Why Hollywood Hates RealDVD

Why does Hollywood hate RealDVD so much? Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with controlling innovation.

Earlier this week, a district court in San Francisco extended the temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking RealNetworks' distribution of its RealDVD software, at least until a full-dress preliminary injunction hearing can be held sometime in late November. Although reporters have done a good job reporting on the hearing, they have not answered a more basic question: why does Hollywood care so much about RealDVD in the first place?

It's not about piracy. After all, those who want to copy DVDs have plenty of free, widely available, easy-to-use software to choose from (e.g., Handbrake, DVD Shrink, Mac The Ripper). And those who want to skip the tedium of DVD ripping altogether can easily download movies from unauthorized sources like The Pirate Bay. In short, Hollywood can't possibly believe that the $30, DRM-hobbled RealDVD software represents a piracy threat in an environment rife with easier options.

So why unleash all the expensive lawyers to kill RealDVD? Answer: to send a message about what happens to those who innovate without permission in a post-DMCA world.

As we've said for years, DRM systems like the Content Scramble System (CSS) used on DVDs are not principally about preventing piracy. Rather, DRM is the legal "hook" that forces technology companies to enter into license agreements before they build products that can play movies (Hollywood lawyers candidly admit this "hook IP" strategy). Those license agreements, in turn, define what the devices can and can't do, thereby protecting Hollywood business models from disruptive innovation.

This arrangement reverses the previous innovation status quo. Where non-DRM'd content (e.g., books, broadcast TV, the CD) is concerned, innovators do not have to ask permission before building new products that can copy and play copyrighted works (e.g., the photocopier, the VCR, the iPod). But where DRM'd content like DVDs are concerned, Hollywood intended the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions to slam the door on that kind of disruptive innovation. After the DMCA, technology vendors would have to ask permission, sign licenses, and make concessions, if they were going to build things to play DRM'd Hollywood movies.

So it's not that Hollywood implacably hates personal use format-shifting and space-shifting -- rather, Hollywood wants to make sure those new features happen on Hollywood's terms ("pay us again"), on Hollywood's timetable ("later"), and only after valuable concessions have been wrung from technology companies ("watermark detection, compliance & robustness requirements, down-rezzing").

That's why RealDVD is such a threat. By reading the existing CSS license carefully, Real (and Kaleidescape before it) found a way to create a new product category without first getting permission from (and paying obeisance to) the Hollywood studios. Real's defection represents a threat to several schemes that Hollywood has been working on for throttling DVD innovation over the next several years. For example:

• Managed Copy: Hollywood has been negotiating for years with technology companies over "Managed Copy," a mechanism that will allow limited copying of DVD and Bluray discs onto PCs and portable devices. "Managed Copy" has been promised for years, yet has not materialized, thanks to power struggles inside the organizations that run the relevant DRM licenses (DVD-CCA for DVDs, AACS-LA for Bluray). In the course of these negotiations, Hollywood has managed to wrest several important concessions from technology vendors (including requiring that computers do watermark detection to spot pirated copies when reading data from Bluray discs, and imposing DRM on resulting copies). If those technology companies can build things like RealDVD and Kaleidescape under the terms of the existing contract, then the prospect of more negotiations and concessions for Managed Copy suddenly seems much less appealing.
• Digital Copy: Hollywood has begun selling DVDs that come with a second disc that permits the making of a copy on a PC. The catch? You have to pay extra for the right to make this personal use copy -- in other words, Hollywood is stealing your fair use rights and selling them back to you piecemeal.
• Internet Download Services: you already bought it on DVD, but now Hollywood wants you to buy it a second time from iTunes, Amazon, or MovieLink if you want to watch the same movie on a PC or iPod.

So that's the real story here. It's not about piracy. It's about Real defecting from the DRM licensing cartel, building what consumers want now instead of negotiating endlessly for a spot in Hollywood's next Five Year Plan for the DVD format.

[Permalink]

Why MPAA Should Lose Against RealDVD

Earlier this week, the motion picture industry sued RealNetworks over its RealDVD software. The MPAA companies also asked for an immediate temporary restraining order (TRO) to block Real from distributing the product, which allows consumers to copy their DVDs onto their personal computers for later playback.

There are many obvious reasons why this is a short-sighted and futile gesture by the studios (as Jon Healey of the L.A. Times points out), but let's focus just on the fatal flaws in their legal theory. (We've posted the key legal documents, including TRO briefs, for those who want to read them and form their own opinions.)

