|
|
|
|
|
|
by R0b0t1
1622 days ago
|
|
|
Have you actually read the law you're discussing? It was in the first amendment to the DMCA, because they realized they can't prevent people from accessing things they paid for. Full text of 1201 here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201.
Note the many exemptions. You could just call it encryption research. You also need to look at the list of exemptions granted by the library of congress, which is quite extensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A.... I can't actually find the thing I am looking for. AFAIR the Cornell law site does not have the updated version that I need to reference, but you can see by the exemptions granted they are just codifying your rights to continue to use a work, even if it is not necessarily obsolete, if the copy protection has gotten in your way. To actually change this rightsholders would have to lease works instead of selling them, but they still use the word "sell" when interacting with consumers. |
|
|
> I can't actually find the thing I am looking for. AFAIR the Cornell law site does not have the updated version that I need to reference, but you can see by the exemptions granted they are just codifying your rights to continue to use a work, even if it is not necessarily obsolete, if the copy protection has gotten in your way.
The exemptions are issued by the Library of Congress and don't become part of the statutory text.
It's true that user advocates have argued that fair use is required by the first amendment and cited some text in Eldred for that proposition, and it's true that proponents of the DMCA have argued that fair use is accommodated by the exceptions and exemptions. Still, proponents of the DMCA have never admitted that the DMCA would be unconstitutional without those exceptions, nor that the DMCA is unconstitutional if those exceptions don't work or don't protect users' rights adequately.