Library of Congress rules ConvertLit legal under DMCA

[charleski]

From The Reg:

The Library of Congress has the job of looking at rulemaking, or how the Act is interpreted, and it has identified four areas where copyright circumvention has legitimate, non-infringing applications. The DMCA criminalises circumvention of protected copyright digital material. But thanks in part to campaigner Seth Finkelstein, the oversight body has decided that for the next three years, bypassing access control in these areas won't result in a breach of the DMCA.

And these are: censorware blacklists; computer software protected by dongles which are obsolete or that don't work; computer software copy-protected by a media that is obsolete (including old games); and e-books that stop deaf or partially sighted readers from turning on the read aloud or large print options.

Hah! Owner-exclusive DRM-coded .lit files cannot use the text-to-speech function in MS Reader. Therefore you are not breaching the DMCA by removing the DRM protection with clit. It really looks as if this last provision was aimed directly at MS Reader.

[charleski]

From The Reg:

The Library of Congress has the job of looking at rulemaking, or how the Act is interpreted, and it has identified four areas where copyright circumvention has legitimate, non-infringing applications. The DMCA criminalises circumvention of protected copyright digital material. But thanks in part to campaigner Seth Finkelstein, the oversight body has decided that for the next three years, bypassing access control in these areas won't result in a breach of the DMCA.

And these are: censorware blacklists; computer software protected by dongles which are obsolete or that don't work; computer software copy-protected by a media that is obsolete (including old games); and e-books that stop deaf or partially sighted readers from turning on the read aloud or large print options.

Hah! Owner-exclusive DRM-coded .lit files cannot use the text-to-speech function in MS Reader. Therefore you are not breaching the DMCA by removing the DRM protection with clit. It really looks as if this last provision was aimed directly at MS Reader.

[shill79]

Hmmm.. Might wanna think about re-wording your title

[Talyn]

clit? aren't they a terrorist group? :lol:

* /me has been watching too much Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back...

[Kati Compton]

I changed it just in case.

[Gee Mont]

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 of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.

I wouldn’t think this is a blanket legalization of Convert LIT. For example, if there publisher offers an ebook version with text-to-speech enabled for the visually impaired, then Convert LIT is still a Bozo No-No.

There is a lot of vagueness too. What happens if the user isn’t visually impaired? Is he still breaching the DMCA by circumventing the text-to-speech block? It isn’t clear. Common sense says, at least to me, that someone who doesn’t have vision or reading difficulties wouldn’t be covered under this provision. Of course, you could probably justify the conversion with the statement you may develop problems later in life, so any disablement of text-to-speech must be removed. It’s a stretcher, but I think it could probably hold. After all, the text on a PDA is so small, reading it a lot could result in eye trouble.

The ruling didn’t validate theory of “fair use” circumventing; it anything, I think it puts the idea of circumvention for uses like backup copies or switching formats on shaker ground. Circumvention of ebook DRM is only legal when text-to-speech is not available or blocked.

My inner Nostradamus predicts that future DRM ebook releases will come with text-to-speech enabled or special versions made available for the visually impaired.

[charleski]

My, you lot have dirty minds.... :?

The vitally important part of this ruling is that it is legal under the DMCA to distribute ConverLit (...) - you are distributing it so that visually-impaired people can enjoy the ebooks they purchase without being unfairly hampered by their disability. A US web site cannot be prosecuted for hosting ConvertLit.

Don't get me wrong, I think the DMCA is a bad law that deserves to be repudiated. The Library of Congress steered clear of making any ruling that would alter the nature of the law, and that's fair enough, as it's not their place to correct bad legislation, that's the repsonsibility of the people.

[Kati Compton]

Originally Posted by charleski

The vitally important part of this ruling is that it is legal under the DMCA to distribute ConverLit (...) - you are distributing it so that visually-impaired people can enjoy the ebooks they purchase without being unfairly hampered by their disability. A US web site cannot be prosecuted for hosting ConvertLit.

I still see this as stating that in these situations it's okay to USE it, but it's still not okay to write it. I'm sure we'll find out, though.

[dirtminer]

If you believe its legal, feel free to post ConvertLit on your personal web site, and post this publicly. See how long it takes for you to get a cease & desist letter (if any).

Personally, I think it has a chance of being legal. It would be an interesting case. I'm not at a point in my life where I want to risk being wrong.

I wonder if someone brave contacted the EFF and ACLU and posted this as an act of civil disobedience, if it would be a decent test case for the DMCA