DMCA hearings: MOOCs

Copyright Office: Jacqueline Charlesworth
Michelle Choe
Regan Smith
Cy Donnelly
Steve Ruhe
John Riley
Stacy Cheney (NTIA)
 
10:45am-12:15pm: Proposed Class 3: Audiovisual works –
educational uses – massive open online courses (“MOOCs”)
This proposed class would allow students and faculty
participating in Massive Open Online Courses (“MOOCs”) to circumvent access
controls on lawfully made and acquired motion pictures and other audiovisual
works for purposes of criticism and comment. This exemption has been requested
for audiovisual material made available in all formats, including DVDs
protected by CSS, Blu-ray discs protected by AACS, and TPM-protected online
distribution services.
 
Proponents: Brandon Butler, Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual
Property Law Clinic, American University
 
Lawfulness of use shouldn’t depend on medium of storage.
When Wind Done Gone is fair use, it’s fair use in hardback, audiobook, ebook.
So too with teaching. If lectures in a physical classroom are fair, so are
lectures in Coursera. But there are virtually no film studies courses offered
on MOOC platforms, unlike regular course catalogs, because of no exemption.

Fair use can and does operate at scale. The Daily Show uses a wide variety of
clips every night to poke fun of this town and media coverage of this
town.  Clips are then made available
online to be shared by millions.  VCRs
and DVRs reach millions; search engines create search indexes—all of these uses
are litigated fair, and just because they’re big doesn’t mean they can’t be
fair.  If concerns raised about
platform/scale and activities become unfair when big, that would be bad news
for motion pictures. MOOCs may be used as marketing tools, opponents say, and
if a MOOC too lucrative and fun to be fair use, then what do we say about South Park?  Highlight reels for Baltimore Ravens? If big,
and fun, and sometimes making money can still be fair use, then MOOCs can be
fair use.
 
Charlesworth: but profit is relevant.
 
A: yes.
 
Charlesworth: tell me about §110(2). Is that a basis for an
exemption?
 
A: no.  It’s an
interesting contrast between (1) and (2)—several pages of requirements for
blanket protection w/out having to consider fair use.  MOOCs wouldn’t fall within that blanket.
 
Charlesworth: wouldn’t §110(2) provide a basis?
 
A: it’s possible. At least some courses might arguably not
satisfy those requirements.
 
Charlesworth: aren’t there some that would?
 
A: I’d be happy to take advantage of it!  We just didn’t find that the bulk automatically would.

Charlesworth: let’s start with what the law does allow.  [Unlike fair use, which the law doesn’t
allow?]  If students are officially
enrolled, etc.
 
A: Professors, librarians, copyright counsel: 110(2) is
generally considered difficult to comply with. Universities typically do not
try to implement it as a means of being lawful; the boxes are perceived as too
difficult to tick off. The specific tech requirements for using DRM on the clips,
for example, are too difficult. My understanding is that it’s already a dead
letter. So it wouldn’t be useful for MOOCs either.
 
Charlesworth: say we looked at 110(2) and said it was
designed by Congress—should we ignore this entire part of the statute when
talking about online education?
 
A: it’s a safe harbor. Describes very clearly what is always
lawful use. That was seen to be useful at the time, but in the field, the safe
harbor described is too small.  We know
that it’s not designed to replace fair use.
 
Charlesworth: why is it too small? Unable to put TPMs?
 
A: that’s the most cumbersome.
 
Charlesworth: if that were not an issue, would this be more
helpful?
 
A: probably.
 
Charlesworth: other concerns with 110(2)?
 
A: no.
 
Jonathan Band, Library Copyright Alliance: Librarians think
this would be a helpful starting point, but it doesn’t go far enough. A lot of
the terms are unclear.  Even though it’s
very detailed, it’s still uncertain: how long can the material be available
online?  But better than nothing.
 
Return to earlier topic, about short portions: Example of
when you’d want to use more than a short portion. Imagine 2-hour class session,
MOOC or physical.  You might see
cumulatively ½ an hour, interrupted for discussion.  Each clip is a short portion, but it’s
arguable taken together.  I would say as
used in the classroom, clearly fair use, but that would be the kind of thing we
want flexibility for.
 
Principal argument against extension was potential harm from
abuse.  Overlooks the fact that any
potential infringement would be much easier to ID and address. Software tools
owners currently used to locate content on the web will quickly locate
allegedly infringing content.  The notion
of harm also ignores reality. We all know circumvention tools are widely
available and widely used.  Thus abuse of
an exemption in a MOOC could have no discernible impact on the level of
infringing activity. In 9 years of higher ed exemption, not one reported
instance of circumvention leading to infringement.
 
Q: but you want to go beyond traditional higher ed industry,
and have no restrictions on scope or users or availability—what’s your
definition of a MOOC in relation to traditional instruction?
 
A: in our submission we provided a definition. Almost any
definition would be ok, given the widespread availability of DVD circumvention
already.  Open enrollment, closed
enrollment, nonprofit, for-profit, makes no difference. Starting w/ a narrower
definition might be a way to gain comfort. 
 
Q: what’s your positive definition of MOOC?
 
Butler: in the comments we relied on the words: massive,
open, online, and it is a course.  In the
meantime we found an OED definition: a course of study made available over the
internet without charge to a large number of people.
 
Charlesworth: would exclude for-profits?
 
Butler: well, Gmail is provided free. 
 
Charlesworth: how do the for-profits make money in this
space?
 
Band: they don’t really know that yet. It’s Silicon Valley.
 
Decherney: there are a number of ways Coursera and Udacity
try—people pay for certificates of completion.
 
Charlesworth: so they do charge.
 
Decherney: you can take it for free and complete it for free,
but to get a certificate of completion you can pay.  Or companies may pay for their employees to
take it.  There are other models.
 
Band: so far none of them are making money.
 
Q: what would stop me from putting up a full episode of
South Park on YouTube with a minute of commentary and saying that it was a
course?
 
Butler: you’d have to argue straightfaced that’s a course,
and I don’t think you can.  We can augment
the definition.  Courses could be offered
by or in partnership with an institution; with an institution w/ an educational
mission.
 
Q: would that include Khan Academy?
 
A: yes, it’s an institution.
 
Charlesworth: Khan Academy for-profit?
 
Decherney: nonprofit funded by foundations.
 
Band: Putting aside the Content ID issue with South Park, if it’s infringing, it’s
infringing.  This is in addition to the
basic way we deal with problems of this sort, which is copyright law.  (Lots of South
Park
clips are already there.)
 
A: but we need “likely noninfringing,” and without
restrictions it’s less likely to be noninfringing. [Unless the definition includes
“noninfringing,” which is a restriction,
and makes it more than likely that everything under the exemption will be
noninfringing.]
 
Band: same parameters as for other exemptions.

Decherney: clarification—Coursera and Udacity offer platforms for others to
offer MOOCs. Universities may use them to offer MOOCs. Just b/c the platform is
for-profit doesn’t mean the institution offering the course is for-profit.
 
Charlesworth: does U Penn do this? Do you have to register
in any way? Do you qualify for 110(2)?
 
Decherney: yes.  As
far as I know, none of the videos we provide have DRM, so they wouldn’t
qualify. I’m planning a course in October. 
Under the UPenn version of this, student must pay to get a certificate
of completion in some cases.  My course
will be through EdX, which will have certificate of completion for free.  Content will be similar to course on history
of Hollywood—clips with criticism and commentary. Canned lecture online rather
than interacting with students. Excerpts: average lecture time is 4:30—with a
quiz or activity; videos are very short and thus clips are short.
 
Charlesworth: what will you do if exemption isn’t granted?
 
Decherney: I’ve put off offering the course for several
years.  I don’t know if I’d offer the
course; unlikely without an exemption. 
How many lectures = course?  8
weeks, 30-40 hours of lectures, of which some portion would be clips. We always
provide high def.
 
Charlesworth: under 110(2), sounds like your issue is the
TPMs? Any other concerns about that definition?
 
Butler: I’ve been poring over it, and there’s no smoking
gun, but people are concerned—Khan Academy, National Geographic Society, World
Bank, UNICEF won’t qualify. 
 
Band: consistent availability of material over time—can it
be available the whole semester?  Just
the week?  Confusion over what the limits
mean.
 
Opponents: Bruce Turnbull, AACS LA and DVDCCA: unbounded—anyone
can declare they’re a student or are teaching a MOOC.  [The horror! Someone might make clips
available on the internet, with commentary!] 
Band says you can always go to court, but part of the purpose of the
DMCA was to avoid going to court via TPMs so you didn’t have to go after
individual users of material.  Tech
reasonably deployed to protect the work by itself. [Though that ship has
sailed, as Band pointed out.] This proceeding is a fail-safe, if a TPM goes too
far. Undermines purpose of DMCA.
 
110(2): if these courses fit w/in that, why aren’t they
using 110(2)? [B/c the DMCA makes it separately illegal?]  More broadly, this was Congress expressing
how they expected the online educational environment to work. Congress thought there
ought to be TPMs. If it’s inconvenient, that’s too bad/that’s what the law is.  [Or you could rely on fair use.]
 
Charlesworth: How difficult would it be to apply TPMs to
clips? [Depends on what you mean by TPMs.]
 
A: I don’t think it’s difficult, though I couldn’t
personally do it. Ability to make use of encryption—you can encrypt your email
w/standard setting; you can encrypt content on your computer w/ a standard
setting—not rocket science. [Um, no, it’s computer science, and encrypting
content on your computer is different from sending it.]  If you are sending to computer linked to TV,
you can trigger HDCP over HDMI to the TV—triggered by the output itself.  [So much for extending courses to people who
can’t afford a lot of equipment].
 
Q: does TPM need to be on each clip, or would passwording
the course be enough?
 
A: TPM must be on the transmission.  Transmission must be encrypted to reasonably
prevent retention of work by recipient and further dissemination of the
work.  It is a TPM that as it’s
transmitted works in the same way that AACS works [so we need a license?] [not
clear that a password wouldn’t do that if the result is a stream]. Doesn’t know
if individual clip would have to be isolated, but at least the clip would have
to be protected.
 
Q: concerns over scope of definition: if MOOCs were tailored
under TEACH Act, would you still oppose?
 
A: if they qualify under the TEACH Act they don’t need an
exemption.
 
Charlesworth: to get the clip.
 
A: if they were protected, we’d still be concerned about the
use of circumvention tools because we’d be promoting the use of these tools for
getting the clip in the first place.
 
Charlesworth: that’s just Blu-Ray; you didn’t object to
continuation of the others.
 
A: DVDCCA didn’t object; AACS hasn’t commented. If limited
to TEACH Act qualified, it would be consistent with DVDCCA’s other positions to
say that DVD exemption would be consistent w/what’s already been done.
 
Whether you say 110(2) applies specifically, the point is
that the kinds of exemptions requested make it incumbent on requesters to say “this
is how we can analogize to the requirements Congress placed on how Congress
envisioned online education to work w/r/t online education.” They haven’t done
so.
 
W/r/t DVD, hack is ubiquitous. But overall protection system
has been maintained—last year judge granted injunction.  [So an exemption could hardly change that.]
Unbounded exemption would undermine the DVD CSS licensing system/trust in that
system. If you walk into a legitimate retail store and buy a DVD player, it
does conform to the requirements of the license. That system has been
maintained notwithstanding the broad hack.
 
J. Matthew Williams, Entertainment Software Association,
Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America
(Joint Creators and Copyright Owners): Movie studios do rely on fair use all
the time, and we don’t oppose fair use. We just oppose this exemption,
especially its scope and breadth. Comes close to a disallowed use-based
exemption for all educational uses online, which isn’t comforting.
 
Charlesworth: idea of taking face to face exemption and
extending it to 110(2)—is that too far?
 
A: would like to speak to clients, but keeping all
requirements in place and adding something from the TEACH Act would be
preferable to what’s proposed.
 
Q: they say there are 10,000 MOOCs and only 4 film studies
courses—inhibiting effect?
 
A: not sure that’s true. MOOCs might inherently limit use of
clips. Massive and open has wrong implications. If you’re trying to get this
done in 5 minutes, you might not want a lot of clips, which might be one reason
it’s not happening.
 
Q: is Decherney’s course objectionable?
 
A: it sounds like it’s being done through a third party
actor, and my personal preference would be to make each university build its
own platform to get an exemption as the TEACH Act requires. [Hunh? Even 110(2)
doesn’t go that far—do they have to invent their own encryption too? Run their
own cables?]  He took an existing film
course and found it effective. In week 5, the professor just sits in front of a
webcam, as you’d see on YouTube, and lectures. So no one expects perfection, so
request for high quality images is less compelling.  [No quality for you, proles!]
 
Harm: virtually impossible to collect evidence of harm, to
know that a copy of a movie on a P2P network because a student was introduced to
circumvention tech in a classroom. The burden is on them on these issues b/c
that evidence is difficult/impossible to collect. [They spend a lot of money
studying the causes of piracy; they embed codes in screeners; they could get
this data if it were there, but they don’t even list it as a risk factor in SEC
filings.]
 
Charlesworth: does Penn have contracts w/EdX and Coursera?
 
Decherney: yes, Penn does, and invests in Coursera.
 
Charlesworth: explain the economics.
 
A: Income-sharing; university owns all the IP in the course.
We record the content, available on their platform, and discussion/exams take
place in Coursera. 
 
Charlesworth: do you know whether they can apply encryption?
 
A: I have no idea.
 
Charlesworth: Why would they have a relationship with EdX
and Coursera, competitors?
 
A: Increasingly use multiple platforms b/c some are better
for different kinds of courses. Like publishing w/ many publishers. We use
iTunes U; we use YouTube; we want to disseminate our research.
 
Butler: Almost 3000 people have registered on Coursera since
the panel started—it’s a big phenomenon. It means that if there are adverse
effects—that having an ecosystem of learning w/no film courses is a bad thing—they
are big adverse effects.  Joint Creators
have said it’s really easy and cheap to find the movies you want to watch if
you’re a consumer. People will do that, instead of trying to watch 5 minutes of
Decherney and trying to put a movie back together.
 
Q: Harm revolved around limit on film courses—are there
other limitations/negative effects?
 
Butler: sure: the analogy to standard courses is apt.
Someone who wants to teach the WWII will have the same problem. Anyone who
wants to teach w/media. For methodological reasons, the easiest way to show
that was to count film course.
 
Q: do you have other examples? Other professors who want to
offer that?
 
Butler: I’ve had a number of conversations w/universities
that say they have a hands off policy for moving images for MOOCs across the
board, as a result of conversations w/GCs and IT folks.  They just tell people that it’s off limits
for everyone.
 
