016-02-28 | 2016-01-28 | 2015-12-28 | 2015-11-28 | 2015-10-28 | 2015-09-28 | 2015-08-28 | 2015-07-28 | 2015-06-28 | 2015-05-28 | 2015-04-28 | 2015-03-28 | 2015-02-28 | 2015-01-28 | 2014-12-28 | 2014-11-28 | 2014-10-28 | 2014-09-28 | 2014-08-28 | 2014-07-28 | 2014-06-28 | 2014-05-28 | 2014-04-28 | 2014-03-28 | 2014-02-28 | 2014-01-28 | 2013-12-28 | 2013-11-28 | 2013-10-28 | 2013-09-28 | 2013-08-28 | 2013-07-28 | 2013-06-28 | 2013-05-28 | 2013-04-28 | 2013-03-28 | 2013-02-28 | 2013-01-28 | 2012-12-28 | 2012-11-28 | 2012-10-28 | 2012-09-28 | 2012-08-28 | 2012-07-28 | 2012-06-28 | 2012-05-28 | 2012-04-28 | 2012-03-28 | 2012-02-28 | 2012-01-28 | 2011-12-28 | 2011-11-28 | 2011-10-28 | 2011-09-28 | 2011-08-28 | 2011-07-28 | 2011-06-28 | 2011-05-28 | 2011-04-28 | 2011-03-28 | 2011-02-28 | 2011-01-28 | 2010-12-28 | 2010-11-28 | 2010-10-28 | 2010-09-28 | 2010-08-28 | 2010-07-28 | 2010-06-28 | 2010-05-28 | 2010-04-28 | 2010-03-28 | 2010-02-28 | 2010-01-28 | 2009-12-28 | 2009-11-28 | 2009-10-28 | 2009-09-28 | 2009-08-28 | 2009-07-28 | 2009-06-28 | 2009-05-28 | 2009-04-28 | 2009-03-28 | 2009-02-28 | 2009-01-28 | 2008-12-28 | 2008-11-28 | 2008-10-28 | 2008-09-28 | 2008-08-28 | 2008-07-28 | 2008-06-28 | 2008-05-28 | 2008-04-28 | 2008-03-28 | 2008-02-28 | 2008-01-28 | 2007-12-28 | 2007-11-28 | 2007-10-28 | 2007-09-28 | 2007-08-28 | 2007-07-28 | 2007-06-28 | 2007-05-28 | 2007-04-28 | 2007-03-28 | 2007-02-28 | 2007-01-28 | 2006-12-28 | 2006-11-28 | 2006-10-28 | 2006-09-28 | 2006-08-28 | 2006-07-28 | 2006-06-28 | 2006-05-28 | 2006-04-28 | 2006-03-28 | 2006-02-28 | 2006-01-28 | 2005-12-28 | 2005-11-28 | 2005-10-28 | 2005-09-28 | 2005-08-28 | 2005-07-28 | 2005-06-28 | 2005-05-28 | 2005-04-28 | 2005-03-28 | 2005-02-28 | 2005-01-28 | 2004-12-28 | 2004-11-28 | 2004-10-28 | 2004-09-28 | 2004-08-28 | 2004-07-28 | 2004-06-28 | 2004-05-28 | 2004-04-28 | 2004-03-28 | 2004-02-28 | 2004-01-28 | 2003-12-28 | 2003-11-28 | 2003-10-28 | 2003-09-28 | 2003-08-28 | 2003-07-28 | 2003-06-28 | 2003-05-28 | 2003-04-28 | 2003-03-28 | 2003-02-28 | 2003-01-28 | 2002-12-28 | 2002-11-28 | 2002-10-28 | 2002-09-28 | 2002-08-28 | 2002-07-28 | 2002-06-28 | 2002-05-28 | 2002-04-28 | 2002-03-28 | 2002-02-28 | 2002-01-28 | 2001-12-28 | 2001-11-28 | 2001-10-28 | 2001-09-28 | 2001-08-28 | 2001-07-28 | 2001-06-28 | 2001-05-28 | 2001-04-28 | 2001-03-28 | 2001-02-28 | 2001-01-28 | 2000-12-28 | 2000-11-28 | 2000-10-28 | 2000-09-28 | 2000-08-28 | 2000-07-28 | 2000-06-28 | 2000-05-28 | 2000-04-28 | 2000-03-28 | 2000-02-28 | 2000-01-28 | 1999-12-28

