The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention








Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, in part, to help
copyright owners protect their exclusive rights against infringement facilitated by digital
technologies, including the Internet. Section 1201 of the DMCA outlaws circumvention of any
access control devices, such as password codes, encryption, and scrambling, that copyright
owners may use to protect access to copyrighted works. The DMCA’s prohibition on
circumvention is not absolute, however. In addition to several statutory exceptions to the general
anti-circumvention provision, the DMCA authorizes the Librarian of Congress, upon the
recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, to grant temporary exemptions in order to ensure
that the public may be able to use certain copyrighted works in non-infringing ways, including
engaging in “fair use” of such works.
Exemptions to the prohibition on circumvention of access controls are granted every three years,
following a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding that the Register of Copyrights conducts.
There have been three determinations made by the Librarian of Congress to date, in 2000, 2003,
and 2006. At the conclusion of the Copyright Office’s third “§ 1201 rulemaking” proceeding, the
Librarian of Congress recognized six exemptions that are currently in effect. These exemptions,
which expire on October 28, 2009, permit the circumvention of access control devices, under
specified circumstances, in order to (1) make compilations of video clips for film and media
studies courses; (2) archive obsolete computer programs or games; (3) bypass “dongles,” or
hardware locks, that are obsolete; (4) use read-aloud functions or screen readers with e-books; (5)
connect wireless telephone handsets to communication networks; and (6) test for or correct
security flaws in works distributed on compact discs. On October 6, 2008, the Copyright Office
initiated a fourth § 1201 rulemaking by publishing a notice in the Federal Register that sought
written comments from all interested parties concerning evidence of adverse effects of the
DMCA’s circumvention prohibition on noninfringing uses of certain classes of works. Once these
proposals for exempted classes of works are received, the Copyright Office will publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking and then hold a series of hearings in the spring of 2009 in which
proponents and opponents of the proposed exemptions may present their views.
This report reviews the statutory basis for the triennial exemptions, explains the Copyright
Office’s rulemaking process pursuant to § 1201 of the DMCA, summarizes the exemptions
granted and rejected in 2006, and describes public reactions to the 2006 exemptions. In addition, th
it examines provisions of a bill from the 110 Congress, H.R. 1201, the Freedom and Innovation
Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007 (FAIR USE Act of 2007), that would have
codified the 2006 exemptions and thus made them permanent. The bill would also have
authorized six additional exemptions, in which technological protection measures may be
circumvented to accomplish the following purposes: (1) instructors wishing to make a
compilation of portions of audiovisual works for educational use in a classroom; (2) consumers
wanting to skip past or avoid commercials or personally objectionable content in an audiovisual
work; (3) consumers interested in transmitting a work over a home network, but not in order to
upload that work to the Internet for mass, indiscriminate redistribution; (4) individuals wishing to
gain access to one or more public domain works that are included in a compilation consisting
primarily of works in the public domain; (5) reporters, teachers, and others wanting to gain access
to a work of substantial public interest solely for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting,
scholarship, or research; and (6) a library or an archive needing to preserve or secure a copy or to
replace a copy in its collections that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen.






Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Backgr ound ..................................................................................................................................... 1
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.....................................................................................1
The DMCA § 1201(a)(1) Rulemaking Proceeding..........................................................................3
Change in the Scope of the Term “Class of Works”..................................................................6
The 2006 Exemptions......................................................................................................................7
Exemptions Granted..................................................................................................................7
1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university
film or media studies department when circumvention is for the purpose of
compiling portions of these works for educational use in the classroom........................7
2. Preservation or archival reproduction, by libraries or archives, of computer
programs and video games that were distributed in formats that have become
obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of
access ............................................................................................................................... 8
3. Computer programs protected by “dongles” that prevent access due to
malfunction or damage and that are obsolete..................................................................8
4. Literary works distributed in e-book format when all existing e-book editions
contain access controls that prevent enabling the read-aloud function or screen
readers ........................................................................................................................ ...... 8
5. “Firmware” computer programs that connect cellular telephones to a particular
communication network, when the circumvention is done to connect the
telephone to another network...........................................................................................9
6. Good faith testing for correcting of security flaws or vulnerabilities in sound
recordings and audiovisual works distributed in CD format...........................................9
Exemptions Denied.................................................................................................................10
Public Responses and Reactions..............................................................................................11
Legislation in the 110th Congress..................................................................................................12
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix. Exemptions Granted under 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)(B)-(C) in 2000, 2003, and
2006 ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................15