In order to obtain a TRO or preliminary injunction, the studios have to demonstrate both (1) a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the case and (2) irreparable harm if they don't get an immediate order blocking distribution of RealDVD. They fail on both counts.

Irreparable Harm ... Not

Let's take "irreparable harm" first. The studios claim that if consumers get the power to copy DVDs (gasp!), it will be a catastrophe for Hollywood's DVD, VOD, and digital download businesses. I'm not sure what alternate version of reality the MPAA is living in, but consumers have been able to copy DVDs for a long time, thanks to free, widely available DVD rippers like Handbrake, DVD Shrink, and MacTheRipper. And, as we pointed out back in 2006 in a filing with the Copyright Office, this isn't a fringe activity only for hacker super-users. DVD rippers are in wide circulation and have been routinely reviewed in the mainstream press (like the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, PC World and MacWorld, not to mention Lifehacker). In fact, most of us were wondering how RealDVD was going to compete with Handbrake, particularly since RealDVD costs more ($30 v. free) and does less (Windows only v. multi-platform, DRM restrictions v. no restrictions).

So if DVD copiers are already in the hands of millions of consumers, how does the introduction of RealDVD threaten "irreparable harm" to Hollywood? Answer: it doesn't.

Hollywood also argues that "Real's (false) prophesies of legality have the likely potential of altering consumer attitudes towards DVD-copying and, accordingly, consumer behavior." That's absurd. If the distribution of RealDVD does not threaten irreparable harm (because it's just one more DVD ripper), then Real's public statements about their legal position (all protected by the First Amendment) certainly can't tip the balance. After all, the MPAA's litigation, legislation, and public education efforts have already reached far more consumers than Real could ever hope to. Plus, there are those FBI warnings in every DVD, as the studios tout in the first line of their TRO brief: "Anyone who has ever watched a popular movie on a DVD knows from the opening frames that copying the content of the DVD is strictly prohibited."

[Aside for law nerds: The studios also make a half-hearted claim that they are entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm because that's the norm in intellectual property cases. That argument died two years ago, with the Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in eBay v. MercExchange rejecting those "presumptions." In fact, these same movie studios lost this same argument in front of the district court judge in MGM v. Grokster last year. See 518 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1212-14 (C.D. Cal. 2007).]

DMCA Violation ... Not

Nor are the studios likely to prevail on the merits of their DMCA claim. According to the studios, RealDVD "circumvents" the CSS encryption system that protects DVDs. The problem with that argument is that Real has a license from DVD-CCA to decrypt DVD movies, and the DVD-CCA v. Kaleidescape case tells us that the license does not prohibit making bit-for-bit digital copies of DVDs, so long as you keep them secure and play them in a software player that complies with the license requirements. This brings us to the heart of the studio's argument:

Although Real has authorization under the CSS license to use the decryption keys and licensed technology to play content on DVDs, Real does not have authority to use that technology to make a permanent, playable copy of DVD content. By using authorized technology for an unauthorized purpose, Real "avoid[s]," "bypass[es]" and "impair[s]" those very measures. In short, RealDVD circumvents CSS's access- and copy-control protections.

The trouble with this line of argument is that two courts have ruled that "using authorized technology for an unauthorized purpose" does not violate the DMCA. According to those courts, if someone gives you a password, and then you use it in an unauthorized way, there's no DMCA "circumvention." Here, the "password" would be the CSS keys to decrypt DVDs, which Real received as a DVD-CCA licensee. So using those keys for an "unauthorized purpose" is no DMCA violation. And, since the studios are seeking their TRO based solely on the DMCA, that should be the end of that.

[Aside for copyright nerds: if you believe the MPAA that the DVD-CCA license does not authorize "copying," but only "playback" of DVDs, then what about all the temporary RAM copies that are made by all licensed DVD players? The MPAA just got done arguing strenuously in the Cablevision case that all those RAM copies count as copies, no matter how short-lived. Have they changed their minds and embraced the Second Circuit's contrary ruling?]

The court should deny the TRO (and any subsequent preliminary injunction). Let the MPAA try to prove its case in court. In the meantime, let Real distribute RealDVD into the crowded market of PC-based DVD rippers and hard-drive based DVD jukeboxes. After all, Handbrake is more likely to kill off RealDVD than Hollywood is.