Q: can you distinguish between the MOOC and the regular
online course by the university—are there different rules for clips?
 
Butler: My experience is that MOOCs are considered to be
different, even though maybe some do qualify.

Turnbull: If you have IT guys involved, they can certainly use screencap
software and use a high quality pro camera to record off the screen as
alternatives. One of the reasons some other exemptions are workable is that
there is an institution that you can approach if there is a problem. The
arrangement here might let UPenn say it’s Coursera’s problem and Coursera might
say it’s UPenn’s problem. 
[Seriously?  Because universities
routinely say it’s Apple’s problem when someone misuses an Apple computer on
campus?] 
 
Band: Penn is responsible; the contracts certainly give Penn
responsibility for content. And Penn is the one that would be violating the
exemption if it’s the one that’s doing the circuvmention. Please also note that
we don’t know whether screencap involves circumvention. It’s nice to say so,
but an exemption would be appropriate for all.
 
We’re all worried about the cost of education. MOOCs are one
way to lower the cost of education.  We
don’t know what they will ultimately look like, but this is the future, and we
want good courses—the notion of teaching the history of Hollywood with stills
is absurd.  Culture pervaded by media
means that online courses need high quality video.

Butler: reply comment: German professor wants a German MOOC using films as a
great part of the curriculum.
 
Charlesworth: how does the University of Penn distinguish
between MOOC and online course offering in treatment of motion pictures?
 
A: we do offer some courses as online courses or MOOCs—for courses,
you have to apply, and pay, and there’s a small group with more interactivity
w/faculty and students.  MOOCs have
helped us clarify what we offer in smaller online courses and live classes. You
get Penn course credit for online course. 
I’ve taught similar classes and used clips in those classes. 
 
Charlesworth: how do you achieve a level of comfort with
that?  Did you circumvent to include
clips?
 
A: not prerecorded.  I
used clips I use in face to face class.  Right
now MOOCs are novel.
 
Charlesworth: were they just filming you playing a clip?
Would they see a full screen of you playing the clip?
 
A: synchronous live setting. 
Adobe platform that allows me to show clips and everyone can view it or
I can talk over it. Would be possible to have prerecorded videos there. 
 
Charlesworth: did you consider that 110(2) covered?
 
A: our GC said it was fair use.  It’s a course being offered by the university,
seems covered by the existing exemption. We don’t encrypt the output, but I don’t
know what the platform does.
 
Turnbull: Adobe has widely used DRM which could easily have
been applied.  There are platforms
available to do the encryption.
 
Q: would there be any need for students to circumvent under
this exemption?
 
Decherney: it would be great if it were included to allow student
presentations, so they can do the same work they can do in other face to face
classes and online courses, which is the rule for every other kind of student
work output like writing.  Multimedia presentations
are a major part of student work today, replacing essays.
 
All our MOOCs need registration/password.
 
Q: is there a way to control for reception/quality of the
MOOC?  Depends on whether I’m watching on
broadband.
 
Decherney: true, also true of online courses. We only put
out HD quality video b/c we think it’s important. Students in China were having
trouble, so we partnered with a mirroring site to give them HQ access.
 
Q: but if student doesn’t have broadband, it will be
degraded regardless.
 
Decherney: true.
 
Q: Acclimation to HD world, one click away from distraction—YT
will be lower than SD, right? 
 
Decherney: yeah, so it’s better for me if I’m in HD.
 
Q: anything in record about need to extend to video games?
 
Decherney: it’s not something we suggested.
 
Williams: on including students: we are quite concerned
about the huge number of people who could potentially qualify and could lead to
confusion and unfortunate consequences. No examples in the record.
 
Butler: 2015, 21 million college and university students,
eligible for existing exemption—which is more than current MOOC enrollment.
Lots of people already eligible and no catastrophe.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1FDpeJ4

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

DMCA hearings: MOOCs

Copyright Office: Jacqueline Charlesworth
Michelle Choe
Regan Smith
Cy Donnelly
Steve Ruhe
John Riley
Stacy Cheney (NTIA)
 
10:45am-12:15pm: Proposed Class 3: Audiovisual works – educational uses – massive open online courses (“MOOCs”)
This proposed class would allow students and faculty participating in Massive Open Online Courses (“MOOCs”) to circumvent access controls on lawfully made and acquired motion pictures and other audiovisual works for purposes of criticism and comment. This exemption has been requested for audiovisual material made available in all formats, including DVDs protected by CSS, Blu-ray discs protected by AACS, and TPM-protected online distribution services.
 
Proponents: Brandon Butler, Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic, American University
 
Lawfulness of use shouldn’t depend on medium of storage. When Wind Done Gone is fair use, it’s fair use in hardback, audiobook, ebook. So too with teaching. If lectures in a physical classroom are fair, so are lectures in Coursera. But there are virtually no film studies courses offered on MOOC platforms, unlike regular course catalogs, because of no exemption.
Fair use can and does operate at scale. The Daily Show uses a wide variety of clips every night to poke fun of this town and media coverage of this town.  Clips are then made available online to be shared by millions.  VCRs and DVRs reach millions; search engines create search indexes—all of these uses are litigated fair, and just because they’re big doesn’t mean they can’t be fair.  If concerns raised about platform/scale and activities become unfair when big, that would be bad news for motion pictures. MOOCs may be used as marketing tools, opponents say, and if a MOOC too lucrative and fun to be fair use, then what do we say about South Park?  Highlight reels for Baltimore Ravens? If big, and fun, and sometimes making money can still be fair use, then MOOCs can be fair use.
 
Charlesworth: but profit is relevant.
 
A: yes.
 
Charlesworth: tell me about §110(2). Is that a basis for an exemption?
 
A: no.  It’s an interesting contrast between (1) and (2)—several pages of requirements for blanket protection w/out having to consider fair use.  MOOCs wouldn’t fall within that blanket.
 
Charlesworth: wouldn’t §110(2) provide a basis?
 
A: it’s possible. At least some courses might arguably not satisfy those requirements.
 
Charlesworth: aren’t there some that would?
 
A: I’d be happy to take advantage of it!  We just didn’t find that the bulk automatically would.
Charlesworth: let’s start with what the law does allow.  [Unlike fair use, which the law doesn’t allow?]  If students are officially enrolled, etc.
 
A: Professors, librarians, copyright counsel: 110(2) is generally considered difficult to comply with. Universities typically do not try to implement it as a means of being lawful; the boxes are perceived as too difficult to tick off. The specific tech requirements for using DRM on the clips, for example, are too difficult. My understanding is that it’s already a dead letter. So it wouldn’t be useful for MOOCs either.
 
Charlesworth: say we looked at 110(2) and said it was designed by Congress—should we ignore this entire part of the statute when talking about online education?
 
A: it’s a safe harbor. Describes very clearly what is always lawful use. That was seen to be useful at the time, but in the field, the safe harbor described is too small.  We know that it’s not designed to replace fair use.
 
Charlesworth: why is it too small? Unable to put TPMs?
 
A: that’s the most cumbersome.
 
Charlesworth: if that were not an issue, would this be more helpful?
 
A: probably.
 
Charlesworth: other concerns with 110(2)?
 
A: no.
 
Jonathan Band, Library Copyright Alliance: Librarians think this would be a helpful starting point, but it doesn’t go far enough. A lot of the terms are unclear.  Even though it’s very detailed, it’s still uncertain: how long can the material be available online?  But better than nothing.
 
Return to earlier topic, about short portions: Example of when you’d want to use more than a short portion. Imagine 2-hour class session, MOOC or physical.  You might see cumulatively ½ an hour, interrupted for discussion.  Each clip is a short portion, but it’s arguable taken together.  I would say as used in the classroom, clearly fair use, but that would be the kind of thing we want flexibility for.
 
Principal argument against extension was potential harm from abuse.  Overlooks the fact that any potential infringement would be much easier to ID and address. Software tools owners currently used to locate content on the web will quickly locate allegedly infringing content.  The notion of harm also ignores reality. We all know circumvention tools are widely available and widely used.  Thus abuse of an exemption in a MOOC could have no discernible impact on the level of infringing activity. In 9 years of higher ed exemption, not one reported instance of circumvention leading to infringement.
 
Q: but you want to go beyond traditional higher ed industry, and have no restrictions on scope or users or availability—what’s your definition of a MOOC in relation to traditional instruction?
 
A: in our submission we provided a definition. Almost any definition would be ok, given the widespread availability of DVD circumvention already.  Open enrollment, closed enrollment, nonprofit, for-profit, makes no difference. Starting w/ a narrower definition might be a way to gain comfort. 
 
Q: what’s your positive definition of MOOC?
 
Butler: in the comments we relied on the words: massive, open, online, and it is a course.  In the meantime we found an OED definition: a course of study made available over the internet without charge to a large number of people.
 
Charlesworth: would exclude for-profits?
 
Butler: well, Gmail is provided free. 
 
Charlesworth: how do the for-profits make money in this space?
 
Band: they don’t really know that yet. It’s Silicon Valley.
 
Decherney: there are a number of ways Coursera and Udacity try—people pay for certificates of completion.
 
Charlesworth: so they do charge.
 
Decherney: you can take it for free and complete it for free, but to get a certificate of completion you can pay.  Or companies may pay for their employees to take it.  There are other models.
 
Band: so far none of them are making money.
 
Q: what would stop me from putting up a full episode of South Park on YouTube with a minute of commentary and saying that it was a course?
 
Butler: you’d have to argue straightfaced that’s a course, and I don’t think you can.  We can augment the definition.  Courses could be offered by or in partnership with an institution; with an institution w/ an educational mission.
 
Q: would that include Khan Academy?
 
A: yes, it’s an institution.
 
Charlesworth: Khan Academy for-profit?
 
Decherney: nonprofit funded by foundations.
 
Band: Putting aside the Content ID issue with South Park, if it’s infringing, it’s infringing.  This is in addition to the basic way we deal with problems of this sort, which is copyright law.  (Lots of South Park clips are already there.)
 
A: but we need “likely noninfringing,” and without restrictions it’s less likely to be noninfringing. [Unless the definition includes “noninfringing,” which is a restriction, and makes it more than likely that everything under the exemption will be noninfringing.]
 
Band: same parameters as for other exemptions.
Decherney: clarification—Coursera and Udacity offer platforms for others to offer MOOCs. Universities may use them to offer MOOCs. Just b/c the platform is for-profit doesn’t mean the institution offering the course is for-profit.
 
Charlesworth: does U Penn do this? Do you have to register in any way? Do you qualify for 110(2)?
 
Decherney: yes.  As far as I know, none of the videos we provide have DRM, so they wouldn’t qualify. I’m planning a course in October.  Under the UPenn version of this, student must pay to get a certificate of completion in some cases.  My course will be through EdX, which will have certificate of completion for free.  Content will be similar to course on history of Hollywood—clips with criticism and commentary. Canned lecture online rather than interacting with students. Excerpts: average lecture time is 4:30—with a quiz or activity; videos are very short and thus clips are short.
 
Charlesworth: what will you do if exemption isn’t granted?
 
Decherney: I’ve put off offering the course for several years.  I don’t know if I’d offer the course; unlikely without an exemption.  How many lectures = course?  8 weeks, 30-40 hours of lectures, of which some portion would be clips. We always provide high def.
 
Charlesworth: under 110(2), sounds like your issue is the TPMs? Any other concerns about that definition?
 
Butler: I’ve been poring over it, and there’s no smoking gun, but people are concerned—Khan Academy, National Geographic Society, World Bank, UNICEF won’t qualify. 
 
Band: consistent availability of material over time—can it be available the whole semester?  Just the week?  Confusion over what the limits mean.
 
Opponents: Bruce Turnbull, AACS LA and DVDCCA: unbounded—anyone can declare they’re a student or are teaching a MOOC.  [The horror! Someone might make clips available on the internet, with commentary!]  Band says you can always go to court, but part of the purpose of the DMCA was to avoid going to court via TPMs so you didn’t have to go after individual users of material.  Tech reasonably deployed to protect the work by itself. [Though that ship has sailed, as Band pointed out.] This proceeding is a fail-safe, if a TPM goes too far. Undermines purpose of DMCA.
 
110(2): if these courses fit w/in that, why aren’t they using 110(2)? [B/c the DMCA makes it separately illegal?]  More broadly, this was Congress expressing how they expected the online educational environment to work. Congress thought there ought to be TPMs. If it’s inconvenient, that’s too bad/that’s what the law is.  [Or you could rely on fair use.]
 
Charlesworth: How difficult would it be to apply TPMs to clips? [Depends on what you mean by TPMs.]
 
A: I don’t think it’s difficult, though I couldn’t personally do it. Ability to make use of encryption—you can encrypt your email w/standard setting; you can encrypt content on your computer w/ a standard setting—not rocket science. [Um, no, it’s computer science, and encrypting content on your computer is different from sending it.]  If you are sending to computer linked to TV, you can trigger HDCP over HDMI to the TV—triggered by the output itself.  [So much for extending courses to people who can’t afford a lot of equipment].
 
Q: does TPM need to be on each clip, or would passwording the course be enough?
 
A: TPM must be on the transmission.  Transmission must be encrypted to reasonably prevent retention of work by recipient and further dissemination of the work.  It is a TPM that as it’s transmitted works in the same way that AACS works [so we need a license?] [not clear that a password wouldn’t do that if the result is a stream]. Doesn’t know if individual clip would have to be isolated, but at least the clip would have to be protected.
 
Q: concerns over scope of definition: if MOOCs were tailored under TEACH Act, would you still oppose?
 
A: if they qualify under the TEACH Act they don’t need an exemption.
 
Charlesworth: to get the clip.
 
A: if they were protected, we’d still be concerned about the use of circumvention tools because we’d be promoting the use of these tools for getting the clip in the first place.
 
Charlesworth: that’s just Blu-Ray; you didn’t object to continuation of the others.
 
A: DVDCCA didn’t object; AACS hasn’t commented. If limited to TEACH Act qualified, it would be consistent with DVDCCA’s other positions to say that DVD exemption would be consistent w/what’s already been done.
 
Whether you say 110(2) applies specifically, the point is that the kinds of exemptions requested make it incumbent on requesters to say “this is how we can analogize to the requirements Congress placed on how Congress envisioned online education to work w/r/t online education.” They haven’t done so.
 
W/r/t DVD, hack is ubiquitous. But overall protection system has been maintained—last year judge granted injunction.  [So an exemption could hardly change that.] Unbounded exemption would undermine the DVD CSS licensing system/trust in that system. If you walk into a legitimate retail store and buy a DVD player, it does conform to the requirements of the license. That system has been maintained notwithstanding the broad hack.
 