Key: Value:

Key: Value:

MESSAGE
DATE 2018-12-18
FROM From: "Donald Robertson, III, DBD"
SUBJECT Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] 2018 DMCA anti-circumvention exemption process:
From hangout-bounces-at-nylxs.com Wed Dec 19 12:40:30 2018
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Delivered-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (www2.mrbrklyn.com [96.57.23.82])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B77316113A;
Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:40:23 -0500 (EST)
X-Original-To: hangout-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
Delivered-To: hangout-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
Received: by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 7E189161134; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:40:17 -0500 (EST)
Resent-From: Ruben Safir
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:40:17 -0500
Resent-Message-ID: <20181219174017.GA23945-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com>
Resent-To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
X-Original-To: ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com
Delivered-To: ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [208.118.235.92])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45F4161132
for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:34:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from crmserver2p.fsf.org ([208.118.235.223]:35802)
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from )
id 1gZNwk-0002fL-Sp
for ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:34:39 -0500
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=my.fsf.org)
by crmserver2p.fsf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
(envelope-from )
id 1gZNwk-0004Ld-MR
for ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:34:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Donald Robertson, III, DBD"
job_id: 157928
To: Ruben Safir
Precedence: bulk
X-CiviMail-Bounce: crmmailer+b.157928.39529774.54ff06d394a9cead-at-fsf.org
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:34:38 -0500
Message-Id:
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] 2018 DMCA anti-circumvention exemption process:
some progress, but not enough
X-BeenThere: hangout-at-nylxs.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: "Donald Robertson, III, DBD"
List-Id: NYLXS Tech Talk and Politics
List-Unsubscribe: ,

List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,

Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0732140072=="
Errors-To: hangout-bounces-at-nylxs.com
Sender: "Hangout"

--===============0732140072==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_fff5a70f94bbbbce9334c3c99b3dabe0"

--=_fff5a70f94bbbbce9334c3c99b3dabe0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

*Read and share online: *


Dear Ruben Safir,

The anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) are still a threat. The latest round of its exemptions
process showed some successes, and where the work needs to continue.

The DMCA has quite a few troubling provisions in it, but the nastiest
of them all are the anti-circumvention rules. These provisions create
legal penalties for anyone trying to control their own software or
devices, and potential criminal risk when users try to share tools for
avoiding Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). These rules are
grossly unfair, and deprive users of the right to repair the devices
that they own, to study or research potential security flaws, or to
make or modify their own copies of works to meet their needs. As
paltry compensation, Congress carved out a complicated process run by
the US Copyright Office for reclaiming the ability to control your
computing in narrow circumstances. As [we wrote][0] previously:

[0]: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/end-DMCA-anti-circumvention-provisions

> 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
Digital Restrictions Management (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 brought
about 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.

Even when exemptions on avoiding DRM are approved, the ability to
share tools to make use of the exemptions is not covered, rendering
most exemptions practically useless for most users. 2018 saw yet
another round of this silly process come to a close. While we will
keep fighting to eliminate the anti-circumvention rules, making this
process obsolete, we do want to take a moment to [review this year's
results][1] (PDF).

[1]: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-23241.pdf

In this latest round, [we supported all twelve][2] newly proposed
classes. While we can celebrate some limited success in that nine
classes received some level of expanded or new exemptions, some
classes were outright rejected. Calls for broader-based exemptions
were also rejected, and the Copyright Office once again narrowly
tailored their exemptions, leaving the landscape difficult to navigate
and needlessly complex.