[Permalink]

Court Protects Privacy of Satellite Receiver Owners

Last month, EFF filed an amicus brief in Echostar v. Freetech, where Echostar sought the identities of every consumer who purchased a Freetech "CoolSat" free-to-air (FTA) satellite receiver during the past five years. EFF argued that this demand, issued in discovery in a lawsuit between Echostar and Freetech, represented an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of individual consumers. Today, the court agreed, issuing an order blocking Echostar's subpoenas.

The ruling potentially sets an important precedent, as it represents the first time a federal court has explicitly rejected a third-party subpoena on the basis of the privacy interests of nonparty consumers.

Echostar is the company behind the DISH satellite TV service. Freetech makes receivers for unencrypted, free-to-air satellite transmissions (there are many free, unencrypted satellite channels). In December 2007, Echostar sued Freetech, alleging that the Freetech CoolSat receiver was specifically designed for after-market modification to enable unauthorized reception of DISH programming. According to Echostar, Freetech "sold thousands of these FTA Receivers to consumer pirates for the sole purpose of circumventing [Echostar]'s Security System."

In the course of discovery, Echostar sent subpoenas to the distributors of CoolSat receivers, demanding that they hand over their customer lists, including the name, address, email address, and purchase details for every person to have purchased a CoolSat receiver over the past 5 years.

As EFF explained in its amicus brief, these subpoenas represent a serious intrusion into the privacy of legitimate purchasers of these FTA receivers. Not only would it be an intrusion to be contacted by Echostar about a device you purchased months or years ago, but other satellite TV companies have used customer lists to launch mass litigation campaigns against consumers. After DirecTV obtained similar customer lists in litigation in 2001, it sent more than 170,000 letters to individuals demanding "settlements" of $3,500.

In refusing to allow Echostar to obtain the CoolSat customer lists, the court specifically weighed Echostar's need for the information against the privacy interests of the customers whose information would be disclosed. The court expressed concern that "both those who purchase the FTA receivers for proper and improper purposes will be swept up in the process." The court went on to conclude that "the requests for customer lists, therefore, could lead to the perceived harassment of legitimate users and a concomitant chilling effect on the purchase and lawful use of Freetech's FTA receivers."

Kudos to the court for keeping the privacy interests of nonparties in mind as commercial litigants dispatch third-party subpoenas that would otherwise carelessly intrude into the lives of individual consumers.

[Permalink]

YouTube Anti-Scientology Takedowns: Good News, Bad News

Now that the dust has settled on the anti-Scientology video takedown controversy, it's time to take stock. For those of you who missed this one: on September 4th and 5th, hundreds and possibly thousands of videos critical of the Church of Scientology were taken down as a result of DMCA notices reportedly sent by by American Rights Counsel, Dr. Oliver Schaper, the Schaper Company, Media House Enterprises, and ContentFactory America. It rapidly became clear that these entities did not hold the copyrights to the materials they claimed to be infringed, including footage from a Clearwater City Commission meeting and a man-on-the-street interview. In addition, many of these videos were obvious fair uses, such as independent news reports.

Here’s the good news: YouTube quickly realized something was fishy, and began investigating. Within days, YouTube suspended the accounts that had sent out the allegedly fraudulent DMCA takedown notices, reinstated the accounts that had been suspended for multiple allegations of copyright infringement, and put most of the videos back up on YouTube, all without waiting to receive DMCA counter-notices from YouTube users who had had their videos taken down.

Well done, YouTube. The company identified a problem and worked to resolve it and protect users, rather than waiting passively for the takedown targets to send counter-notices. As we noted last month, online service providers play a crucial role in preserving and promoting online political speech, and YouTube seems to have taken that role seriously here.

Now, the bad news: if YouTube had not been proactive in dealing with what appeared to be fraud, the Anti-Scientology videos might still be down today. Very few YouTube users filed DMCA counter-notices in response to the takedowns, apparently out of concern for their privacy. The DMCA-compliant counter-notices must normally include the full name, address, and telephone number of the alleged copyright infringer. YouTube passes this information along to the party making the copyright infringement claim. Scientology critics, reportedly concerned about Scientology’s alleged Fair Game policy, were reluctant to surrender their anonymity.

And here's more bad news: not only would takedown targets have to give up their own private information to get their videos restored, they had no guarantee that they would in turn be given the names and addresses of the people who sent the DMCA notices. The DMCA does not require Online Service Providers, such as YouTube, to pass on the identifying information in the DMCA takedown notice to the alleged infringer. Without that legal requirement, YouTube, as well as other OSPs, are reluctant to reveal this information for fear of violating the sender's privacy. That lack of quid pro quo is not just unfair, it makes it very difficult for takedown targets to determine whether the notices are from legitimate owners, and to pursue legal action when notices are sent improperly.