J. Matthew Williams, Entertainment Software Association, Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America (Joint Creators and Copyright Owners): Movie studios do rely on fair use all the time, and we don’t oppose fair use. We just oppose this exemption, especially its scope and breadth. Comes close to a disallowed use-based exemption for all educational uses online, which isn’t comforting.
 
Charlesworth: idea of taking face to face exemption and extending it to 110(2)—is that too far?
 
A: would like to speak to clients, but keeping all requirements in place and adding something from the TEACH Act would be preferable to what’s proposed.
 
Q: they say there are 10,000 MOOCs and only 4 film studies courses—inhibiting effect?
 
A: not sure that’s true. MOOCs might inherently limit use of clips. Massive and open has wrong implications. If you’re trying to get this done in 5 minutes, you might not want a lot of clips, which might be one reason it’s not happening.
 
Q: is Decherney’s course objectionable?
 
A: it sounds like it’s being done through a third party actor, and my personal preference would be to make each university build its own platform to get an exemption as the TEACH Act requires. [Hunh? Even 110(2) doesn’t go that far—do they have to invent their own encryption too? Run their own cables?]  He took an existing film course and found it effective. In week 5, the professor just sits in front of a webcam, as you’d see on YouTube, and lectures. So no one expects perfection, so request for high quality images is less compelling.  [No quality for you, proles!]
 
Harm: virtually impossible to collect evidence of harm, to know that a copy of a movie on a P2P network because a student was introduced to circumvention tech in a classroom. The burden is on them on these issues b/c that evidence is difficult/impossible to collect. [They spend a lot of money studying the causes of piracy; they embed codes in screeners; they could get this data if it were there, but they don’t even list it as a risk factor in SEC filings.]
 
Charlesworth: does Penn have contracts w/EdX and Coursera?
 
Decherney: yes, Penn does, and invests in Coursera.
 
Charlesworth: explain the economics.
 
A: Income-sharing; university owns all the IP in the course. We record the content, available on their platform, and discussion/exams take place in Coursera. 
 
Charlesworth: do you know whether they can apply encryption?
 
A: I have no idea.
 
Charlesworth: Why would they have a relationship with EdX and Coursera, competitors?
 
A: Increasingly use multiple platforms b/c some are better for different kinds of courses. Like publishing w/ many publishers. We use iTunes U; we use YouTube; we want to disseminate our research.
 
Butler: Almost 3000 people have registered on Coursera since the panel started—it’s a big phenomenon. It means that if there are adverse effects—that having an ecosystem of learning w/no film courses is a bad thing—they are big adverse effects.  Joint Creators have said it’s really easy and cheap to find the movies you want to watch if you’re a consumer. People will do that, instead of trying to watch 5 minutes of Decherney and trying to put a movie back together.
 
Q: Harm revolved around limit on film courses—are there other limitations/negative effects?
 
Butler: sure: the analogy to standard courses is apt. Someone who wants to teach the WWII will have the same problem. Anyone who wants to teach w/media. For methodological reasons, the easiest way to show that was to count film course.
 
Q: do you have other examples? Other professors who want to offer that?
 
Butler: I’ve had a number of conversations w/universities that say they have a hands off policy for moving images for MOOCs across the board, as a result of conversations w/GCs and IT folks.  They just tell people that it’s off limits for everyone.
 
Q: can you distinguish between the MOOC and the regular online course by the university—are there different rules for clips?
 
Butler: My experience is that MOOCs are considered to be different, even though maybe some do qualify.
Turnbull: If you have IT guys involved, they can certainly use screencap software and use a high quality pro camera to record off the screen as alternatives. One of the reasons some other exemptions are workable is that there is an institution that you can approach if there is a problem. The arrangement here might let UPenn say it’s Coursera’s problem and Coursera might say it’s UPenn’s problem.  [Seriously?  Because universities routinely say it’s Apple’s problem when someone misuses an Apple computer on campus?] 
 
Band: Penn is responsible; the contracts certainly give Penn responsibility for content. And Penn is the one that would be violating the exemption if it’s the one that’s doing the circuvmention. Please also note that we don’t know whether screencap involves circumvention. It’s nice to say so, but an exemption would be appropriate for all.
 
We’re all worried about the cost of education. MOOCs are one way to lower the cost of education.  We don’t know what they will ultimately look like, but this is the future, and we want good courses—the notion of teaching the history of Hollywood with stills is absurd.  Culture pervaded by media means that online courses need high quality video.
Butler: reply comment: German professor wants a German MOOC using films as a great part of the curriculum.
 
Charlesworth: how does the University of Penn distinguish between MOOC and online course offering in treatment of motion pictures?
 
A: we do offer some courses as online courses or MOOCs—for courses, you have to apply, and pay, and there’s a small group with more interactivity w/faculty and students.  MOOCs have helped us clarify what we offer in smaller online courses and live classes. You get Penn course credit for online course.  I’ve taught similar classes and used clips in those classes. 
 
Charlesworth: how do you achieve a level of comfort with that?  Did you circumvent to include clips?
 
A: not prerecorded.  I used clips I use in face to face class.  Right now MOOCs are novel.
 
Charlesworth: were they just filming you playing a clip? Would they see a full screen of you playing the clip?
 
A: synchronous live setting.  Adobe platform that allows me to show clips and everyone can view it or I can talk over it. Would be possible to have prerecorded videos there. 
 
Charlesworth: did you consider that 110(2) covered?
 
A: our GC said it was fair use.  It’s a course being offered by the university, seems covered by the existing exemption. We don’t encrypt the output, but I don’t know what the platform does.
 
Turnbull: Adobe has widely used DRM which could easily have been applied.  There are platforms available to do the encryption.
 
Q: would there be any need for students to circumvent under this exemption?
 
Decherney: it would be great if it were included to allow student presentations, so they can do the same work they can do in other face to face classes and online courses, which is the rule for every other kind of student work output like writing.  Multimedia presentations are a major part of student work today, replacing essays.
 
All our MOOCs need registration/password.
 
Q: is there a way to control for reception/quality of the MOOC?  Depends on whether I’m watching on broadband.
 
Decherney: true, also true of online courses. We only put out HD quality video b/c we think it’s important. Students in China were having trouble, so we partnered with a mirroring site to give them HQ access.
 
Q: but if student doesn’t have broadband, it will be degraded regardless.
 
Decherney: true.
 
Q: Acclimation to HD world, one click away from distraction—YT will be lower than SD, right? 
 
Decherney: yeah, so it’s better for me if I’m in HD.
 
Q: anything in record about need to extend to video games?
 
Decherney: it’s not something we suggested.
 
Williams: on including students: we are quite concerned about the huge number of people who could potentially qualify and could lead to confusion and unfortunate consequences. No examples in the record.
 
Butler: 2015, 21 million college and university students, eligible for existing exemption—which is more than current MOOC enrollment. Lots of people already eligible and no catastrophe.
Posted in dmca, drm, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

DMCA hearing: university exemption

Copyright Office: Jacqueline Charlesworth
Michelle Choe
Regan Smith
Cy Donnelly
Steve Ruhe
John Riley
Stacy Cheney (NTIA)
 
Proposed Class 1: Audiovisual works – educational uses –
colleges and universities
This proposed class would allow college and university
faculty and students to circumvent access controls on lawfully made and
acquired motion pictures and other audiovisual works for purposes of criticism
and comment. This exemption has been requested for audiovisual material made
available in all formats, including DVDs protected by the Content Scramble
System (“CSS”), Blu-ray discs protected by the Advanced Access Content System
(“AACS”), and TPM-protected online distribution services.
 
Proponents:
Brandon Butler, Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law
Clinic, American University: Why these uses are lawful.  (1) Most important thing is that uses will
very likely be transformative fair use. 
(2) Short portions has never been the law of fair use and isn’t necessary
to require tailoring to purpose. (3) Close analysis is not the law of fair use
either. 
 
Transformative: every use will be educational, which is
independently important, but also for criticism or commentary, core
transformative purposes, not substitutional, productive, use existing materials
as building blocks.  Core First Amendment
uses.  Quite significant that this
criticism/commentary is educational context as well, relative to entertainment.
Transformativeness is a function of the relationship between the purpose of the
user and the creator.

Charlesworth: are all educational uses transformative?
 
A: no. But if something wasn’t made for use in an
educational setting, then its use in education is likely transformative, also
evaluated with relation to whether what you used was reasonable in relation to
purpose.  To point (2): amount is only
one of the factors.  Two striking
examples where the outcome untethered from quantity.
 
Charlesworth: Campbell remanded on quantity.
 
A: but said parody can take more.
 
Charlesworth: enough to conjure up, but had to evaluate
amount in context of the use—not more.
 
A: Parody requires more than parsing a single sentence from
a poem.
 
Charlesworth: depends on the work.
 
A: but that’s the larger point: it depends, from work to
work and use to use, on the facts of each particular case.
 
Q: have you submitted evidence where the short portions was
insufficient?
 
A: Our friends intervened to make this point.  We submitted an example we thought excellent,
Dr. Wallace’s use of what we believed to be short portions, he described as
“longer excerpt.” Can something be both? 
There are longer and shorter short portions, but this is too vague and
subjective, which is why we don’t like the short portions language.
 
Charlesworth: When we write these exemptions, saying it’s
fair use is just circular/doesn’t give guidance. We need to give guidance to
the public.  More likely to be fair use
if it’s a short clip. But we didn’t say 15 seconds. We have to be specific and
targeted, and you have to show a substantial likelihood that it’s fair
use.  [“Fair use” gives exactly as much
guidance as the law requires: if it’s not fair use, it won’t be entitled to the
exception, which more than satisfies “substantial likelihood.” You can even
say, it’s more likely to be fair use if it’s a short clip—that’s the standard
articulated by the law.  This standard as
articulated by Charlesworth presupposes that some fair uses ought to be
excluded, which is not what the statute says.]
 
A: Standard of criticism and commentary/use appropriate to
the purpose incorporates that. 
 
Charlesworth: full film?
 
A: reasonable people know you don’t need to do that.
 
Charlesworth: doesn’t know that’s the case.  [What is the record in this proceeding?]  Could comment on the trajectory of this film.
 
A: this is what courts do when they decide fair use. The
rightsholder who thinks this is a violation of the DMCA would go to court and
do exactly what they did in litigating the fair use question.
 
Charlesworth: the question is general, not individual.  [So is §107.] 
Unlikely an educator would win by copying the whole film, which is why
the exemption reads the way it does. [Short and whole are not necessarily the
full spectrum!  Why is “short” so much
more clear?]
 
A: appropriate amount, or tailored amount. 
 
Charlesworth: amount needed to engage in the criticism.
 
A: fair use doesn’t require necessary, but you could go
there.
 
Q: Negative impacts: you pointed to Dr. Wallace and argued
that the current exception was vague, but he relied on it.
 
A: now we have a high profile proceeding claiming he was
wrong, and GC might read that and wonder.
 
Q: you’re on record contesting that. 
 
A: I love to work with nice people like professors, but we
have small bandwidth to help people.  I’m
happy to talk about “short portion” but a lot of people don’t have access to
those resources.  Read listservs where
professors & librarians are, they talk about that as a grain of sand for an
oyster.
 
Q: wouldn’t they just be fretting over whether this is fair
use in your standard? [But they should be! And they must be anyway!]
 
A: purpose based definition: they know what their purpose
is!  She shouldn’t have to worry about
short portion, but rather about purpose to teaching.
 
Charlesworth: that’s not the law.
 
A: I didn’t say that using it in the class was fair use.
She’s using it for teaching and it wasn’t made for teaching.
 
Charlesworth: that’s not the law.
 
A: yes, it is.
 
Jonathan Band, Library Copyright Alliance: Note that
opponents aren’t opposing renewal, so we’re only talking extension.
 
Quality issues: this argument has been made before, and
makes no more sense than before. If quality doesn’t make a difference, why do
they sell high quality?  If Blu-Ray has
an advantage, those advantages shouldn’t just be available for entertainment
and not education. If screen capture is adequate, why bother with any
TPMs?  Of course screencap exemptions
should be renewed in case they involve circumvention.
 
Image quality makes a difference. If it doesn’t look right,
it doesn’t have the impact the author intended, or the viewer might only see
distorted image, with impact on educational purpose.
 
Charlesworth: Is there a distinction b/t close analysis and
illustration, based on the record/need for high quality. 
 
Band: You need quality to understand the image: Saving Private Ryan, immediacy and
authenticity.
 
Charlesworth: are there cases where not every classroom
experience requires that?
 
Band: you could come up with some examples, but why would we
need to bother with that limitation?  Why
make it difficult to apply an exemption we concede we need, making it hard to
use?  There’s never been any infringement
resulting, so why not make it easy for educators?  Instead of having them parse out which
quality they need for this particular clip—that would save educators and the
Office time, with zero impact on infringement.
 
Charlesworth: opponents say they’re concerned about Blu-Ray.
 
Peter Decherney, University of Pennsylvania: Saving Private Ryan was made with a
special process on the film stock; this can be captured on Blu-Ray but not
DVD.  Material on studies showing that
students feel the impact of HD—there’s an emotional, physiological response
that’s been quantified.  Educators have
been talking about harm from 2000 on, and we haven’t seen any viable alternatives
yet. 
 
Are there cases in which low quality is enough?  There are many instances when we need DVD or
VHS, when we teach the history of media. What I don’t teach is Blu-Ray because
it’s banned from classrooms.  Conceded by
opponents that there’s real educational value from creating excerpts.
 
Exh. 13: Titanic,
showing how bad the CGI looks in retrospect. 
Blu-Ray uses a very different technology from DVDs.  Blu-Ray = progressive scan, not interlaced,
so as you scrub through you always get a clean frame no matter where you stop,
never have an interlacing issue. 

Charlesworth: If we looked at DVD, it would look different?
 
A: yes: you wouldn’t see the detail in the figures, which
reveals them to be bad CGI. Also if you scrub through you wouldn’t get a clean
frame—they aren’t even frames, but horizontal lines of video, replaced by
additional horizontal lines. In a Blu-Ray you see still images in
succession. 
 
Charlesworth: CGI looked cartoonish, not real.  Are you saying that if we watched in DVD, we
wouldn’t see the difference? Would it look more real?
 