[2]: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/help_fight_against_dmca_anticircumvention_rules_december_15th

There was some procedural progress made in this round. First, the
Copyright Office simplified the process of renewing existing
exemptions. In previous rounds, every three years activists and users
would have to claw and scratch to make sure that previously granted
exemptions were maintained. For anyone wanting to make use of these
exemptions, having them called into question so frequently left users
in an uncertain position. Under the new system, the process for
supporting existing exemptions is simpler, and led to every single
preexisting exemption being renewed. This a nice step in the right
direction. The exemptions process unfairly burdens smaller
organizations and individuals, who don't have the resources to
constantly be providing the type of in-depth information and research
that the Copyright Office favors in its reviews. While we give voice
to the rights of users in this process, the Copyright Office's public
response is that we do not provide enough "data." Rights aren't
numbers on a spreadsheet. Anything that reduces this artificial burden
is beneficial, but the best way to improve the system is to get rid of
it altogether.

Another procedural improvement this year was how the Copyright Office
intends to deal with other governmental regulatory bodies interfering
with the exemptions process. DRM is about copyright in name only; it
has always simply been about controlling the user. But one of the most
malicious aspects of the exemptions system was a growing trend of
other governmental agencies trying to use DRM in order to restrict
users based on regulations having nothing to do with copyright. We've
repeatedly called out these [DRM Drones][3] for what they are: enemies
of user rights. On this front we can celebrate some measure of
success, as the Copyright Office explicitly denounced this act. It
said it will no longer consider other governmental agencies' attempts
to expand the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions for reasons having
nothing to do with copyright. The Copyright Office tying its
exemptions review back to copyright is again beneficial, in that it
hopefully means they will grant more exemptions and prevent other
agencies from mangling an already convoluted system. It's good that
they have rebuffed these attempts for now, but that still leaves us in
a situation where users don't have full control over their own
computing based on a false claim of upholding copyright.

[3]: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/meet_latest_drm_drones

None of these improvements to the exemptions process resolve the
fundamental unfairness of threatening users with legal repercussions
for trying to live their lives without outside interference. And none
of the successes that we enjoyed this year allow users to share the
tools necessary to enjoy that success. We cannot stop here. We must
continue to fight for the end of DRM and the DMCA's anti-circumvention
provisions.

Will you help us win this fight? Help spread the word about the
dangers of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions by sharing this
article with your friends.

Sincerely,
Donald Robertson, III
Licensing and Compliance Manager

--
* Follow us on GNU social at and on Twitter at .
* Read about why we use Twitter, but only with caveats at .
* Subscribe to our blog via RSS at .
* Donate to support the campaign at .
* Read the Free Software Foundation Privacy Policy at .

You can unsubscribe from the Defective by Design mailing list by visiting the link .

To stop all email from the Free Software Foundation, including Defective by Design and the Free Software Supporter newsletter, click this link: .

Defective by Design is a campaign of the Free Software Foundation:

51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1335
United States

--=_fff5a70f94bbbbce9334c3c99b3dabe0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

































Defective by Design









Read and share online: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/2018_dmca_anticircumvention_exemption_process_some_progress_not_enough





Dear Ruben Safir,



The anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) are still a threat. The latest round of its exemptions
process showed some successes, and where the work needs to continue.



The DMCA has quite a few troubling provisions in it, but the nastiest
of them all are the anti-circumvention rules. These provisions create
legal penalties for anyone trying to control their own software or
devices, and potential criminal risk when users try to share tools for
avoiding Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). These rules are
grossly unfair, and deprive users of the right to repair the devices
that they own, to study or research potential security flaws, or to
make or modify their own copies of works to meet their needs. As
paltry compensation, Congress carved out a complicated process run by
the US Copyright Office for reclaiming the ability to control your
computing in narrow circumstances. 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
Digital Restrictions Management (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 brought
about 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.