But now back to the good news: YouTube and other OSPs can take steps to remedy this imbalance. They should require individuals who send takedown notices to agree, in advance, to disclosure of their identifying information. If circumstances caution against disclosure (e.g., if the takedown target has been harassing or stalking the copyright holder in some way), copyright holders can use an agent to send the takedown, giving the alleged infringer a point of contact while protecting the individual's personal privacy. Whether the DMCA is being used as a tool of censorship or to press a legitimate copyright claim, transparency and openness is critical, and the copyright holder should have the courage to stand up and be counted.

We understand YouTube is aware of the problem and is considering ways to correct it. We hope that happens soon, before the next wave of abusive takedowns hits.

[Permalink]

The Latest on DVD Copying

Real Networks has received quite a bit of attention thanks to the launch of its Real DVD software, designed to allow people to copy their DVDs to their hard drives for later playback. (Why is that a big deal? Because Hollywood DVDs are encrypted with CSS, and if you decrypt them without permission, the motion picture industry's lawyers may come a-callin'.)

Today there are two approaches for those who want to make and distribute DVD copying tools. First, you can just build a DVD decryptor, the U.S. court cases that have held that the distribution of those products violates the DMCA notwithstanding. Despite those legal precedents, there is no shortage of free, easy-to-use tools that take this approach, including Handbrake (Win/Mac/Lin), DVD Shrink (Win), or MacTheRipper (Mac). (The motion picture studios argue that anyone who uses these tools violates the DMCA, as well.)

The other approach is the one pioneered by Kaleidescape: sign licenses with the DVD-CCA (the cartel that controls the CSS encryption technology), build a licensed player, make bit-for-bit copies of encrypted files from DVD (aka "DVD archiving" as opposed to "DVD ripping"), and play back those files in the licensed player. DVD-CCA subsequently sued Kaleidescape claiming that the license requires that the original DVD be physically present in the device upon playback, but Kaleidescape prevailed. The case is currently on appeal (DVD-CCA filed its opening brief in December 2007).

Real has chosen to follow in Kaleidescape's footsteps. Apparently, it is not alone -- CEPro has an informative article summarizing all the DVD media server solutions for the home theater market that were announced at the recent CEDIA conference. Looks like Hollywood's iron-fisted grip of DVDs is slipping a little every day.

UPDATE: CEPro has followed up with an article that gathers all the FAQ answers offered by makers of DVD copying/server solutions (Kaleidescape, Real, Escient, ReQuest, Xperinet, Axonix, Fuze Media) to the question "how is this legal?"

[Permalink]

Massive Takedown of Anti-Scientology Videos on YouTube

Over a period of twelve hours, between this Thursday night and Friday morning, American Rights Counsel LLC sent out over 4000 DMCA takedown notices to YouTube, all making copyright infringement claims against videos with content critical of the Church of Scientology. Clips included footage of Australian and German news reports about Scientology, A Message to Anonymous/Scientology , and footage from a Clearwater City Commission meeting. Many accounts were suspended by YouTube in response to multiple allegations of copyright infringement.

YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices. At this time, many of the suspended channels have been reinstated and many of the videos are back up. Whether or not American Rights Counsel, LLC represents the notoriously litigious Church of Scientology is unclear, but this would not be the first time that the Church of Scientology has used the DMCA to silence Scientology critics.

[Permalink]

Required Reading for "User-Generated Content" Sites: Io Group v. Veoh

In an important ruling handed down yesterday, a federal district court threw out a copyright infringement suit brought by adult video producer Io Group against Veoh, concluding that the video hosting site qualifies for the DMCA safe harbor. The ruling should be required reading for the executives of every "Web 2.0" business that relies on "user-generated content."

Veoh, like YouTube, is a streaming video site that hosts videos uploaded by users. Io Group sued Veoh in 2006 after finding clips from 10 of its copyrighted adult films on the Veoh site. So far, this is a familiar story -- user-generated content site gets sued by copyright owner for naughty uploading habits of users (see, e.g., lawsuits against MySpace, iMeem, YouTube, Redlasso, Hi5, Multiply, Stage6, MP3tunes, Scribd, Usenet.com, Bolt, and Grouper). But this is the first case to get to a final ruling, and it's a total victory for Veoh.