A: it would look like you were looking from a different
lens. They’re just different ways of rendering the world.  Soap opera effect
experienced on new TVs is actually a better image. Newer TVs put in extra
frames to try to make older images look better, but we experience them as
different, stage-like rather than screen like. It’s not a continuum, but
different ways of experiencing the image. 
It’s not just b/c it’s better, but different, and access can create a
different or better educational experience.
 
Charlesworth: we heard of more pixels in Blu-Ray.  Higher quality/resolution/detail.
 
A: Cell biology: can be better image than DVD.  Media studies = show differences.  Saving
Private Ryan
is actually about physiological impact on students in history
class.  They would just understand the
DVD differently than Blu-Ray.  Three
different ways of using Blu-Ray—there isn’t just one reason.
 
Charlesworth: any other exhibits?
 
A: no. [Though you can see the progressive scan interlacing
effects on their exhibits.]
 
Opponents:
Bruce Turnbull, AACS LA: Corley
says that no particular resolution is required for fair use.  Goes into the uses we’re talking about.  Second Circuit: film critic has no
constitutionally valid claim that a technologically superior review would be
allowed from filming in a theater.  Fair
use is not a guarantee of access. [Even if that weren’t dicta and contradicted
by Eldred and Golan, that’s not the standard! 
1201 asks if the uses are likely noninfringing once made. 1201 exemption process exists to determine whether
likely noninfringing, even if constitutionally
 
Haven’t shown how clips would be made from Blu-Ray. It’s our
understanding that there are only commercial decryption products that require
payment. [Um, so what?] And that they aren’t limited to decrypting short
portions. They decrypt the entire work. You may only use the short portion, but
you have access to the entire work. There aren’t technologies we are aware of
that allow you to capture 30 seconds. [Of course those technologies exist no
matter what happens in this proceeding.] The harm to the ecosystem—methods and
systems used will be important. Not the same as DVD case—no one has ever shown
harm from previous exemptions, and part of the reason is that the hack of DVD
was pervasive and ubiquitious.  [And the
streaming stuff?] You didn’t need an exemption to find a tool and make a copy
if you wanted. [Also true now.]
 
Charlesworth: how do you decrypt Blu-Ray?
 
Decherney: MakeMKV, plus Handbrake, plus editing. 
 
Charlesworth: is that commercial?
 
Decherney: yes, it’s commercially available.
 
Turnbull: using technologies that are of the sort
specifically found to be illegal.  AACS
itself sued a similar tech, DVDFab, which was enjoined. Motion to quash
injunction denied.  MakeMKV works
differently but similar to illegal Slysoft product in Antigua.  How this actually will work, and if there’s a
“legitimate” use then what does that do in the context of other cases/markets.
 
We’ve been given a number of examples, shifting process to
respond to that.  We’re not prepared to
respond to the Titanic because that’s the first time it was presented.  Existing exemption, and screencapture.
 
Q: does any screencap provide Blu-Ray quality?
 
A: No.  Longer answer:
the screencap Taylor will demonstrate was able to capture the particular
elements the proponents said were important—wires in Wizard of Oz and others.  We
were able to recreate those.
 
Q: but you don’t know of any tech that will get higher than
DVD?
 
A: there are ways of upconverting signals, and there are
progressive scan outputs from DVDs. But he doesn’t know of any where HD
screencap exists.
 
Q: is Titanic Blu-Ray decrypted [in the wild]?
 
A: He suspects so. [As do I.]
 
Screencap is viable. 
Ultraviolet/Disney anywhere is also available.
 
Q: you’re not contending Ultraviolet has the right range of
content for universities?
 
A: they don’t natively have content. You bring/purchase your
content, but if you bring a Blu-Ray, there are 1000s of titles available for
conversion and use. It’s not so much how much they offer as how much you can
put in. Many 1000s.
 
Q: For Disney everywhere, they only support kids movies.
Ultraviolet, doesn’t it need a studio affiliation, instead of a science
Blu-Ray?
 
A: yes.
 
Charlesworth: Could you play Titanic on Ultraviolet?
 
A: Believes so.
 
David Jonathan Taylor, DVDCCA: 3 quick clips from
screencap/video capture.  First: in the
DVD, you can see cables pulling lion’s tail in Wizard of Oz, and thus also w/video capture.  Second: exhibits showing compilations can be
used in classroom setting with sufficient. 
Third: demo of using the WMCapture software to show how easy it is.
 
Q: are these noncircumventing?
 
A: yes. [How does he know?] 
The Camtasia/WMCapture issue—I’ve used SnagIt, which is for recording
video capture, to show my process.
 
Wizard of Oz:  marked
the cable pulling the Lion’s tail with an arrow.  [NB: I … can’t really see the cable, though I
see the arrow.  Peter Decherney says as a
student in the fourth row he can’t see it (I’m sitting behind him).]
 
Q: did you use any editing tools?
 
A: we had to use video editing software to stop it and put
an arrow in. 
 
Charlesworth: To Decherney: Could you see the cable?
 
Decherney: there was one moment when it was swinging that I
saw it.
 
Exh. 15: compilations: Q: different technology from other
exhibits? These clips were made from Camtasia. They’ve been edited to be
shorter. But the capture is the same. [I note huge differences in frame size
across the different clips, which would be important in vidding. Not clear if
any of the frames are standard size.] Some interlacing, but many frames are
sufficient for our purposes to see what’s going on.  A little motion blur, but again there is
sufficient color to see what’s going on. Video capture allows compilation for
instructional purposes, and quality includes the details proponents want to
show.
 
Exh. 16: me making use of WMCapture technology, recorded his
process using SnagIt.  [Note that this is
indeed easier than converting Blu-Ray, which means that bad guys who don’t care
about quality will readily use it, and it doesn’t have any problem copying
whole works, meaning that the ecosystem is wide open right now.] Big chunk of
his screen is taken up with the interface. 
Detects content in window and will predict what you want to record.  Lines up almost perfectly with the content he
wants.

Q: is it your opinion this is just as easy/easier than ripping/circumventing? 
 
A: I’ve never ripped a DVD. 
This is very intuitive. I imagine there are nonintuitive programs. What
I understand is that other circumvention products have made it fairly easy as
well. 
 
Q: so no additional time demands?
 
A: no.  If you’re
going to prepare a lesson, you should prepare a compilation of clips, and this
would be quick and easy.
 
Q: others have said some capture does require circumvention.
How do you know? Is one higher quality?
 
A: I assume that if it’s circumventing the content on a
Blu-Ray, it’s going to give you perfect quality and recording.
 
Charlesworth: is it your contention that some screen capture
tech may involve circumvention and some not? 
We’re trying to understand whether there’s a need for an exemption.
 
A: none of the video capture tech I’ve used circumvents.
[How does he know?] There are products that claim to record Blu-Ray that first
circumvent.
 
Charlesworth: is there a way to tell for a consumer?
 
A: ultimately, by looking at output and seeing if it’s less
than perfect. If it’s less than perfect, it’s probably not circumvention. If
it’s perfect, it’s probably circumvention.
 
Charlesworth: it is possible to have DVD screencapture that
does circumvent?  Is that your
testimony?  Or is all DVD screencap noncircumventing?
[There is no such thing as “DVD screencap.” It’s screencap, whatever’s on the
screen.]
 
A: can’t speak to all. There is a product billed as
screencap for DVD/Blu-Ray that is in my opinion a circumvention tool.
 
Q: and the reason you know is the better quality? And you
don’t need to analyze the output, you can eyeball it?
 
A: … I wouldn’t say that. 
I’d be more suspicious when it’s nearly perfect.  You’d need to go frame by frame.
 
Q: has anyone looked under the hood of these programs?
 
A: I don’t know.
 
Continuing explanation: he’s set a framerate, a mp4 output,
and a filename. In his opinion it’s straightforward and intuitive, like the old
tape recorders. Easy for any instructors to use and make a compilation.  The quality of the video capture is
sufficiently high to see lines, colors, etc. Much better alternative than it’s
ever been before.
 
J. Matthew Williams, Entertainment Software Association,
Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of
America (Joint Creators and Copyright Owners)
 
We aren’t opposed to renewing the existing exemption. No
reason to expand based on this record. 
Proponents’ record is almost identical to last time and shouldn’t be
expanded when more formats are available now. We acknowledge there are lots of
fair uses, we wouldn’t be comfortable as a “just do it” approach.  We would prefer to keep a balance in
place.  [A balance between things that
are fair use and also ok to circumvent and things that are fair use and not
ok.] We think “short” is a good limit, and we don’t know whether “extensive
quotes” is too much but it looks to us outside the exemption.  There are lots of HD quality downloads.  HDX is very close to Blu-Ray and you can
circumvent that under existing exemption. 
There are only 2 examples of Blu-Ray exclusive content—the Terminator:
Salvation director’s cut, which is available on SD, but only one bonus feature.
 
Q: would you be opposed to exemption for Blu-Ray exclusive
content?
 
A: yes, there are alternatives.  Saving Private Ryan: showing D-day experience
type footage, you can still bring Blu-Ray player into the classroom and cue
that up.  Close analysis limitation
should also stay in place. It’s helpful to give direction to users.  Shows them when it might be necessary to circumvent
as opposed to unnecessary.  The ability
to cue up copies already acquired via download/Ultraviolet is also important.
Not every title is available on Movies Anywhere, but the touchstone titles are,
and manufacture-on-demand DVD. We also think limit on good faith belief it’s
necessary to engage in circumvention is a good idea.
 
We think it would be appropriate to change it in one
way—separate it from current motion picture bundle, specifically defined for
educational uses so it’s distinct from remix, ebooks—this one is crafted pretty
will, but others are more vague and we’re afraid people read that to consume
the educational exemption.

Charlesworth: are you suggesting an overlap, where people might think I could
use the educational or noncommercial? Why is that a concern?
 
A: it’s a concern because my interpretation is noncommercial
was targeted to deal with remix/mashup videos, not just all types of
noncommercial videos. Because educational videos are typically noncommercial,
I’d be concerned that people would read noncommercial to cover educational uses
and render tailoring meaningless.
 
Charlesworth: so you view noncommercial as more broadly
drafted?
 
A: yes, but the intent wasn’t as broad as one could argue it
reads. Reference to types of videos in the record—remix style, mashup
style.  [Also, for the record, film
criticism, social commentary, political videos, and a bunch of other uses.]
 
Q for Decherney: Studies about physiological effects of high
definition? Classroom setting?
 
A: Yes, they’re classroom setting HD v. SD.
 
Charlesworth: pedagogically, when would you try to elicit
this response?
 
A: Effect of violence, or romance, or anything with an
affective response. We try not to bore people. 
Works are often being taught because people have responded to them over
time.  Art history, English, even in
science.
 
Q: doesn’t that depend on more factors than image quality,
like darkened screen?
 
A: there are many factors. 
I like blackout shades in classrooms.
 
Q: have people had trouble with the previous exemption being
staggered, so you have to try screencap first?
 
A: more elaborate over time, led to some confusion. Biggest
confusion is confusion over definition of “motion pictures”—that’s definitely
led to confusion.  Chronicle of Higher Ed
had a whole paragraph saying the exemption didn’t cover TV. 
 
Q: is there evidence of non-motion pictures, like video
games?
 
A: we found only a few examples, movies made of still images
like La Jetee, a French film that’s
often taught; documentaries of still images, and we’re not entirely clear about
their coverage b/c they don’t necessarily “suggest  movement.” 
There’s a limited range of AV material, but it can be confusing.
 
Q: were you aware of anyone deterred by the prior
exemption? 
 
A: we clarified—if they find us we can tell them. We don’t
know who didn’t come to us.
 
Williams: if you clarify, still exclude video games b/c
there’s nothing in the record.
 
Band: A couple of quick points about screencap—are the joint
creators willing to certify that screencap doesn’t circumvent and indemnify
educators in case they’re wrong?
 
Charlesworth: are you seeking an exemption for screencap,
assuming some may circumvent?
 
Decherney: 70-90% of educational environments use Macs,
which block screencapture. 
 
A: but you can screencap and then get a file that can be
used on a Mac.
 
Decherney: but that means that educators, students, media
labs would have to buy PCs.
 
A: you’re saying these technologies can’t be used on a Mac
w/out prior circumvention?
 
Decherney: yes.
 
Taylor: that’s not my understanding. Camtasia is a product
we use. Worked with several other people using Macs. We were able to use
Camtasia in Apple just fine. [Oh look,
here’s an article about the most recent Mac OS, explaining what happened
:
 
Apple changed the way screen
capture is performed, starting in OS X 10.7 Lion. DVD video played back with
the Mac OS DVD Player software can no longer be captured. Earlier versions of
OS X are not affected.
 
There are two workarounds
Play back the DVD with a different
program such as VLC media player and capture it.
Use DVD ripping software such as
Handbrake (may require installation of VLC and supporting libraries) to convert
the DVD video directly to a usable format such as mp4 or QuickTime movie.
 
Decherney: screencap is insufficient for almost every
purpose.  I’d rather not talk about it.
Changes appearance, pixels, adds interpolated frames, frame size, framerate.
Imagine in any other field—if you want to teach Toni Morrison, you have to
teach pages missing and pages added. 
That’s ludicrious.

Charlesworth: we just saw a screencap that was arguably sufficient, depending
on the use. We found before that many uses didn’t require that level of detail.
To avoid any doubt, we allowed any exemption. You aren’t seeking that.  [NB: We didn’t seek that last time! You just
gave it to us without a request for it!]
 
Band: it would be helpful, speaking as a lawyer, to have
that renewed, even though the educators say it’s insufficient.
 
Butler: In the current screencap exemption, there’s a
requirement that the public representation must be that it’s offered after
content lawfully decrypted.  But we were
now told that the eyeball test is the test. Are these companies making the
necessary representations? We don’t think anyone is making those representations. If there is a future exemption,
maybe that requirement should come out, since we don’t have any evidence that
those requirements are met.
 
Camtasia tech support, January 2015: current OS Macs can’t
capture DVDs. Recommends circumvention instead. 
[Butler found the same link I did!]
 
Charlesworth: any comments on meeting the standard?
 
Williams: I have seen on some of the marketing materials a
circumvention claim. Sometimes in FAQs. 
[Is that in the record?  Should
they submit those?] For the benefit of studios.
 
I have not used Camtasia personally, but people I’ve worked
with have; would have to get back to you. What I see doesn’t suggest it is
circumventing.  It’s been around for so
long that if you circumvent and still don’t get perfect copies, you have a
fundamental challenge.
 
Band: it’s on the latest version of Mac. It could be they
got around the block on an earlier version. 
That goes to the bigger problem, that depending on the software release
it may or may not work.
 
Charlesworth: what version of Mac.
 