On November 27, 2006, the Librarian of Congress announced six exemptions to the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA’s) prohibition on circumvention of technological measures
controlling access to copyrighted works. These exemptions allow users of copyrighted works to
circumvent access control devices, under certain specified conditions, for a period of three years,
in order to (1) make compilations of video clips for film and media studies courses; (2) archive
obsolete computer programs or games; (3) bypass “dongles,” or hardware locks, that are obsolete;
(4) use read-aloud functions or screen readers with e-books; (5) connect wireless telephone
handsets to communication networks; and (6) test for or correct security flaws in works 1
distributed on compact discs. These exemptions will remain in effect until the Librarian of
Congress makes a new determination as to classes of works to be exempted from the DMCA
circumvention prohibition, which are expected to be published in fall 2009 following a
rulemaking proceeding. This report describes the statutory basis for the exemptions, the triennial
rulemaking proceeding that results in them, and the exemptions granted in 2006.

Copyright is a protection provided by U.S. law2 to literary, musical, dramatic, artistic, and other 3
works that are original and fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The authors of copyrighted
works, or those to whom they transfer their copyrights, have the exclusive rights to reproduce,
distribute, and publicly perform or display the works, and to prepare derivative works based upon 4
them. Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (P.L. 105-304) in 1998, in part, to
help copyright owners protect their exclusive rights against infringement facilitated by digital 5
technologies, including the Internet. Section 1201 of the DMCA outlaws circumvention of any
access control devices, such as password codes, encryption, and scrambling, that copyright 6
owners may use to protect copyrighted works. The DMCA’s prohibition on circumvention

1 Exemption to the Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Controls (hereinafter
1201(a)(1) Exemptions), 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,473-77 (Nov. 27, 2006), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.html (amending 37 C.F.R. § 201.40).
2 The source of federal copyright law originates with the Copyright and Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which
authorizes Congress[t]o promote the Progress of Science ... by securing for limited Times to Authors ... the exclusive
Right to their ... Writings.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
3 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). A work is sufficientlyoriginal” for copyright protection if it is independently created by its
author and possesses a minimal degree of creativity. See Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345
(1991).
4 17 U.S.C. § 106.
5 The DMCA was shaped both by congressional deliberations about Internet copyright policy and by U.S. ratification
of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty. See CRS Report 98-943, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, P.L. 105-304: Summary and Analysis,
by Dorothy M. Schrader.
6 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A) (No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a
work protected under this title.”). This one sentence originally comprised the entirety of § 1201(a)(1) in the House
Judiciary Committees draft DMCA bill. However, the House Commerce Committee was concerned that this provision
(continued...)





extends to both the act of circumventing access control devices and trafficking in devices that 7
may be used for this purpose.
The DMCA’s prohibition on circumvention is not absolute, however. Much like the way in which 8
the Copyright Act limits copyright owners’ exclusive rights with the doctrine of fair use, the 9
DMCA allows for circumvention in certain limited circumstances. First, the DMCA includes
statutory exceptions, providing that circumvention is not unlawful when—
• a library, archive, or educational institution accesses a commercial work only to make 10
a decision about purchasing that work;
• a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer accesses a work in the course of a 11
lawful investigation;
• a person who has lawfully obtained use of a computer program accesses a particular
portion of the program solely to identify and study elements of the program that are 12
necessary for interoperability and that have not been previously available to him or her;
• a person who made a good faith effort to obtain permission accesses a lawfully
obtained published work to conduct encryption research, provided that doing so does not
otherwise violate the Copyright Act or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (P.L. 99-13
474); or

(...continued)
could undermine fair use and so added what is currently 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)(B)-(C), allowing temporary
exemptions to be created by rulemaking. See H.Rept. 105-551, pt. 2, at 35 (1998).
7 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)-(2) and § 1201(b). A violation of the DMCAs anti-trafficking provision may extend to
publication or dissemination of information about how to circumvent an access control measure. See Universal City
Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (finding a violation of the DMCA where a
website linked to other websites that provided computer code for descrambling the content scrambling system used as
an access control device on DVDs).
8 17 U.S.C. § 107. Fair use recognizes the right of the public to make reasonable uses of copyrighted materials without
the copyright owners’ consent in situations involving criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
research, and similar activities.
9 Fair use is only a defense to claims of infringement of the copyright holders § 106 rights. It does not excuse
circumventing a copyright owner’s access control device under § 1201. See Universal City Studios, 111 F. Supp. 2d at
322 ([T]he decision not to make fair use a defense to a claim under Section 1201(a) was quite deliberate on
Congresss part). However, § 1201 utilizes factors like those in the fair use doctrine in determining whether the
Librarian of Congress should grant an exemption. 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201 (a)(1)(C)(i)-(iv) (considering the copyrighted
work’s availability for archival, preservation and educational purposes; the impact of the access control device on
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research; and the effect that circumvention of an access
control device has on the market for a work). The DMCA does not bar use of the fair use defense in response to
allegations of copyright infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 1201 (c)(1).
10 17 U.S.C. § 1201(d).
11 17 U.S.C. § 1201(e).
12 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f). Compare United States v. Elcom Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1130 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (finding
that creating and marketing a program enabling e-book users to read the book on other computers, print from it, and
make back-up copies was not protected under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f)) with Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control th
Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522, 550 (6 Cir. 2004) (finding that in order to promote interoperability, a manufacturer
of toner cartridges that mimicked the code allowing its toner to work with a competitor’s printers was protected under
17 U.S.C. § 1201(f)).
13 17 U.S.C. § 1201(g). See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
(finding that a website operator could not rely on the protections of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(g) when its links to websites
providing circumventing code were not of the sort to promote research).