Even when exemptions on avoiding DRM are approved, the ability to
share tools to make use of the exemptions is not covered, rendering
most exemptions practically useless for most users. 2018 saw yet
another round of this silly process come to a close. While we will
keep fighting to eliminate the anti-circumvention rules, making this
process obsolete, we do want to take a moment to review this year's
results
(PDF).



In this latest round, we supported all twelve newly proposed
classes. While we can celebrate some limited success in that nine
classes received some level of expanded or new exemptions, some
classes were outright rejected. Calls for broader-based exemptions
were also rejected, and the Copyright Office once again narrowly
tailored their exemptions, leaving the landscape difficult to navigate
and needlessly complex.



There was some procedural progress made in this round. First, the
Copyright Office simplified the process of renewing existing
exemptions. In previous rounds, every three years activists and users
would have to claw and scratch to make sure that previously granted
exemptions were maintained. For anyone wanting to make use of these
exemptions, having them called into question so frequently left users
in an uncertain position. Under the new system, the process for
supporting existing exemptions is simpler, and led to every single
preexisting exemption being renewed. This a nice step in the right
direction. The exemptions process unfairly burdens smaller
organizations and individuals, who don't have the resources to
constantly be providing the type of in-depth information and research
that the Copyright Office favors in its reviews. While we give voice
to the rights of users in this process, the Copyright Office's public
response is that we do not provide enough "data." Rights aren't
numbers on a spreadsheet. Anything that reduces this artificial burden
is beneficial, but the best way to improve the system is to get rid of
it altogether.



Another procedural improvement this year was how the Copyright Office
intends to deal with other governmental regulatory bodies interfering
with the exemptions process. DRM is about copyright in name only; it
has always simply been about controlling the user. But one of the most
malicious aspects of the exemptions system was a growing trend of
other governmental agencies trying to use DRM in order to restrict
users based on regulations having nothing to do with copyright. We've
repeatedly called out these DRM Drones for what they are: enemies
of user rights. On this front we can celebrate some measure of
success, as the Copyright Office explicitly denounced this act. It
said it will no longer consider other governmental agencies' attempts
to expand the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions for reasons having
nothing to do with copyright. The Copyright Office tying its
exemptions review back to copyright is again beneficial, in that it
hopefully means they will grant more exemptions and prevent other
agencies from mangling an already convoluted system. It's good that
they have rebuffed these attempts for now, but that still leaves us in
a situation where users don't have full control over their own
computing based on a false claim of upholding copyright.



None of these improvements to the exemptions process resolve the
fundamental unfairness of threatening users with legal repercussions
for trying to live their lives without outside interference. And none
of the successes that we enjoyed this year allow users to share the
tools necessary to enjoy that success. We cannot stop here. We must
continue to fight for the end of DRM and the DMCA's anti-circumvention
provisions.



Will you help us win this fight? Help spread the word about the
dangers of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions by sharing this
article with your friends.



Sincerely,

Donald Robertson, III

Licensing and Compliance Manager






--=_fff5a70f94bbbbce9334c3c99b3dabe0--

--===============0732140072==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

--===============0732140072==--

--===============0732140072==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_fff5a70f94bbbbce9334c3c99b3dabe0"

--=_fff5a70f94bbbbce9334c3c99b3dabe0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

*Read and share online: *


Dear Ruben Safir,

The anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) are still a threat. The latest round of its exemptions
process showed some successes, and where the work needs to continue.

The DMCA has quite a few troubling provisions in it, but the nastiest
of them all are the anti-circumvention rules. These provisions create
legal penalties for anyone trying to control their own software or
devices, and potential criminal risk when users try to share tools for
avoiding Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). These rules are
grossly unfair, and deprive users of the right to repair the devices
that they own, to study or research potential security flaws, or to
make or modify their own copies of works to meet their needs. As
paltry compensation, Congress carved out a complicated process run by
the US Copyright Office for reclaiming the ability to control your
computing in narrow circumstances. As [we wrote][0] previously:

[0]: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/end-DMCA-anti-circumvention-provisions

> 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
Digital Restrictions Management (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 brought
about 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.