Butler: this has been true for a while.  10.7 = DRM blocks DVD and iTunes video
capture. Camtasia tech says, sorry, you just can’t use it on Mac since then.
 
Williams: I can’t speak to the tech question, but the Office
has said that the fact some formats don’t work is not sufficient for exemption.
 
Q: Ability to upconvert/use HDX: what does that mean as an
alternative? Is that viable?
 
Decherney: Upconversion is about playing DVD quality on a
larger TV. It doesn’t add quality. The resolution isn’t higher. The detail
isn’t higher. It just repeats lines of resolution.  I don’t know much about HDX.
 
Williams: there’s upconversion, which improves quality, and
what you could call upconversion with digital programs—take a SD DVD, pay $5,
upgrade to HD copy, and under existing copy, those downloads are covered. HD
and HDX version—marketing is typically that it’s 1080p quality.
 
Don’t know how many titles are available. Everything you can
access in Ultraviolet, he thinks.
 
Decherney: upconversion is the same thing. You can’t give a
SD version more information.
 
Taylor: no, they give you a native HD copy online.
 
Would be covered under digital distribution exemption.  You don’t even have to take the disc in to
Wal-Mart.

Decherney: can you use short portions? Can you put them on slides? 
 
Charlesworth: it’s a digital download—you could do those
things by swapping out your lower res version for a download.
 
Decherney: that’s editable? 
[no]
 
Williams: these copies are relevant—they can often be used
w/out circumvention to cue up in advance and play from the start point.  If you need clip compilation, you would have
to engage in circumvention, but we’re not opposed to a renewal, only an
expansion.  Transmitted/distributed
question—streaming v. downloads might be uncertain [what?!] but these are clear
downloads.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1FYFd7L

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

DMCA hearing: university exemption

Copyright Office: Jacqueline Charlesworth
Michelle Choe
Regan Smith
Cy Donnelly
Steve Ruhe
John Riley
Stacy Cheney (NTIA)
 
Proposed Class 1: Audiovisual works – educational uses – colleges and universities
This proposed class would allow college and university faculty and students to circumvent access controls on lawfully made and acquired motion pictures and other audiovisual works for purposes of criticism and comment. This exemption has been requested for audiovisual material made available in all formats, including DVDs protected by the Content Scramble System (“CSS”), Blu-ray discs protected by the Advanced Access Content System (“AACS”), and TPM-protected online distribution services.
 
Proponents:
Brandon Butler, Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic, American University: Why these uses are lawful.  (1) Most important thing is that uses will very likely be transformative fair use.  (2) Short portions has never been the law of fair use and isn’t necessary to require tailoring to purpose. (3) Close analysis is not the law of fair use either. 
 
Transformative: every use will be educational, which is independently important, but also for criticism or commentary, core transformative purposes, not substitutional, productive, use existing materials as building blocks.  Core First Amendment uses.  Quite significant that this criticism/commentary is educational context as well, relative to entertainment. Transformativeness is a function of the relationship between the purpose of the user and the creator.
Charlesworth: are all educational uses transformative?
 
A: no. But if something wasn’t made for use in an educational setting, then its use in education is likely transformative, also evaluated with relation to whether what you used was reasonable in relation to purpose.  To point (2): amount is only one of the factors.  Two striking examples where the outcome untethered from quantity.
 
Charlesworth: Campbell remanded on quantity.
 
A: but said parody can take more.
 
Charlesworth: enough to conjure up, but had to evaluate amount in context of the use—not more.
 
A: Parody requires more than parsing a single sentence from a poem.
 
Charlesworth: depends on the work.
 
A: but that’s the larger point: it depends, from work to work and use to use, on the facts of each particular case.
 
Q: have you submitted evidence where the short portions was insufficient?
 
A: Our friends intervened to make this point.  We submitted an example we thought excellent, Dr. Wallace’s use of what we believed to be short portions, he described as “longer excerpt.” Can something be both?  There are longer and shorter short portions, but this is too vague and subjective, which is why we don’t like the short portions language.
 
Charlesworth: When we write these exemptions, saying it’s fair use is just circular/doesn’t give guidance. We need to give guidance to the public.  More likely to be fair use if it’s a short clip. But we didn’t say 15 seconds. We have to be specific and targeted, and you have to show a substantial likelihood that it’s fair use.  [“Fair use” gives exactly as much guidance as the law requires: if it’s not fair use, it won’t be entitled to the exception, which more than satisfies “substantial likelihood.” You can even say, it’s more likely to be fair use if it’s a short clip—that’s the standard articulated by the law.  This standard as articulated by Charlesworth presupposes that some fair uses ought to be excluded, which is not what the statute says.]
 
A: Standard of criticism and commentary/use appropriate to the purpose incorporates that. 
 
Charlesworth: full film?
 
A: reasonable people know you don’t need to do that.
 
Charlesworth: doesn’t know that’s the case.  [What is the record in this proceeding?]  Could comment on the trajectory of this film.
 
A: this is what courts do when they decide fair use. The rightsholder who thinks this is a violation of the DMCA would go to court and do exactly what they did in litigating the fair use question.
 
Charlesworth: the question is general, not individual.  [So is §107.]  Unlikely an educator would win by copying the whole film, which is why the exemption reads the way it does. [Short and whole are not necessarily the full spectrum!  Why is “short” so much more clear?]
 
A: appropriate amount, or tailored amount. 
 
Charlesworth: amount needed to engage in the criticism.
 
A: fair use doesn’t require necessary, but you could go there.
 
Q: Negative impacts: you pointed to Dr. Wallace and argued that the current exception was vague, but he relied on it.
 
A: now we have a high profile proceeding claiming he was wrong, and GC might read that and wonder.
 
Q: you’re on record contesting that. 
 
A: I love to work with nice people like professors, but we have small bandwidth to help people.  I’m happy to talk about “short portion” but a lot of people don’t have access to those resources.  Read listservs where professors & librarians are, they talk about that as a grain of sand for an oyster.
 
Q: wouldn’t they just be fretting over whether this is fair use in your standard? [But they should be! And they must be anyway!]
 
A: purpose based definition: they know what their purpose is!  She shouldn’t have to worry about short portion, but rather about purpose to teaching.
 
Charlesworth: that’s not the law.
 
A: I didn’t say that using it in the class was fair use. She’s using it for teaching and it wasn’t made for teaching.
 
Charlesworth: that’s not the law.
 
A: yes, it is.
 
Jonathan Band, Library Copyright Alliance: Note that opponents aren’t opposing renewal, so we’re only talking extension.
 
Quality issues: this argument has been made before, and makes no more sense than before. If quality doesn’t make a difference, why do they sell high quality?  If Blu-Ray has an advantage, those advantages shouldn’t just be available for entertainment and not education. If screen capture is adequate, why bother with any TPMs?  Of course screencap exemptions should be renewed in case they involve circumvention.
 
Image quality makes a difference. If it doesn’t look right, it doesn’t have the impact the author intended, or the viewer might only see distorted image, with impact on educational purpose.
 
Charlesworth: Is there a distinction b/t close analysis and illustration, based on the record/need for high quality. 
 
Band: You need quality to understand the image: Saving Private Ryan, immediacy and authenticity.
 
Charlesworth: are there cases where not every classroom experience requires that?
 
Band: you could come up with some examples, but why would we need to bother with that limitation?  Why make it difficult to apply an exemption we concede we need, making it hard to use?  There’s never been any infringement resulting, so why not make it easy for educators?  Instead of having them parse out which quality they need for this particular clip—that would save educators and the Office time, with zero impact on infringement.
 
Charlesworth: opponents say they’re concerned about Blu-Ray.
 
Peter Decherney, University of Pennsylvania: Saving Private Ryan was made with a special process on the film stock; this can be captured on Blu-Ray but not DVD.  Material on studies showing that students feel the impact of HD—there’s an emotional, physiological response that’s been quantified.  Educators have been talking about harm from 2000 on, and we haven’t seen any viable alternatives yet. 
 
Are there cases in which low quality is enough?  There are many instances when we need DVD or VHS, when we teach the history of media. What I don’t teach is Blu-Ray because it’s banned from classrooms.  Conceded by opponents that there’s real educational value from creating excerpts.
 
Exh. 13: Titanic, showing how bad the CGI looks in retrospect.  Blu-Ray uses a very different technology from DVDs.  Blu-Ray = progressive scan, not interlaced, so as you scrub through you always get a clean frame no matter where you stop, never have an interlacing issue. 
Charlesworth: If we looked at DVD, it would look different?
 
A: yes: you wouldn’t see the detail in the figures, which reveals them to be bad CGI. Also if you scrub through you wouldn’t get a clean frame—they aren’t even frames, but horizontal lines of video, replaced by additional horizontal lines. In a Blu-Ray you see still images in succession. 
 
Charlesworth: CGI looked cartoonish, not real.  Are you saying that if we watched in DVD, we wouldn’t see the difference? Would it look more real?
 
A: it would look like you were looking from a different lens. They’re just different ways of rendering the world.  Soap opera effect” experienced on new TVs is actually a better image. Newer TVs put in extra frames to try to make older images look better, but we experience them as different, stage-like rather than screen like. It’s not a continuum, but different ways of experiencing the image.  It’s not just b/c it’s better, but different, and access can create a different or better educational experience.
 
Charlesworth: we heard of more pixels in Blu-Ray.  Higher quality/resolution/detail.
 
A: Cell biology: can be better image than DVD.  Media studies = show differences.  Saving Private Ryan is actually about physiological impact on students in history class.  They would just understand the DVD differently than Blu-Ray.  Three different ways of using Blu-Ray—there isn’t just one reason.
 
Charlesworth: any other exhibits?
 
A: no. [Though you can see the progressive scan interlacing effects on their exhibits.]
 
Opponents:
Bruce Turnbull, AACS LA: Corleysays that no particular resolution is required for fair use.  Goes into the uses we’re talking about.  Second Circuit: film critic has no constitutionally valid claim that a technologically superior review would be allowed from filming in a theater.  Fair use is not a guarantee of access. [Even if that weren’t dicta and contradicted by Eldred and Golan, that’s not the standard!  1201 asks if the uses are likely noninfringing once made. 1201 exemption process exists to determine whether likely noninfringing, even if constitutionally
 
Haven’t shown how clips would be made from Blu-Ray. It’s our understanding that there are only commercial decryption products that require payment. [Um, so what?] And that they aren’t limited to decrypting short portions. They decrypt the entire work. You may only use the short portion, but you have access to the entire work. There aren’t technologies we are aware of that allow you to capture 30 seconds. [Of course those technologies exist no matter what happens in this proceeding.] The harm to the ecosystem—methods and systems used will be important. Not the same as DVD case—no one has ever shown harm from previous exemptions, and part of the reason is that the hack of DVD was pervasive and ubiquitious.  [And the streaming stuff?] You didn’t need an exemption to find a tool and make a copy if you wanted. [Also true now.]
 
Charlesworth: how do you decrypt Blu-Ray?
 
Decherney: MakeMKV, plus Handbrake, plus editing. 
 
Charlesworth: is that commercial?
 
Decherney: yes, it’s commercially available.
 
Turnbull: using technologies that are of the sort specifically found to be illegal.  AACS itself sued a similar tech, DVDFab, which was enjoined. Motion to quash injunction denied.  MakeMKV works differently but similar to illegal Slysoft product in Antigua.  How this actually will work, and if there’s a “legitimate” use then what does that do in the context of other cases/markets.
 
We’ve been given a number of examples, shifting process to respond to that.  We’re not prepared to respond to the Titanic because that’s the first time it was presented.  Existing exemption, and screencapture.
 
Q: does any screencap provide Blu-Ray quality?
 
A: No.  Longer answer: the screencap Taylor will demonstrate was able to capture the particular elements the proponents said were important—wires in Wizard of Oz and others.  We were able to recreate those.
 
Q: but you don’t know of any tech that will get higher than DVD?
 
A: there are ways of upconverting signals, and there are progressive scan outputs from DVDs. But he doesn’t know of any where HD screencap exists.
 
Q: is Titanic Blu-Ray decrypted [in the wild]?
 
A: He suspects so. [As do I.]
 
Screencap is viable.  Ultraviolet/Disney anywhere is also available.
 
Q: you’re not contending Ultraviolet has the right range of content for universities?
 
A: they don’t natively have content. You bring/purchase your content, but if you bring a Blu-Ray, there are 1000s of titles available for conversion and use. It’s not so much how much they offer as how much you can put in. Many 1000s.
 
Q: For Disney everywhere, they only support kids movies. Ultraviolet, doesn’t it need a studio affiliation, instead of a science Blu-Ray?
 
A: yes.
 
Charlesworth: Could you play Titanic on Ultraviolet?
 
A: Believes so.
 
David Jonathan Taylor, DVDCCA: 3 quick clips from screencap/video capture.  First: in the DVD, you can see cables pulling lion’s tail in Wizard of Oz, and thus also w/video capture.  Second: exhibits showing compilations can be used in classroom setting with sufficient.  Third: demo of using the WMCapture software to show how easy it is.
 
Q: are these noncircumventing?
 
A: yes. [How does he know?]  The Camtasia/WMCapture issue—I’ve used SnagIt, which is for recording video capture, to show my process.
 
Wizard of Oz:  marked the cable pulling the Lion’s tail with an arrow.  [NB: I … can’t really see the cable, though I see the arrow.  Peter Decherney says as a student in the fourth row he can’t see it (I’m sitting behind him).]
 
Q: did you use any editing tools?
 
A: we had to use video editing software to stop it and put an arrow in. 
 
Charlesworth: To Decherney: Could you see the cable?
 
Decherney: there was one moment when it was swinging that I saw it.
 
Exh. 15: compilations: Q: different technology from other exhibits? These clips were made from Camtasia. They’ve been edited to be shorter. But the capture is the same. [I note huge differences in frame size across the different clips, which would be important in vidding. Not clear if any of the frames are standard size.] Some interlacing, but many frames are sufficient for our purposes to see what’s going on.  A little motion blur, but again there is sufficient color to see what’s going on. Video capture allows compilation for instructional purposes, and quality includes the details proponents want to show.
 
Exh. 16: me making use of WMCapture technology, recorded his process using SnagIt.  [Note that this is indeed easier than converting Blu-Ray, which means that bad guys who don’t care about quality will readily use it, and it doesn’t have any problem copying whole works, meaning that the ecosystem is wide open right now.] Big chunk of his screen is taken up with the interface.  Detects content in window and will predict what you want to record.  Lines up almost perfectly with the content he wants.
Q: is it your opinion this is just as easy/easier than ripping/circumventing? 
 