• a person identifies and disables access control devices that also collect or disseminate 14
personally identifying information about his or her activities.
Second, the DMCA establishes a rulemaking proceeding, wherein the Librarian of Congress,
acting upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, may exempt for three years a 15
“particular class of copyrighted works” from the DMCA’s prohibition on circumvention.
According to the legislative history of the DMCA, the relatively short duration of these
exemptions reflects Congress’s intent that the “§ 1201 rulemaking” functions as a “fail safe,”
monitoring developments in the marketplace for copyrighted works and temporarily waiving 16
enforcement of the prohibition on circumvention in response to those market changes.
Although these triennial exemptions apply to the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision, they do
not affect the DMCA’s prohibition on trafficking in devices that facilitate circumvention. Thus,
while the act of circumventing a technological protection measure that controls access to an
exempted class of work is not itself a violation of the DMCA during the three-year period, the
making and distribution of technology that enables that circumvention is still prohibited and the
exemptions cannot be invoked as a defense to an action brought under the DMCA’s anti-17
trafficking ban. Furthermore, the exemptions only apply to persons making noninfringing uses
of the exempted classes of works—an individual who circumvents an access control to engage in 18
copyright infringement will still be liable for those infringing acts.

Section 1201(a)(1)(C) of the DMCA provides that the Librarian of Congress and the Register of 19
Copyrights determine exemptions through a “rulemaking proceeding.” The DMCA’s legislative
history specifies that this rulemaking proceeding is to be conducted through “notice-and-20
comment.” Accordingly, the Librarian and the Register provided notice of the rulemaking,
solicited initial and reply comments from the public, and conducted hearings in granting the 2000, 21
2003, and 2006 exemptions. On October 6, 2008, the Copyright Office initiated a fourth § 1201

14 17 U.S.C. § 1201(i).
15 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)(B)-(C). See 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 57,526, 57,527 (Oct. 3, 2005), available
on Dec. 19, 2008, at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr57526.html (noting that the exemptions announced on
November 27, 2006 will expire on October 27, 2009). The 2003 exemptions were to expire on Oct. 27, 2006, but the
Librarian of Congress extended them on an interim basis until the 2006 exemptions were announced. See 1201(a)(1)
Exemptions, 71 Fed. Reg. 63,247 (Oct. 30, 2006).
16 H.Rept. 105-551, pt. 2, at 36 (1998).
17 See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(E) (“Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability of the
prohibition contained in subparagraph (A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph
(C), may be used as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.”).
18 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)(B)-(E).
19 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C).
20 H.Rept. 105-796, at 64 (1998) (“It is the intention of the conferees that, as is typical with other rulemaking under title
17, and in recognition of the expertise of the Copyright Office, the Register of Copyrights will conduct the rulemaking,
including providing notice of the rulemaking [and] seeking comments from the public.”).
21 See, e.g., 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 71 Fed. Reg. 9,302 (Feb. 23, 2006), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr9302.html (notice of public hearings); 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg.
57,526 (Oct. 3, 2005), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr57526.html (request
for comments).