The key to Veoh's victory was its scrupulous attention to the DMCA safe harbors. Veoh responded to compliant DMCA takedown notices on a same-day basis, it notified users of its policies against copyright infringement, it registered a Copyright Agent with the Copyright Office, it terminated users who were repeat infringers and blocked new registrations from the same email addresses, it used hashes to stop the same infringing videos from being uploaded by other users. These efforts actually go beyond the requirements of the DMCA safe harbors, and made it clear that Veoh was serious about responding to copyright infringement notices.

This ruling provides valuable guidance to companies that host video, audio, and text files on behalf of users (see, e.g., Muxtape). Too many "Web 2.0" start-ups are careless about the requirements of the DMCA safe harbors. They don't register a Copyright Agent, or keep good records of their responses to takedown notices, or have a demonstrable policy of terminating "repeat infringers." Sure, doing this "compliance" work costs time and money. But, as the Veoh decision demonstrates, the payoff can be enormous, since copyright is almost certainly the biggest liability risk these sites face.

The ruling also debunks some of the favorite anti-safe harbor arguments bandied about by entertainment industry lawyers (and gives a boost to YouTube in its fight with Viacom). The court specifically rejects the argument that "transcoding" content to facilitate access disqualifies a service provider from the safe harbor (Veoh automatically transcodes uploaded videos into Flash). The ruling also joins other courts in concluding that, even if Veoh made money from advertising around the videos, it still qualifies for the safe harbor because it lacks the "right and ability to control" (see Section 512(c)(1)(B) of the Copyright Act) the infringing activities of its users.

While there are still plenty of unexplored legal questions surrounding the DMCA safe harbors, this ruling provides important practical guidance for companies that host user-uploaded content.

[Permalink]

DRM for Streaming Music Dies a Quiet Death

Yet another nail has been driven into DRM's coffin, this time for streaming audio (PCPro has a nice overview of the state of DRM for digital music).

Two of the leading on-demand streaming music sites, iMeem and LaLa, are not using DRM on their audio streams, instead sending the music as MP3s dusted with a dash of obfuscation. This is significant because both sites have been licensed by all the major record labels -- the very same record labels that were just last year pushing Congress to require DRM on all noninteractive webcasts. So it looks like the RIAA companies have changed their minds, dropping DRM requirements for the on-demand streaming music services.

This should put an end to legislation to mandate DRM on noninteractive webcasters. After all, why should these webcasters be in a worse position than the free, on-demand music services like LaLa and iMeem?

This also undermines the argument that DRM for music is necessary for subscription services. If the major labels have given up DRM for free, ad-supported (correction: iMeem is ad-supported, LaLa is free for a first listen of a track, 10 cents for repeat listening), on-demand streaming services like LaLa and iMeem, there's no plausible reason to insist on DRM for paid subscription services like Rhapsody and Napster 2.0. After all, there's no reason to think that those who prefer commercial-free subscriptions like Rhapsody are more likely to "pirate" streams than those who prefer ad-supported services like LaLa iMeem.

LaLa and iMeem each take slightly different approaches to streaming music. LaLa uses HTTP to download each requested song as an MP3 to your browser, but relies on aggressive "no-cache" headers and pre-expired date stamps to suggest that your browser not make a copy of the file on your hard drive. Using a packet sniffer to capture the entire HTTP session, however, easily reveals the complete MP3 embedded right after the HTTP headers.

iMeem also downloads and caches each requested song, but sends the MP3 as the audio track of a Flash Video file. This FLV file is typically saved (cached) on your hard drive as an obscurely named temporary file, which is overwritten when you request your next song (we mentioned iMeem's approach back in January, and it's essentially unchanged). Copy this temp file, however, and you can easily extract the audio track from the Flash video, saving it as a stand-alone MP3 file.

(The location of this TemporaryItems folder, and its equivalent on other operating systems, varies significantly depending on operating system and version. On some operating systems it's buried deep within the directory hierarchy, but it can be found automatically with standard tools.)

While the light obfuscation used by iMeem and LaLa might create a "speed bump" of inconvenience for users who want to keep the MP3 files, it doesn't rise to the level of a "technical protection measure" protected by the DMCA. In short, this is yet another example of why there is no legitimate business case for DRM on music -- it doesn't prevent piracy and it's not necessary to enable "new business models" like subscription or ad-supported music. (Of course, as the movie industry has demonstrated, DRM can still be valuable for impeding competition and putting the brakes on disruptive innovation. But it's hard to see how the law should protect those goals.)