A: I’ve never ripped a DVD.  This is very intuitive. I imagine there are nonintuitive programs. What I understand is that other circumvention products have made it fairly easy as well. 
 
Q: so no additional time demands?
 
A: no.  If you’re going to prepare a lesson, you should prepare a compilation of clips, and this would be quick and easy.
 
Q: others have said some capture does require circumvention. How do you know? Is one higher quality?
 
A: I assume that if it’s circumventing the content on a Blu-Ray, it’s going to give you perfect quality and recording.
 
Charlesworth: is it your contention that some screen capture tech may involve circumvention and some not?  We’re trying to understand whether there’s a need for an exemption.
 
A: none of the video capture tech I’ve used circumvents. [How does he know?] There are products that claim to record Blu-Ray that first circumvent.
 
Charlesworth: is there a way to tell for a consumer?
 
A: ultimately, by looking at output and seeing if it’s less than perfect. If it’s less than perfect, it’s probably not circumvention. If it’s perfect, it’s probably circumvention.
 
Charlesworth: it is possible to have DVD screencapture that does circumvent?  Is that your testimony?  Or is all DVD screencap noncircumventing? [There is no such thing as “DVD screencap.” It’s screencap, whatever’s on the screen.]
 
A: can’t speak to all. There is a product billed as screencap for DVD/Blu-Ray that is in my opinion a circumvention tool.
 
Q: and the reason you know is the better quality? And you don’t need to analyze the output, you can eyeball it?
 
A: … I wouldn’t say that.  I’d be more suspicious when it’s nearly perfect.  You’d need to go frame by frame.
 
Q: has anyone looked under the hood of these programs?
 
A: I don’t know.
 
Continuing explanation: he’s set a framerate, a mp4 output, and a filename. In his opinion it’s straightforward and intuitive, like the old tape recorders. Easy for any instructors to use and make a compilation.  The quality of the video capture is sufficiently high to see lines, colors, etc. Much better alternative than it’s ever been before.
 
J. Matthew Williams, Entertainment Software Association, Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America (Joint Creators and Copyright Owners)
 
We aren’t opposed to renewing the existing exemption. No reason to expand based on this record.  Proponents’ record is almost identical to last time and shouldn’t be expanded when more formats are available now. We acknowledge there are lots of fair uses, we wouldn’t be comfortable as a “just do it” approach.  We would prefer to keep a balance in place.  [A balance between things that are fair use and also ok to circumvent and things that are fair use and not ok.] We think “short” is a good limit, and we don’t know whether “extensive quotes” is too much but it looks to us outside the exemption.  There are lots of HD quality downloads.  HDX is very close to Blu-Ray and you can circumvent that under existing exemption.  There are only 2 examples of Blu-Ray exclusive content—the Terminator: Salvation director’s cut, which is available on SD, but only one bonus feature.
 
Q: would you be opposed to exemption for Blu-Ray exclusive content?
 
A: yes, there are alternatives.  Saving Private Ryan: showing D-day experience type footage, you can still bring Blu-Ray player into the classroom and cue that up.  Close analysis limitation should also stay in place. It’s helpful to give direction to users.  Shows them when it might be necessary to circumvent as opposed to unnecessary.  The ability to cue up copies already acquired via download/Ultraviolet is also important. Not every title is available on Movies Anywhere, but the touchstone titles are, and manufacture-on-demand DVD. We also think limit on good faith belief it’s necessary to engage in circumvention is a good idea.
 
We think it would be appropriate to change it in one way—separate it from current motion picture bundle, specifically defined for educational uses so it’s distinct from remix, ebooks—this one is crafted pretty will, but others are more vague and we’re afraid people read that to consume the educational exemption.
Charlesworth: are you suggesting an overlap, where people might think I could use the educational or noncommercial? Why is that a concern?
 
A: it’s a concern because my interpretation is noncommercial was targeted to deal with remix/mashup videos, not just all types of noncommercial videos. Because educational videos are typically noncommercial, I’d be concerned that people would read noncommercial to cover educational uses and render tailoring meaningless.
 
Charlesworth: so you view noncommercial as more broadly drafted?
 
A: yes, but the intent wasn’t as broad as one could argue it reads. Reference to types of videos in the record—remix style, mashup style.  [Also, for the record, film criticism, social commentary, political videos, and a bunch of other uses.]
 
Q for Decherney: Studies about physiological effects of high definition? Classroom setting?
 
A: Yes, they’re classroom setting HD v. SD.
 
Charlesworth: pedagogically, when would you try to elicit this response?
 
A: Effect of violence, or romance, or anything with an affective response. We try not to bore people.  Works are often being taught because people have responded to them over time.  Art history, English, even in science.
 
Q: doesn’t that depend on more factors than image quality, like darkened screen?
 
A: there are many factors.  I like blackout shades in classrooms.
 
Q: have people had trouble with the previous exemption being staggered, so you have to try screencap first?
 
A: more elaborate over time, led to some confusion. Biggest confusion is confusion over definition of “motion pictures”—that’s definitely led to confusion.  Chronicle of Higher Ed had a whole paragraph saying the exemption didn’t cover TV. 
 
Q: is there evidence of non-motion pictures, like video games?
 
A: we found only a few examples, movies made of still images like La Jetee, a French film that’s often taught; documentaries of still images, and we’re not entirely clear about their coverage b/c they don’t necessarily “suggest  movement.”  There’s a limited range of AV material, but it can be confusing.
 
Q: were you aware of anyone deterred by the prior exemption? 
 
A: we clarified—if they find us we can tell them. We don’t know who didn’t come to us.
 
Williams: if you clarify, still exclude video games b/c there’s nothing in the record.
 
Band: A couple of quick points about screencap—are the joint creators willing to certify that screencap doesn’t circumvent and indemnify educators in case they’re wrong?
 
Charlesworth: are you seeking an exemption for screencap, assuming some may circumvent?
 
Decherney: 70-90% of educational environments use Macs, which block screencapture. 
 
A: but you can screencap and then get a file that can be used on a Mac.
 
Decherney: but that means that educators, students, media labs would have to buy PCs.
 
A: you’re saying these technologies can’t be used on a Mac w/out prior circumvention?
 
Decherney: yes.
 
Taylor: that’s not my understanding. Camtasia is a product we use. Worked with several other people using Macs. We were able to use Camtasia in Apple just fine. [Oh look,here’s an article about the most recent Mac OS, explaining what happened:
 
Apple changed the way screen capture is performed, starting in OS X 10.7 Lion. DVD video played back with the Mac OS DVD Player software can no longer be captured. Earlier versions of OS X are not affected.
 
There are two workarounds
Play back the DVD with a different program such as VLC media player and capture it.
Use DVD ripping software such as Handbrake (may require installation of VLC and supporting libraries) to convert the DVD video directly to a usable format such as mp4 or QuickTime movie.
 
Decherney: screencap is insufficient for almost every purpose.  I’d rather not talk about it. Changes appearance, pixels, adds interpolated frames, frame size, framerate. Imagine in any other field—if you want to teach Toni Morrison, you have to teach pages missing and pages added.  That’s ludicrious.
Charlesworth: we just saw a screencap that was arguably sufficient, depending on the use. We found before that many uses didn’t require that level of detail. To avoid any doubt, we allowed any exemption. You aren’t seeking that.  [NB: We didn’t seek that last time! You just gave it to us without a request for it!]
 
Band: it would be helpful, speaking as a lawyer, to have that renewed, even though the educators say it’s insufficient.
 
Butler: In the current screencap exemption, there’s a requirement that the public representation must be that it’s offered after content lawfully decrypted.  But we were now told that the eyeball test is the test. Are these companies making the necessary representations? We don’t think anyone is making those representations. If there is a future exemption, maybe that requirement should come out, since we don’t have any evidence that those requirements are met.
 
Camtasia tech support, January 2015: current OS Macs can’t capture DVDs. Recommends circumvention instead.  [Butler found the same link I did!]
 
Charlesworth: any comments on meeting the standard?
 
Williams: I have seen on some of the marketing materials a circumvention claim. Sometimes in FAQs.  [Is that in the record?  Should they submit those?] For the benefit of studios.
 
I have not used Camtasia personally, but people I’ve worked with have; would have to get back to you. What I see doesn’t suggest it is circumventing.  It’s been around for so long that if you circumvent and still don’t get perfect copies, you have a fundamental challenge.
 
Band: it’s on the latest version of Mac. It could be they got around the block on an earlier version.  That goes to the bigger problem, that depending on the software release it may or may not work.
 
Charlesworth: what version of Mac.
 
Butler: this has been true for a while.  10.7 = DRM blocks DVD and iTunes video capture. Camtasia tech says, sorry, you just can’t use it on Mac since then.
 
Williams: I can’t speak to the tech question, but the Office has said that the fact some formats don’t work is not sufficient for exemption.
 
Q: Ability to upconvert/use HDX: what does that mean as an alternative? Is that viable?
 
Decherney: Upconversion is about playing DVD quality on a larger TV. It doesn’t add quality. The resolution isn’t higher. The detail isn’t higher. It just repeats lines of resolution.  I don’t know much about HDX.
 
Williams: there’s upconversion, which improves quality, and what you could call upconversion with digital programs—take a SD DVD, pay $5, upgrade to HD copy, and under existing copy, those downloads are covered. HD and HDX version—marketing is typically that it’s 1080p quality.
 
Don’t know how many titles are available. Everything you can access in Ultraviolet, he thinks.
 
Decherney: upconversion is the same thing. You can’t give a SD version more information.
 
Taylor: no, they give you a native HD copy online.
 
Would be covered under digital distribution exemption.  You don’t even have to take the disc in to Wal-Mart.
Decherney: can you use short portions? Can you put them on slides? 
 
Charlesworth: it’s a digital download—you could do those things by swapping out your lower res version for a download.
 
Decherney: that’s editable?  [no]
 
Williams: these copies are relevant—they can often be used w/out circumvention to cue up in advance and play from the start point.  If you need clip compilation, you would have to engage in circumvention, but we’re not opposed to a renewal, only an expansion.  Transmitted/distributed question—streaming v. downloads might be uncertain [what?!] but these are clear downloads.
Posted in dmca, drm, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

UK ASA thinks “sponsored by” isn’t sufficient disclosure for pure ad

 
A video entitled “Easy Lip
Makeup Tutorials for Winter Time” viewed on the “Beauty
Recommended” You Tube channel [owned and run by P&G], featured a model
vlogger. It showed the vlogger talking about and using a number of Max Factor
products, as well as products from other brands, in the context of a lip makeup
tutorial. At the beginning of the video text appeared which stated “Sponsored
by BEAUTY RECOMMENDED, brought to you by Procter & Gamble”. The video
description, which could be viewed in full by clicking the text “SHOW
MORE” beneath the video, summarised the content of the video, listed all
six Max Factor products featured and included a link to buy the products via
the online shop “SuperSavvyMe”. Text at the bottom of the description
stated “Sponsored by BEAUTY RECOMMENDED, brought to you by Procter &
Gamble”. . . .
 
We considered that viewers should
have been aware of the commercial nature of the content prior to engagement.
Furthermore, we considered that “sponsored by” and “brought to
you by” did not make clear the marketing nature of the videos. Although
they might indicate to some viewers that Procter & Gamble had been involved
in the process, they did not clearly indicate that the videos were marketing
communications, as opposed to, for example, material that had been financially
sponsored, but over which the creator retained editorial control. For those
reasons, we considered that consumers would not be aware that the videos were
ads promoting Procter & Gamble, and instead were likely to believe the
videos were impartial editorial content. We concluded, therefore, that the
videos within the “Beauty Recommended” channel, including the “Easy Lip”
tutorial, were not obviously identifiable as marketing communications.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1Q9VXs9

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

UK ASA thinks "sponsored by" isn’t sufficient disclosure for pure ad

 
A video entitled “Easy Lip Makeup Tutorials for Winter Time” viewed on the “Beauty Recommended” You Tube channel [owned and run by P&G], featured a model vlogger. It showed the vlogger talking about and using a number of Max Factor products, as well as products from other brands, in the context of a lip makeup tutorial. At the beginning of the video text appeared which stated “Sponsored by BEAUTY RECOMMENDED, brought to you by Procter & Gamble”. The video description, which could be viewed in full by clicking the text “SHOW MORE” beneath the video, summarised the content of the video, listed all six Max Factor products featured and included a link to buy the products via the online shop “SuperSavvyMe”. Text at the bottom of the description stated “Sponsored by BEAUTY RECOMMENDED, brought to you by Procter & Gamble”. . . .
 
We considered that viewers should have been aware of the commercial nature of the content prior to engagement. Furthermore, we considered that “sponsored by” and “brought to you by” did not make clear the marketing nature of the videos. Although they might indicate to some viewers that Procter & Gamble had been involved in the process, they did not clearly indicate that the videos were marketing communications, as opposed to, for example, material that had been financially sponsored, but over which the creator retained editorial control. For those reasons, we considered that consumers would not be aware that the videos were ads promoting Procter & Gamble, and instead were likely to believe the videos were impartial editorial content. We concluded, therefore, that the videos within the “Beauty Recommended” channel, including the “Easy Lip” tutorial, were not obviously identifiable as marketing communications.
Posted in advertising, disclosures, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

DMCA hearings, phone/tablet unlocking

Copyright Office: Jacqueline Charlesworth
Michelle Choe
Regan Smith
Cy Donnelly
Steve Ruhe
John Riley
Stacy Cheney (NTIA)
 
Proposed Class 11-12: Unlocking – wireless telephone
handsets and tablets Proposed class 11 would allow the unlocking of wireless
telephone handsets. “Wireless telephone handsets” includes all mobile
telephones including feature phones, smart phones, and “phablets” that are used
for two-way voice communications. Proposed class 12 would allow the unlocking
of all-purpose tablet computers. This class would encompass devices such as the
Apple iPad, Microsoft Surface, Amazon Kindle Fire, and Samsung Galaxy Tab, but
would exclude specialized devices such as dedicated e-book readers and
dedicated handheld gaming devices.
 
Proponents: Erin Mackey, Institute for Public Representation,
Georgetown Law (counsel for Consumers Union)
 
George P. Slover, Consumers Union: Extend useful lives, save
money, promote innovation. No one opposed exemption for tablets; one who opposed
for handsets, Tracfone, has now joined with CCA for a differently drawn
exemption.  Why we wrote it identically
for handsets/tablets: functionally identical for these purposes.
 