rulemaking, in order to determine the 2009 exemptions.22 Content users who are presently
affected, or likely to be affected within the next three years, may propose exemptions to the 23
DMCA’s prohibition on circumvention. Once the proposals for exempted classes of works are
received, the Copyright Office will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and then hold a
series of hearings in the spring of 2009 in which proponents and opponents of the proposed 24
exemptions may present their views. The new exemptions are expected to be published by the
fall of 2009.
Proponents of exemptions bear the burden of proof.25 Based upon its reading of the DMCA
statute and legislative history, the Copyright Office has determined that to meet this burden of
proof, proponents must (1) identify the specific technological measures causing the alleged
problems and show that these measures effectively control access to copyrighted works; (2)
explain the non-infringing activities that the prohibition adversely affects; and (3) establish that 26
the prevented activities are, in fact, non-infringing under current law. Only technological
measures that restrict access are considered; non-technological measures that restrict access (e.g.,
contracts or usage agreements) are not considered, nor are technological measures that control 27
things other than access (e.g., reproduction or distribution). The technological measure must
directly lead to the problems of which the exemption’s proponent complains: “[a]dverse impacts 28
that flow from other sources ... are outside the scope of the rulemaking.” The problems 29
complained of must be more than “isolated harm or mere inconveniences,” and the adverse 30
effects must be substantial. Claims of present problems and adverse effects should be supported
by first-hand knowledge of “verifiable problems occurring in the marketplace” and, preferably, 31
documented by factual and quantitative data. Claims of future problems and adverse effects
should be especially well documented, because the legislative history of the DMCA provides that
future harm should only be recognized “in extraordinary circumstances in which the evidence of

22 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 73 Fed. Reg. 58,073 (Oct. 6, 2008), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2008/73fr58073.pdf (request for comments).
23 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)(B)-(C).
24 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 73 Fed. Reg. 58,073, 58076 (Oct. 6, 2008).
25 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,473 (Nov. 27, 2006).
26 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 57,526, 57,529-30 (Oct. 3, 2005).
27 See, e.g., 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 65 Fed. Reg. 64,555, 64,563 and 64,571(Oct. 27, 2000), available on Dec. 19,
2008, at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2000/65fr64555.html (noting that[m]any of the complaints aired in this
rulemaking actually related primarily to licensing practices rather than technological measures that control access to
works and rejecting an exemption for “fair use” works because its proponents complained, in part, of technological
measures that prevent copying, not access).
28 H.Rept. 105-551, pt. 2, at 37 (1998).
29 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,473 (Nov. 27, 2006).
30 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 57,526, 57,528 (Oct. 3, 2005). The Copyright Office has been criticized for
requiring a “substantial” adverse effect, because 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)(B)-(C) do not specify how “adversely
affected” a use must be in order to merit an exemption. See, e.g., Bill D. Herman & Oscar H. Gandy, Catch 1201: A
Legislative History and Content Analysis of the DMCA Exemption Proceedings, 24 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J. 121,
168 (2006). The Copyright Office defends the substantiality requirement by referring to the DMCA’s legislative
history, which speaks of “substantial adverse impact, “distinct, verifiable, and measurable impacts,” and more than de
minimis impacts. See 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 68 Fed. Reg. 62,011, 62,013 (Nov. 27, 2006).
31 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 57,526, 57,528 (Oct. 3, 2005). See also id. at 57,530 (It [is] also useful for the
commenter to quantify the adverse effects in order to explain the scope of the present or likely problem.) and
1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 71 Fed. Reg. 9,302, 9,302 (Feb. 23, 2006), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr9302.html ([F]actual arguments are at least as important as legal
arguments.”).





likelihood is highly specific, strong and persuasive.”32 Non-infringing activities must be 33
recognized under the current law and must not be possible by alternative means. Proponents 34
arguing for the renewal of existing exemptions must make their case de novo. The existence of
an exemption that was granted in previous rulemaking proceedings does not create a presumption 35
in its favor; rather, it must be justified as if it were a new exemption.
Even when proponents demonstrate that access control devices adversely affect their abilities to 36
make non-infringing uses of copyrighted works, their exemptions are not automatically granted.
Rather, the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights weigh the proven harm against
other factors prescribed by statute in determining whether to grant an exemption. These factors
include
• the availability of copyrighted works generally;
• the availability of copyrighted works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and
educational purposes;
• the impact of access control devices on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching,
scholarship, and research;
• the effect that circumvention of access control devices would have on the market for
or value of copyrighted works; and
• any other factors the Librarian deems appropriate.37
These factors are intended to ensure that the Librarian and the Register balance the adverse and
positive effects of access control devices, which not only limit access but also promote copyright 38
owners’ willingness to disseminate their works in new ways. The Register also must consult
with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of
Commerce, who heads the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, before