Even when exemptions on avoiding DRM are approved, the ability to
share tools to make use of the exemptions is not covered, rendering
most exemptions practically useless for most users. 2018 saw yet
another round of this silly process come to a close. While we will
keep fighting to eliminate the anti-circumvention rules, making this
process obsolete, we do want to take a moment to [review this year's
results][1] (PDF).

[1]: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-23241.pdf

In this latest round, [we supported all twelve][2] newly proposed
classes. While we can celebrate some limited success in that nine
classes received some level of expanded or new exemptions, some
classes were outright rejected. Calls for broader-based exemptions
were also rejected, and the Copyright Office once again narrowly
tailored their exemptions, leaving the landscape difficult to navigate
and needlessly complex.

[2]: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/help_fight_against_dmca_anticircumvention_rules_december_15th

There was some procedural progress made in this round. First, the
Copyright Office simplified the process of renewing existing
exemptions. In previous rounds, every three years activists and users
would have to claw and scratch to make sure that previously granted
exemptions were maintained. For anyone wanting to make use of these
exemptions, having them called into question so frequently left users
in an uncertain position. Under the new system, the process for
supporting existing exemptions is simpler, and led to every single
preexisting exemption being renewed. This a nice step in the right
direction. The exemptions process unfairly burdens smaller
organizations and individuals, who don't have the resources to
constantly be providing the type of in-depth information and research
that the Copyright Office favors in its reviews. While we give voice
to the rights of users in this process, the Copyright Office's public
response is that we do not provide enough "data." Rights aren't
numbers on a spreadsheet. Anything that reduces this artificial burden
is beneficial, but the best way to improve the system is to get rid of
it altogether.

Another procedural improvement this year was how the Copyright Office
intends to deal with other governmental regulatory bodies interfering
with the exemptions process. DRM is about copyright in name only; it
has always simply been about controlling the user. But one of the most
malicious aspects of the exemptions system was a growing trend of
other governmental agencies trying to use DRM in order to restrict
users based on regulations having nothing to do with copyright. We've
repeatedly called out these [DRM Drones][3] for what they are: enemies
of user rights. On this front we can celebrate some measure of
success, as the Copyright Office explicitly denounced this act. It
said it will no longer consider other governmental agencies' attempts
to expand the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions for reasons having
nothing to do with copyright. The Copyright Office tying its
exemptions review back to copyright is again beneficial, in that it
hopefully means they will grant more exemptions and prevent other
agencies from mangling an already convoluted system. It's good that
they have rebuffed these attempts for now, but that still leaves us in
a situation where users don't have full control over their own
computing based on a false claim of upholding copyright.

[3]: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/meet_latest_drm_drones

None of these improvements to the exemptions process resolve the
fundamental unfairness of threatening users with legal repercussions
for trying to live their lives without outside interference. And none
of the successes that we enjoyed this year allow users to share the
tools necessary to enjoy that success. We cannot stop here. We must
continue to fight for the end of DRM and the DMCA's anti-circumvention
provisions.

Will you help us win this fight? Help spread the word about the
dangers of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions by sharing this
article with your friends.

Sincerely,
Donald Robertson, III
Licensing and Compliance Manager

--
* Follow us on GNU social at and on Twitter at .
* Read about why we use Twitter, but only with caveats at .
* Subscribe to our blog via RSS at .
* Donate to support the campaign at .
* Read the Free Software Foundation Privacy Policy at .

You can unsubscribe from the Defective by Design mailing list by visiting the link .

To stop all email from the Free Software Foundation, including Defective by Design and the Free Software Supporter newsletter, click this link: .

Defective by Design is a campaign of the Free Software Foundation:

51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1335
United States

--=_fff5a70f94bbbbce9334c3c99b3dabe0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

































Defective by Design









Read and share online: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/2018_dmca_anticircumvention_exemption_process_some_progress_not_enough





Dear Ruben Safir,



The anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) are still a threat. The latest round of its exemptions
process showed some successes, and where the work needs to continue.