Approved twice before in 2006 and 2010; when phased out,
Congress called for its reinstatement, and law passed to do so. Exemption is
modeled on what Congress enacted w/expansion to tablets as envisioned by
Congress. Mobile device unlocking has no business getting caught up in
copyright, convenient as it may be for business models. Has nothing to do with ©
infringement; it’s about being able to use legally purchased equipment. Focus
is on network connecting software; lock only obstructs access to function; even
if connecting software is copyrightable, it is not being copied when it is
connected to another network.  Even if it
were, it’d be protected under §117 as essential step.  Need not own the phone/software to make full
legitimate use of purchased device. Fundamental rights of ownership as
cornerstone of law; cuts short useful life of otherwise useful devices; props
up anticompetitive business models.
 
Q: for the record, why you believe the unlocking policies of
the carriers are insufficient.
 
A: First, they are voluntary, which means they can be
changed at any time.  Second, there are
restrictions and conditions: you need to work with your current carrier, eliminating
flexibility for consumers who would rather turn over the phone/lock and have
someone else unlock. Third, over time voluntary policies came to fruition when
everyone was waiting for legislation; when there was no exemption, at least one
carrier, AT&T, significantly restricted its policy. There’s no substitute
for guarantee.
 
Q: remaining dispute is over scope.  Any limitation to used cellphones/tablets, as
in existing exemption?
 
A: imposing conditions or restrictions makes it difficult
for the ordinary consumer.  Proof
requirement: can you prove it was used? 
At least one definition is previously activated on another wireless
network. Even if you could satisfy that, consumers should have latitude to part
w/phone before that happens: under a contract where you get a phone for a
certain period of time and then you’re allowed to get a new phone for renewal.
Maybe a 60-year-old like me who only wants to use the phone to make calls would
like to hang on to the old one and not upgrade, but you want the package. It
doesn’t make sense to give it up; pass it on to your nephew.
 
Charlesworth: don’t you usually have to hand the old one
in? 
 
A: new arrangements, some with transparent subsidies and
some not.  If your monthly phone bill
wouldn’t change, you should be allowed to get the phone.
 
Charlesworth: what’s your obligation under the contract?
 
A: you’ve agreed to have service with your carrier for 2
years etc.  There are contractual
obligations that don’t have to do with the lock on the phone.
 
Charlesworth: would they let you walk out of the store with
a phone that they didn’t activate on their network? We’re going back to the
definition of used. If it’s subsidized, won’t they activate it?  The big issue is Tracfone/bulk situation
where people buy up subsidized phones and then resell them in a way Tracfone
thinks is inequitable. You’re disputing the definition based on a scenario that
I’m not sure exists in the real world.
 
A: We want that freedom.
 
Charlesworth: you can just buy the unlocked phone for
$700.  Then there’s no concern about
fulfilling your contract.
 
A: But if they’re going to lower the price of the monthly
service in connection with that, a consumer could weigh the pros and cons, but
if the consumer sees an advantage to being on the extended contract and just
wants to take advantage of the new phone they should be able to keep their old
phone rather than paying for a phone they don’t want and constraining them from
passing it along to someone else.
 
Q: so is the current exemption insufficient?
 
A: as a practical matter, most will be used, but we urge a
nonlimited exemption. 
 
Charlesworth: bulk trafficking?
 
A: we’re not in favor of that; in favor of individual
exemption.
 
Charlesworth: but used may be a way to defeat the bulk
trafficking concern in the record. What’s so wrong for requiring “used” for
consumers who want to switch, even if they want to break their contract?
 
A: why require a day’s worth of use?
 
Charlesworth: so how do you address the bulk downloading
concern?
 
Mackey: is it a copyright concern? From the bulk unlocking
perspective, Tracfone has a number of alternative legal remedies it’s used.
From our perspective the Q is whether average consumer should face DMCA
liability.
 
Charlesworth: a lot of things we talk about aren’t copyright
concerns but they’re part of the concerns that are raised.  There may be other legal avenues, but assume
they think 1201 is an important factor. Can we write the exemption to exclude
bulk unlocking in some way?
 
Mackey: There is still a difference between CCA and ISRI.
 
Michael Lazarus, Competitive Carriers Association (CCA):
Nation’s leading association for wireless providers, more than 100 from small,
rural providers to national providers. 
Use to connect isn’t infringing and lack of exemption will cause harm;
strongly supports an unlocking exemption in order to associate devices
w/network of their choosing. Shouldn’t limit who can provide assistance—agent of
consumer should be allowed to perform unlocking procedure, just as locksmith
may help a consumer at home. One party wanted additional protection for
subsidies—Tracfone. CCA believes its proposal was fine, but in order to get
continuance w/o opposition we came up w/a modification that will avoid trouble
with subsidies.
 
Charlesworth: for the record, what is the part of your
proposal that protects against bulk unlocking.
 
A: contract law formulation. Members often have
subsidies.  You should not be able to use
the exemption unless you have adhered to the contract.  You can pay off the early termination fee and
your obligations will end and you can unlock your phone.
 
Q: ISRI says that it’s unclear who the owner is. If I buy a
locked phone on eBay, I don’t know what the original owner has done w/r/t their
original contract.
 
A: we were concerned with the original owner. We don’t think
that owner should have to track down what has gone on. Good faith obligation
attached to original owner.  That second
owner should be able to get phone unlocked w/out worrying what happened before.
 
Q: suppose I want to give a phone to my cousin.  Is the subsequent owner required to satisfy
the contract? 
 
A: in that situation, we don’t have a particular view.  Dad buys phone, gives it to kid—shouldn’t be
able to get around the contract, but that’s a contract matter and not a DMCA
matter.
 
Q: so if we were to make clear that subsequent owners wouldn’t
be required to assess whether original owner satisfied contract obligations,
you’d be fine?
 
A: yes.
 
Eric Harris, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.
(ISRI): Represent more than 1600 processors, brokers, and industrial consumers.
Recyclers of used phones and tablets: lawfully acquire, refurbish, and resell.
The work provides important public and economic benefits by enhancing value
consumers can receive.  Increases variety
for consumers and enhances competition. Recyclers need to be able to unlock
legally obtained phones in bulk.  Risk is
substantial under current law. Only Tracfone objected, out of concerns for
illegal phone trafficking. ISRI’s members don’t do that or condone it.
 
Charlesworth: there seems to be different versions of
trafficking. Tracfone describes people buying subsidized, locked phones at a
discounted price, then instead of accessing that carrier they sell them
somewhere else: phone arbitrage. Can you comment?  Also, black market in phones that were meant
to go to carriers for subsidized plans but fell into the wrong hands. 
 
A: We’ll take their word for it that it happens. We are fine
with “used” exemption. Our members don’t deal in new phones or buy phones at
store.  Definition of “used” could be
helpful, but we’re comfortable with where it appears to be going—lawfully acquired
and activated on the telecom network of a carrier.
 
Q: what about fulfilling the contract, not being used for
unlawful purpose, not obtained by theft or fraud?
 
A: punt to law students, but there is a path forward here.
 
Phil Malone: director of Stanford Law clinic/not speaking
 
Donna Long, Stanford Law, ISRI: CCA proposal was original
owner fulfilling contract obligations, but for ISRI’s members that would be
impractical—ISRI isn’t the original owner, but subsequent owner. No way of figuring
out whether they’ve satisfied the contract.
 
Q: if we clarified that the secondary owner wouldn’t be
burdened with that, would that satisfy you?
 
A: yes.
 
Brian Weisenberg, Stanford Law, representing ISRI: Unlocking
Act of 2014: (1) Demonstrates that Congress and president believe that any
copyright concerns should yield to consumer freedom, regardless of whether they
own the software/copies.  (2) Act allows
bulk unlocking: allows “owners” to unlock. 
Recyclers are owners.  Provision
that would have dealt w/ bulk unlockers separately was removed; even when it
was in the bill, Goodlatte said it wasn’t intended to impair recyclers.  They are like a used book store.  Vital to explicitly permit this in order to
avoid ambiguity. Only one party opposes exemption, and even Tracfone supports
an exemption that is limited. Only issue is wording.
 
Long: Tracfone has available and regularly uses many other
legal tools against traffickers.
 
Q: isn’t it true they’ve used the DMCA successfully?
 
Long: they’ve won on all of the 10-12 claims they asserted.
[As I recall, this is largely because of defaults by most defendants.]
 
Also, our language is designed to avoid trafficking.  Resold new without being activated = would
never fit ISRI’s proposed definition.

Q: why propose exclusion for devices obtained by theft or fraud? Not in the
existing one.
 
Lazarus: most of the carriers can ID a stolen device. This
was a part of our negotiations with Tracfone.
 
Q: what about a purchase on eBay, or one of ISRI’s members:
do you have the same position on innocent second purchasers?
 
A: CCA does; not in position to address Tracfone
specifically.
 
Q: not for “any unlawful purpose” limit—what do you mean?
 
A: criminal trafficking—fit in w/Tracfone.  [So if you unlocked in order to harass your
ex, would you fall outside the exemption? 
If not, why add in all these cross references to “other” laws? This is
the same weirdness as earlier.]
 
Q: is the proposal designed to cover bulk unlocking of used
phones?
 
A: we are concerned w/contract principles; that’s not what
seems to be going on with ISRI’s formulation; not much disagreement. We weren’t
trying to stop legalized bulk unlocking
 
Slover: if you take care of innocent second purchaser and don’t
require them to know provenance, that would take care of many of our concerns.
We are concerned w/problems of proof for subsequent consumers.  Current proposal has limiting language “including”
abusing a subsidy—including = not limited to; could be anything! Thus we think
you shouldn’t load up on conditions that turn into proof requirements for an
ordinary consumer.

Weisenberg: ISRI agrees that responsibility for subsidies should lie with the
original owner. We just want no ambiguity for bulk recyclers.
 
Cheney: Mail-order phones available from Overstock and
others.  Is that covered under proposed exemptions?
You might get the phone, then you have to call after you receive it to activate
it.
 
Lazarus: yes—you can buy an unlocked phone on Amazon, or a
locked one.
 
Slover: yes, ours covers it as long as you are the owner.
 
Q: used tablets, not new tablets, as well?  Treat them the same.  [General nods.]
 
Weisenberg: yes, for ISRI.
 
Lazarus: yes, for CCA.
 
Slover: yes, we want the same exemption to apply to all
devices that fit within the same function. Consider the one situation where we
think there should be the option for a market to evolve to allow consumers to
have a choice. Past exemptions discouraged competition/innovation in business
models. The fewer restrictions on the exemption, the more the market can evolve
freely.
 
Q: why did Congress reject a specific bulk unlocking
provision?
 
Slover: they wanted to reinstate the 2010 exemption as it
was; loathe to step into the position of dictating changes, particularly for an
interim period, with the exception of device owner v. owner of copy of
software. Left it open to the Librarian.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1GBpdqY

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

I intervene in SanMedica v. Amazon to disclose clickthroughs

Kind of a busy day.  With the invaluable help of Public Citizen, I filed a motion to intervene and unseal in the SanMedica case, in which the court redacted the number of clickthroughs received by Amazon as a result of its ads using the plaintiffs’ trademark, depriving us of the ability to understand the meaning of the case.  Here is the Public Citizen press release:

Secret Data in Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against Amazon.com Should Be Unsealed, Public Citizen Tells Court

Case Decided Based on Sealed Evidence; Key Material Blacked Out in Court Decision

May 26, 2015

Contact: Scott Michelman (202) 588-7739
Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741

SALT LAKE CITY – The First Amendment requires a court to make public the key facts underlying its decision to permit a trademark lawsuit against online retail giant Amazon.com to proceed, Public Citizen argued today in a motion filed in federal district court (PDF) in Utah.

The motion, filed on behalf of Georgetown Law professor Rebecca L. Tushnet, an intellectual property expert, seeks to unseal the rationale for the court’s partially blacked-out March 27 decision and see the unedited arguments that led to that decision.

In the underlying case, SanMedica International and Western Holdings sued Amazon, alleging that Amazon drew users to its own site by wrongfully continuing to advertise the plaintiffs’ product SeroVital (a dietary supplement) after Amazon stopped offering the product for sale. As a result, according to the lawsuit, Amazon used the product’s ads to acquire customers that should have gone to the plaintiffs.

In a decision filed under seal on March 27 and then released to the public on April 15 with key portions blacked out, the district court permitted the case to proceed. The parties settled the same day that the public version of the decision was released.

“The district court’s decision relied heavily on the numbers of ads Amazon ran, the number of customers who clicked on them and the percentage of those customers who bought products from Amazon,” said Scott Michelman, the Public Citizen attorney who represents Tushnet. “But all of the key numbers are blacked out, so neither the public nor future litigants can know what the threshold is for a valid claim. The First Amendment right to access court records exists so that the public can know the law and how the courts arrive at their decisions.”

Public Citizen’s motion targets not only the court’s opinion but also a series of court papers that the parties filed with key portions redacted. The parties did not oppose each other’s requests to file under seal, the motion notes, and the district court granted each request quickly and without explanation.

The district court’s partially blacked-out ruling described its decision as a “close” one. But its reasoning is obscured by redactions, Public Citizen explains. For instance, the court writes, “[T]he focus is … on the [redacted] percent rate that consumers were lured to Amazon’s website. [Redacted] percent, although a relative[ly] small number, is not so insufficient to suggest that there was no likelihood of confusion.”

“A key strength of our adversarial legal system is that we can learn the boundaries of the law from past cases,” Tushnet said. “This is an important case for the development of the law. If key facts about the claim can be kept secret, trademark law risks being different for every litigant, which could produce unfair and arbitrary results.”

Tushnet also seeks other blacked-out material relevant to the summary judgment motions, including how much money the plaintiffs sought in damages and information about SeroVital itself. Some of the blacked-out material appears to relate to the inner workings of Amazon’s ad-purchasing system; Tushnet is not seeking that material, however, because it was not relevant to the court’s decision.

The case is SanMedica International v. Amazon.com in the District of Utah.

Intellectual property lawyer Marian J. Furst of Salt Lake City is co-counsel for Tushnet.

The motions seeking to intervene (PDF) and unseal (PDF) the documents are available here.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1GBpevh

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

DMCA hearings, phone/tablet unlocking

Copyright Office: Jacqueline Charlesworth
Michelle Choe
Regan Smith
Cy Donnelly
Steve Ruhe
John Riley
Stacy Cheney (NTIA)
 
Proposed Class 11-12: Unlocking – wireless telephone handsets and tablets Proposed class 11 would allow the unlocking of wireless telephone handsets. “Wireless telephone handsets” includes all mobile telephones including feature phones, smart phones, and “phablets” that are used for two-way voice communications. Proposed class 12 would allow the unlocking of all-purpose tablet computers. This class would encompass devices such as the Apple iPad, Microsoft Surface, Amazon Kindle Fire, and Samsung Galaxy Tab, but would exclude specialized devices such as dedicated e-book readers and dedicated handheld gaming devices.
 
