New Interpretation of Digital-Copyright Provision Disappoints Scholars
By ANDREA L. FOSTER
Washington
Scholars are denouncing a Library of Congress rule that sharply limits when people can sidestep technological devices designed to restrict the use of online material protected under copyright law.
The final rule, which took effect Saturday, clarifies a vaguely worded provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The provision allows people to circumvent the blocking devices under limited circumstances, but doesn't spell out what those circumstances are.
The library's new rule (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fedreg/65fr64555.html) says the devices can be sidestepped only for two categories of works: lists of Web sites blocked by software filters, and literary works or databases that have malfunctioning blocking mechanisms. The rule was recommended by Marybeth Peters, the register of copyrights, and enacted by James H. Billington, the librarian of Congress.
Scholars were hoping for a broader interpretation of the exception, one that would allow them to freely download portions of literary, musical, and video materials and distribute them to colleagues and students.
"Once again, content owners have successfully promoted their own narrow financial interests over the broader public interest in preserving consumer access to literary, scientific, and other works," said Peter Jaszi, a professor at American University's Washington College of Law. He is a spokesman for the Digital Future Coalition, an umbrella group of organizations seeking to extend traditional fair-use principles to electronic material.
Mr. Jaszi added, "Today, consumers find themselves one step closer to the pay-per-use society envisioned by copyright owners."
The Motion Picture Association of America argued in a statement released in February, when recommendations on how the rule should be clarified were due, that the circumvention ban would benefit scholarship because "more works will be made more widely available to more authorized (lawful) users than before."
Time Warner Inc. said at the same time that the circumvention ban was reasonable and that blocking devices were not meant to prevent public distribution of video, data, and music. "The technological and legal measures are intended to protect the copyrighted works against unauthorized uses," wrote Bernard R. Sorkin, a lawyer for Time Warner, in a statement.
"Anyone wanting to make 'fair use' of a copyrighted work need only follow the same steps as he or she would in the absence of technological protections; buy or rent a copy, subscribe to a transmission thereof or borrow a copy from a library."
Disappointed scholars said they were exploring other avenues for fighting the circumvention ban, including challenging the rule in court and pressing Congress to amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
"We fought hard against this provision, and we lost, but maybe we ought to try to resurrect this issue in Congress," said John C. Vaughn, executive vice president of the Association of American Universities.
In its final rule, the Library of Congress cited a lack of concrete evidence that educators have been unduly harmed by the ban. Mr. Vaughn said the A.A.U. would begin asking its members to document the problems they encounter when trying to use digitally encrypted material.