The DMCA has quite a few troubling provisions in it, but the nastiest
of them all are the anti-circumvention rules. These provisions create
legal penalties for anyone trying to control their own software or
devices, and potential criminal risk when users try to share tools for
avoiding Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). These rules are
grossly unfair, and deprive users of the right to repair the devices
that they own, to study or research potential security flaws, or to
make or modify their own copies of works to meet their needs. As
paltry compensation, Congress carved out a complicated process run by
the US Copyright Office for reclaiming the ability to control your
computing in narrow circumstances. 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
Digital Restrictions Management (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 brought
about 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.



Even when exemptions on avoiding DRM are approved, the ability to
share tools to make use of the exemptions is not covered, rendering
most exemptions practically useless for most users. 2018 saw yet
another round of this silly process come to a close. While we will
keep fighting to eliminate the anti-circumvention rules, making this
process obsolete, we do want to take a moment to review this year's
results
(PDF).



In this latest round, we supported all twelve newly proposed
classes. While we can celebrate some limited success in that nine
classes received some level of expanded or new exemptions, some
classes were outright rejected. Calls for broader-based exemptions
were also rejected, and the Copyright Office once again narrowly
tailored their exemptions, leaving the landscape difficult to navigate
and needlessly complex.



There was some procedural progress made in this round. First, the
Copyright Office simplified the process of renewing existing
exemptions. In previous rounds, every three years activists and users
would have to claw and scratch to make sure that previously granted
exemptions were maintained. For anyone wanting to make use of these
exemptions, having them called into question so frequently left users
in an uncertain position. Under the new system, the process for
supporting existing exemptions is simpler, and led to every single
preexisting exemption being renewed. This a nice step in the right
direction. The exemptions process unfairly burdens smaller
organizations and individuals, who don't have the resources to
constantly be providing the type of in-depth information and research
that the Copyright Office favors in its reviews. While we give voice
to the rights of users in this process, the Copyright Office's public
response is that we do not provide enough "data." Rights aren't
numbers on a spreadsheet. Anything that reduces this artificial burden
is beneficial, but the best way to improve the system is to get rid of
it altogether.



Another procedural improvement this year was how the Copyright Office
intends to deal with other governmental regulatory bodies interfering
with the exemptions process. DRM is about copyright in name only; it
has always simply been about controlling the user. But one of the most
malicious aspects of the exemptions system was a growing trend of
other governmental agencies trying to use DRM in order to restrict
users based on regulations having nothing to do with copyright. We've
repeatedly called out these DRM Drones for what they are: enemies
of user rights. On this front we can celebrate some measure of
success, as the Copyright Office explicitly denounced this act. It
said it will no longer consider other governmental agencies' attempts
to expand the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions for reasons having
nothing to do with copyright. The Copyright Office tying its
exemptions review back to copyright is again beneficial, in that it
hopefully means they will grant more exemptions and prevent other
agencies from mangling an already convoluted system. It's good that
they have rebuffed these attempts for now, but that still leaves us in
a situation where users don't have full control over their own
computing based on a false claim of upholding copyright.



None of these improvements to the exemptions process resolve the
fundamental unfairness of threatening users with legal repercussions
for trying to live their lives without outside interference. And none
of the successes that we enjoyed this year allow users to share the
tools necessary to enjoy that success. We cannot stop here. We must
continue to fight for the end of DRM and the DMCA's anti-circumvention
provisions.



Will you help us win this fight? Help spread the word about the
dangers of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions by sharing this
article with your friends.