Proponents: Erin Mackey, Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown Law (counsel for Consumers Union)
 
George P. Slover, Consumers Union: Extend useful lives, save money, promote innovation. No one opposed exemption for tablets; one who opposed for handsets, Tracfone, has now joined with CCA for a differently drawn exemption.  Why we wrote it identically for handsets/tablets: functionally identical for these purposes.
 
Approved twice before in 2006 and 2010; when phased out, Congress called for its reinstatement, and law passed to do so. Exemption is modeled on what Congress enacted w/expansion to tablets as envisioned by Congress. Mobile device unlocking has no business getting caught up in copyright, convenient as it may be for business models. Has nothing to do with © infringement; it’s about being able to use legally purchased equipment. Focus is on network connecting software; lock only obstructs access to function; even if connecting software is copyrightable, it is not being copied when it is connected to another network.  Even if it were, it’d be protected under §117 as essential step.  Need not own the phone/software to make full legitimate use of purchased device. Fundamental rights of ownership as cornerstone of law; cuts short useful life of otherwise useful devices; props up anticompetitive business models.
 
Q: for the record, why you believe the unlocking policies of the carriers are insufficient.
 
A: First, they are voluntary, which means they can be changed at any time.  Second, there are restrictions and conditions: you need to work with your current carrier, eliminating flexibility for consumers who would rather turn over the phone/lock and have someone else unlock. Third, over time voluntary policies came to fruition when everyone was waiting for legislation; when there was no exemption, at least one carrier, AT&T, significantly restricted its policy. There’s no substitute for guarantee.
 
Q: remaining dispute is over scope.  Any limitation to used cellphones/tablets, as in existing exemption?
 
A: imposing conditions or restrictions makes it difficult for the ordinary consumer.  Proof requirement: can you prove it was used?  At least one definition is previously activated on another wireless network. Even if you could satisfy that, consumers should have latitude to part w/phone before that happens: under a contract where you get a phone for a certain period of time and then you’re allowed to get a new phone for renewal. Maybe a 60-year-old like me who only wants to use the phone to make calls would like to hang on to the old one and not upgrade, but you want the package. It doesn’t make sense to give it up; pass it on to your nephew.
 
Charlesworth: don’t you usually have to hand the old one in? 
 
A: new arrangements, some with transparent subsidies and some not.  If your monthly phone bill wouldn’t change, you should be allowed to get the phone.
 
Charlesworth: what’s your obligation under the contract?
 
A: you’ve agreed to have service with your carrier for 2 years etc.  There are contractual obligations that don’t have to do with the lock on the phone.
 
Charlesworth: would they let you walk out of the store with a phone that they didn’t activate on their network? We’re going back to the definition of used. If it’s subsidized, won’t they activate it?  The big issue is Tracfone/bulk situation where people buy up subsidized phones and then resell them in a way Tracfone thinks is inequitable. You’re disputing the definition based on a scenario that I’m not sure exists in the real world.
 
A: We want that freedom.
 
Charlesworth: you can just buy the unlocked phone for $700.  Then there’s no concern about fulfilling your contract.
 
A: But if they’re going to lower the price of the monthly service in connection with that, a consumer could weigh the pros and cons, but if the consumer sees an advantage to being on the extended contract and just wants to take advantage of the new phone they should be able to keep their old phone rather than paying for a phone they don’t want and constraining them from passing it along to someone else.
 
Q: so is the current exemption insufficient?
 
A: as a practical matter, most will be used, but we urge a nonlimited exemption. 
 
Charlesworth: bulk trafficking?
 
A: we’re not in favor of that; in favor of individual exemption.
 
Charlesworth: but used may be a way to defeat the bulk trafficking concern in the record. What’s so wrong for requiring “used” for consumers who want to switch, even if they want to break their contract?
 
A: why require a day’s worth of use?
 
Charlesworth: so how do you address the bulk downloading concern?
 
Mackey: is it a copyright concern? From the bulk unlocking perspective, Tracfone has a number of alternative legal remedies it’s used. From our perspective the Q is whether average consumer should face DMCA liability.
 
Charlesworth: a lot of things we talk about aren’t copyright concerns but they’re part of the concerns that are raised.  There may be other legal avenues, but assume they think 1201 is an important factor. Can we write the exemption to exclude bulk unlocking in some way?
 
Mackey: There is still a difference between CCA and ISRI.
 
Michael Lazarus, Competitive Carriers Association (CCA): Nation’s leading association for wireless providers, more than 100 from small, rural providers to national providers.  Use to connect isn’t infringing and lack of exemption will cause harm; strongly supports an unlocking exemption in order to associate devices w/network of their choosing. Shouldn’t limit who can provide assistance—agent of consumer should be allowed to perform unlocking procedure, just as locksmith may help a consumer at home. One party wanted additional protection for subsidies—Tracfone. CCA believes its proposal was fine, but in order to get continuance w/o opposition we came up w/a modification that will avoid trouble with subsidies.
 
Charlesworth: for the record, what is the part of your proposal that protects against bulk unlocking.
 
A: contract law formulation. Members often have subsidies.  You should not be able to use the exemption unless you have adhered to the contract.  You can pay off the early termination fee and your obligations will end and you can unlock your phone.
 
Q: ISRI says that it’s unclear who the owner is. If I buy a locked phone on eBay, I don’t know what the original owner has done w/r/t their original contract.
 
A: we were concerned with the original owner. We don’t think that owner should have to track down what has gone on. Good faith obligation attached to original owner.  That second owner should be able to get phone unlocked w/out worrying what happened before.
 
Q: suppose I want to give a phone to my cousin.  Is the subsequent owner required to satisfy the contract? 
 
A: in that situation, we don’t have a particular view.  Dad buys phone, gives it to kid—shouldn’t be able to get around the contract, but that’s a contract matter and not a DMCA matter.
 
Q: so if we were to make clear that subsequent owners wouldn’t be required to assess whether original owner satisfied contract obligations, you’d be fine?
 
A: yes.
 
Eric Harris, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI): Represent more than 1600 processors, brokers, and industrial consumers. Recyclers of used phones and tablets: lawfully acquire, refurbish, and resell. The work provides important public and economic benefits by enhancing value consumers can receive.  Increases variety for consumers and enhances competition. Recyclers need to be able to unlock legally obtained phones in bulk.  Risk is substantial under current law. Only Tracfone objected, out of concerns for illegal phone trafficking. ISRI’s members don’t do that or condone it.
 
Charlesworth: there seems to be different versions of trafficking. Tracfone describes people buying subsidized, locked phones at a discounted price, then instead of accessing that carrier they sell them somewhere else: phone arbitrage. Can you comment?  Also, black market in phones that were meant to go to carriers for subsidized plans but fell into the wrong hands. 
 
A: We’ll take their word for it that it happens. We are fine with “used” exemption. Our members don’t deal in new phones or buy phones at store.  Definition of “used” could be helpful, but we’re comfortable with where it appears to be going—lawfully acquired and activated on the telecom network of a carrier.
 
Q: what about fulfilling the contract, not being used for unlawful purpose, not obtained by theft or fraud?
 
A: punt to law students, but there is a path forward here.
 
Phil Malone: director of Stanford Law clinic/not speaking
 
Donna Long, Stanford Law, ISRI: CCA proposal was original owner fulfilling contract obligations, but for ISRI’s members that would be impractical—ISRI isn’t the original owner, but subsequent owner. No way of figuring out whether they’ve satisfied the contract.
 
Q: if we clarified that the secondary owner wouldn’t be burdened with that, would that satisfy you?
 
A: yes.
 
Brian Weisenberg, Stanford Law, representing ISRI: Unlocking Act of 2014: (1) Demonstrates that Congress and president believe that any copyright concerns should yield to consumer freedom, regardless of whether they own the software/copies.  (2) Act allows bulk unlocking: allows “owners” to unlock.  Recyclers are owners.  Provision that would have dealt w/ bulk unlockers separately was removed; even when it was in the bill, Goodlatte said it wasn’t intended to impair recyclers.  They are like a used book store.  Vital to explicitly permit this in order to avoid ambiguity. Only one party opposes exemption, and even Tracfone supports an exemption that is limited. Only issue is wording.
 
Long: Tracfone has available and regularly uses many other legal tools against traffickers.
 
Q: isn’t it true they’ve used the DMCA successfully?
 
Long: they’ve won on all of the 10-12 claims they asserted. [As I recall, this is largely because of defaults by most defendants.]
 
Also, our language is designed to avoid trafficking.  Resold new without being activated = would never fit ISRI’s proposed definition.
Q: why propose exclusion for devices obtained by theft or fraud? Not in the existing one.
 
Lazarus: most of the carriers can ID a stolen device. This was a part of our negotiations with Tracfone.
 
Q: what about a purchase on eBay, or one of ISRI’s members: do you have the same position on innocent second purchasers?
 
A: CCA does; not in position to address Tracfone specifically.
 
Q: not for “any unlawful purpose” limit—what do you mean?
 
A: criminal trafficking—fit in w/Tracfone.  [So if you unlocked in order to harass your ex, would you fall outside the exemption?  If not, why add in all these cross references to “other” laws? This is the same weirdness as earlier.]
 
Q: is the proposal designed to cover bulk unlocking of used phones?
 
A: we are concerned w/contract principles; that’s not what seems to be going on with ISRI’s formulation; not much disagreement. We weren’t trying to stop legalized bulk unlocking
 
Slover: if you take care of innocent second purchaser and don’t require them to know provenance, that would take care of many of our concerns. We are concerned w/problems of proof for subsequent consumers.  Current proposal has limiting language “including” abusing a subsidy—including = not limited to; could be anything! Thus we think you shouldn’t load up on conditions that turn into proof requirements for an ordinary consumer.
Weisenberg: ISRI agrees that responsibility for subsidies should lie with the original owner. We just want no ambiguity for bulk recyclers.
 
Cheney: Mail-order phones available from Overstock and others.  Is that covered under proposed exemptions? You might get the phone, then you have to call after you receive it to activate it.
 
Lazarus: yes—you can buy an unlocked phone on Amazon, or a locked one.
 
Slover: yes, ours covers it as long as you are the owner.
 
Q: used tablets, not new tablets, as well?  Treat them the same.  [General nods.]
 
Weisenberg: yes, for ISRI.
 
Lazarus: yes, for CCA.
 
Slover: yes, we want the same exemption to apply to all devices that fit within the same function. Consider the one situation where we think there should be the option for a market to evolve to allow consumers to have a choice. Past exemptions discouraged competition/innovation in business models. The fewer restrictions on the exemption, the more the market can evolve freely.
 
Q: why did Congress reject a specific bulk unlocking provision?
 
Slover: they wanted to reinstate the 2010 exemption as it was; loathe to step into the position of dictating changes, particularly for an interim period, with the exception of device owner v. owner of copy of software. Left it open to the Librarian.
Posted in dmca, drm, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post | Leave a comment

I intervene in SanMedica v. Amazon to disclose clickthroughs

Kind of a busy day.  With the invaluable help of Public Citizen, I filed a motion to intervene and unseal in the SanMedica case, in which the court redacted the number of clickthroughs received by Amazon as a result of its ads using the plaintiffs’ trademark, depriving us of the ability to understand the meaning of the case.  Here is the Public Citizen press release:

Secret Data in Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against Amazon.com Should Be Unsealed, Public Citizen Tells Court Case Decided Based on Sealed Evidence; Key Material Blacked Out in Court Decision May 26, 2015
Contact: Scott Michelman (202) 588-7739 Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741

SALT LAKE CITY – The First Amendment requires a court to make public the key facts underlying its decision to permit a trademark lawsuit against online retail giant Amazon.com to proceed, Public Citizen argued today in a motion filed in federal district court (PDF) in Utah. The motion, filed on behalf of Georgetown Law professor Rebecca L. Tushnet, an intellectual property expert, seeks to unseal the rationale for the court’s partially blacked-out March 27 decision and see the unedited arguments that led to that decision. In the underlying case, SanMedica International and Western Holdings sued Amazon, alleging that Amazon drew users to its own site by wrongfully continuing to advertise the plaintiffs’ product SeroVital (a dietary supplement) after Amazon stopped offering the product for sale. As a result, according to the lawsuit, Amazon used the product’s ads to acquire customers that should have gone to the plaintiffs. In a decision filed under seal on March 27 and then released to the public on April 15 with key portions blacked out, the district court permitted the case to proceed. The parties settled the same day that the public version of the decision was released.

“The district court’s decision relied heavily on the numbers of ads Amazon ran, the number of customers who clicked on them and the percentage of those customers who bought products from Amazon,” said Scott Michelman, the Public Citizen attorney who represents Tushnet. “But all of the key numbers are blacked out, so neither the public nor future litigants can know what the threshold is for a valid claim. The First Amendment right to access court records exists so that the public can know the law and how the courts arrive at their decisions.” Public Citizen’s motion targets not only the court’s opinion but also a series of court papers that the parties filed with key portions redacted. The parties did not oppose each other’s requests to file under seal, the motion notes, and the district court granted each request quickly and without explanation. The district court’s partially blacked-out ruling described its decision as a “close” one. But its reasoning is obscured by redactions, Public Citizen explains. For instance, the court writes, “[T]he focus is … on the [redacted] percent rate that consumers were lured to Amazon’s website. [Redacted] percent, although a relative[ly] small number, is not so insufficient to suggest that there was no likelihood of confusion.”

“A key strength of our adversarial legal system is that we can learn the boundaries of the law from past cases,” Tushnet said. “This is an important case for the development of the law. If key facts about the claim can be kept secret, trademark law risks being different for every litigant, which could produce unfair and arbitrary results.” Tushnet also seeks other blacked-out material relevant to the summary judgment motions, including how much money the plaintiffs sought in damages and information about SeroVital itself. Some of the blacked-out material appears to relate to the inner workings of Amazon’s ad-purchasing system; Tushnet is not seeking that material, however, because it was not relevant to the court’s decision. The case is SanMedica International v. Amazon.com in the District of Utah.

Intellectual property lawyer Marian J. Furst of Salt Lake City is co-counsel for Tushnet. The motions seeking to intervene (PDF) and unseal (PDF) the documents are available here.

Posted in first amendment, my lawsuits, trademark | 1 Comment