[Permalink]

In Memoriam: Ed Foster, 1949-2008

Ed Foster, the journalist and consumer advocate behind InfoWorld's GripeLine column and GripeLog blog, died of a heart attack this weekend. He was 59.

It's no exaggeration to say that Ed was one of the preeminent consumer rights activists of the digital age. During his more than 20 years as a "reader advocate" at InfoWorld, he was far ahead of his time, recognizing that in a world increasingly dominated by software and online services, the digital consumer needed a champion when squaring off against the likes of Microsoft, Adobe or AutoDesk. Following in the traditions of the best consumer reporters before him, Ed exposed software vendors and online service providers that treated their customers shabbily.

But it was in his tireless work against "sneakwraps" -- those "end user license agreements" (EULAs) and "terms of service" (TOS) that require our "agreement" -- that Ed was without peer. You may not be reading all those "agreements" before you click thru, but Ed was. He recognized earlier than most that sneakwraps were going to be the digital consumer's worst nemesis, the mechanism that stripped consumers of the legal protections they enjoy when buying a book, a chair, or an automobile. Long before most consumer groups were thinking about sneakwraps, Ed was covering and participating in efforts to block UCITA, a package of state laws pushed by large software vendors that would have stripped consumers of valuable protections under contract law (UCITA was ultimately adopted by only two states, VA and MD, and has since been abandoned). Ed also contributed his insights on DRM, product activation, and reverse engineering to groups like AFFECT (Americans For Fair Electronic Tranactions) and EFF, making sure we knew what consumers were dealing with in the trenches.

Ed will be sorely missed, both professionally and personally, by all who benefited from his wisdom. Here are a few of my personal favorites from among his remarkable output of columns and posts:

Embroidering on a Copyright Shakedown Theme -- casting the spotlight on the "Embroidery Software Protection Coalition" (ESPC) after it sent settlement demand letters to grandmothers who bought embroidery software on eBay. Based on Ed's tip, EFF stepped in to protect the interests of innocent purchasers.

Sneakwrap Files: McAfee Automatic Renewals -- a consumer advocate's classic, wherein Ed confronts McAfee over the "automatic renewal" provision buried in the fine print of their EULA. McAfee backs down and coughs up a refund.

The Lexmark Car -- an April Fool's post explaining what the world would be like if a car manufacturer tried to get away with the kinds of shenanigans practiced by Lexmark in connection with their laser toner cartridges.

Into the DMCA Groove -- in 2003, an eBay seller gets into hot water after trying to auction a promo CD given away at The Gap. Ed cries foul, predicting 5 years in advance the exact outcome of EFF's UMG v. Augusto case, where a court found that "promo use only" labels can't trump the first sale doctrine.

[Permalink]

Court Rejects Attempt to Expand the DMCA

Yesterday, a district court dismissed several claims in the case Coupons, Inc. v. Stottlemire, in which we had, in March, filed an amicus brief. Coupons offers online coupons that consumers can access and print using software provided by Coupons. The software tries to limit the number of times a user can print each coupon. Coupons claims that John Stottlemire created a tool that modifies the Coupons software, allowing users to print more coupons.

The claims we were most interested in were Coupons's "anti-circumvention" claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Coupons claimed that Stottlemire's tool circumvents technological measures that limit use of its coupons (a "rights-control" claim), but also tried to allege that the tool circumvents measures that limit access to those coupons (an "access-control" claim). The problem is that the tool doesn't have anything to do with access - anyone can access the coupons whether they use the original software or the modified software.

This isn't just an academic issue. While the DMCA prohibits the distribution of tools that circumvent rights or access controls, it prohibits actual circumvention (e.g., through use of such tools) only in the case of access controls. This is because controlling use of copyrighted material is already addressed by copyright law, and addressing it again in the DMCA would upset the careful balance between the rights of copyright owners and those of the public. As the court properly understood, maintaining a clear distinction between access-control claims and rights-control claims "leaves room for individual fair uses, adaptations for the blind, library research, and the other statutory exceptions to copyright." Because the court agreed that Coupons's DMCA claims "blur the carefully constructed distinction between 'access controls' and 'rights controls,'" the court dismissed the access-control claim. (The court is giving Coupons a chance to try to amend its access-control claim to see if it can save it, but it seems unlikely to us that Coupons can do that.)

At the hearing, EFF's positions were ably argued by Hari O'Connell and Domenic Ippolito, law student members of the Samuelson Law, Technology and Policy Clinic at the Berkeley School of Law.

[Permalink]