Sincerely,

Donald Robertson, III

Licensing and Compliance Manager






--=_fff5a70f94bbbbce9334c3c99b3dabe0--

--===============0732140072==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

--===============0732140072==--

  1. 2018-12-03 From: "Free Software Foundation" <info-at-fsf.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Free Software Supporter Issue 128, December 2018
  2. 2018-12-05 Ruben Safir <ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] The MTA SUCKS - what is 40 billio dollars between
  3. 2018-12-05 Ruben Safir <ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com> Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] The MTA SUCKS - what is 40 billio dollars
  4. 2018-12-04 From: "Free Software Foundation" <info-at-fsf.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Register today for LibrePlanet 2019!
  5. 2018-12-06 Gerhard Pircher <gerhard_pircher-at-gmx.net> Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] [Ekiga-list] Ekiga.net discontinued
  6. 2018-12-06 NCPA eCommunications <ncpa.ecommunications-at-ncpanet.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] SURVEY: What will Amazon-PillPack mean for you? |
  7. 2018-12-05 From: "Matt Lavallee, FSF" <info-at-fsf.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Support software freedom: shop the GNU Press
  8. 2018-12-04 From: "Hillel International" <info-at-community.hillel.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Intern in Israel and take the next big step in
  9. 2018-12-07 From: "School of Professional Studies" <bounces-at-liu.edu> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Hutton House Highlights
  10. 2018-12-12 From: "Donald Robertson, III, FSF" <info-at-fsf.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] FSF Licensing and Compliance Lab: 2018 and the
  11. 2018-12-12 From: "IEEE Spectrum University Spotlight" <reply-at-media.ieee.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Latest in Continuing Education Programs, Degrees,
  12. 2018-12-11 Gabor Szabo <gabor-at-szabgab.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] [Israel.pm] Full-time Perl developer is needed in
  13. 2018-12-13 Ruben Safir <ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] hamas at NYU
  14. 2018-12-13 IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society <noreply-at-embs.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] December EMBS News and Events
  15. 2018-12-15 Ruben Safir <ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] shabbat terror
  16. 2018-12-16 Indeed <alert-at-indeed.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Social Media Intern - Remote Position - Paid Part
  17. 2018-12-17 Gabor Szabo <gabor-at-szabgab.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] [Perlweekly] #386 - Pull Request Challenge 2015 -
  18. 2018-12-17 Ben Creisler <bcreisler-at-gmail.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] [dinosaur] Jurassic dinosaur tracks and
  19. 2018-12-18 From: "Donald Robertson, III, DBD" <info-at-defectivebydesign.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] 2018 DMCA anti-circumvention exemption process:
  20. 2018-12-19 Rabbi Simcha Hochbaum <info-at-hebronfund.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Live update from Hebron
  21. 2018-12-19 Rabbi Simcha Hochbaum <info-at-hebronfund.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Live update from Hebron
  22. 2018-12-19 Ruben Safir <ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] lost pages of the internet
  23. 2018-12-20 Ruben Safir <ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] western civilization
  24. 2018-12-26 James E Keenan <jkeenan-at-pobox.com> Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] 2019 Perl Conference in Pittsburgh and 2019
  25. 2018-12-26 James E Keenan <jkeenan-at-pobox.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] 2019 Perl Conference in Pittsburgh and 2019
  26. 2018-12-20 From: "Rijksmuseum" <rijksstudio-at-e.rijksmuseum.nl> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Games in Rijksstudio
  27. 2018-12-27 From: "IEEE Spectrum Tech Alert" <reply-at-media.ieee.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Which Electronic Gadgets Have Changed the Game
  28. 2018-12-27 Ruben Safir <ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Pagining Fernando
  29. 2018-12-28 Ruben Safir <ruben.safir-at-my.liu.edu> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Fwd: Product & Tech Event Ft. Hinge & Dame:
  30. 2018-12-30 Gabor Szabo <gabor-at-szabgab.com> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] [Perlweekly] #388 - Good Bye 2018
  31. 2018-12-31 From: "Richard Stallman" <info-at-fsf.org> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] A message from Richard M. Stallman
  32. 2018-12-28 From: "School of Professional Studies" <bounces-at-liu.edu> Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Hutton House Highlights

NYLXS are Do'ers and the first step of Doing is Joining! Join NYLXS and make a difference in your community today!