32 House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 2281 as Passed by the United
States House of Representatives on August 4, 1998, at 6. Although this language could be interpreted as raising the
burden of proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence, which is otherwise the standard in a DMCA § 1201
rulemaking, the Copyright Office nonetheless applies the preponderance standard with claims of future problems or
adverse effects since the statutory language provides no additional requirements. See 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed.
Reg. 57,526 (Oct. 3, 2005).
33 See, e.g., 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,478 (Nov. 27, 2006) (rejecting an exemption for space-
shifting, or copying content from one location to another, because there was no legal precedent establishing space-
shifting as a noninfringing use); id. (rejecting an exemption for region-coded DVDs because “numerous options are
available to individuals seeking access to content from other regions”).
34 Id at 68,473.
35 Id.
36 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 57,526, 57,528 (Oct. 3, 2005) ([P]roof of harm is never the only consideration
in the rulemaking process ... the sufficiency of the harm will always be relative to other considerations.”).
37 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)(C)(i)-(v).
38 House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 2281 as Passed by the United
States House of Representatives on August 4, 1998, at 6 (“The technological measures ... that this bill protects can be
deployed, not only to prevent piracy and other economically harmful unauthorized uses of copyrighted materials, but
also to support new ways of disseminating copyrighted materials to users, and to safeguard the availability of legitimate
uses of those materials by individuals.).





recommending exemptions to the Librarian in order to ensure that the market benefits of both 39
access control devices and potential exemptions are fully considered.
In granting exemptions, the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights must consider
to what “class of works” the exemption will apply. The DMCA states that an exemption may be
granted only for “a particular class of copyrighted works” upon a sufficient showing of adverse 40
effects. The statute does not define what constitutes a “class of works.” The Register sought 41
comments on this issue in the 1999-2000 rulemaking and concluded that a “class of works” was
to be defined in relation to the categories of copyrighted works in § 102 of the Copyright Act of 42
1976, namely, literary works; musical works; dramatic works; pantomimes and choreographic
works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; 43
sound recordings; and architectural works. However, the Register cited legislative history that
expressed the view that the § 102 categories were too broad to serve as the basis for a “class of 44
works.” After consulting this legislative history and reviewing the statutory language, the
Register determined that a “class of works” was to be a subcategory of the § 102 categories that
was “based upon attributes of the works themselves, and not by reference to some external 45
criteria such as the intended use or users of the works.” The Copyright Office applied this
definition of “class of works” in terms of the works’ attributes in granting the 2000 and 2003 46
exemptions. It also described “class of works” in terms of works’ attributes when seeking 47
comments proposing exemptions for 2006.
However, in granting the 2006 exemptions, the Copyright Office for the first time expanded 48
“class of works” to include classes defined in relation to their uses or users. The Copyright
Office implicitly justified this shift by describing how adhering to the prior definition of “class of
works” could harm either users or copyright owners in situations where class definitions are

39 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C). Based upon market factors, prior Assistant Secretaries have promoted exemptions that the
Register ultimately denied and questioned or opposed exemptions that the Register ultimately granted. See, e.g.,
1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 65 Fed. Reg. 64555, 64562 (Oct. 27, 2000), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2000/65fr64555.html (Assistant Secretary advocating a “fair use” exemption that was
denied); 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,476-77 (Nov. 27, 2006) (Assistant Secretary questioning the
exemption for wireless telephone handsets granted in 2006).
40 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1)(B)-(C). See also 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(D) (noting that an exemption can be forany class
of copyrighted works).
41 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 64 Fed. Reg. 66,139, 66,143 (Nov. 24, 1999), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1999/64fr66139.pdf.
42 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)-(8).
43 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 65 Fed. Reg. 64,555, 64,560 (Oct. 27, 2000).
44 H.Rept. 105-551, pt. 2, at 38 (1998) (The Committee intends that theparticular class of copyrighted works be a
narrow and focused subset of the broad categories of works of authorship [that are] identified in section 102 of the
Copyright Act.”).
45 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 65 Fed. Reg. 64,555, 64,559 (Oct. 27, 2000).
46 Id. at 64,572 (rejecting an exemption for materials that cannot be archived or preserved because it did not correspond
to any class of works); 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 68 Fed. Reg. 62,011, 62,014 (Oct. 31, 2003), available on Dec. 19,
2008, at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2003/68fr2011.pdf (rejecting an exemption for “per se educational fair use
works because it defined the class of works in reference to its uses and users).
47 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 57,526, 57,529 (Oct. 3, 2005).
48 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,473 (Nov. 27, 2006).





necessarily broad but harmed users are few in number.49 For example, in 2006, film and media
studies professors described how their inability to circumvent access controls in order to make
compilations of DVD clips for use with their students harmed their teaching. The class here
cannot be defined more narrowly than in terms of “motion pictures and other audiovisual works”
on DVD. However, granting such an exemption would harm the copyright owners unduly by
allowing anyone to copy any film on DVD. Failing to grant such an exemption would harm the 50
professors and their students, though. Thus, the Copyright Office reached a compromise
consistent with the congressional intent in enacting § 1201(a)(1) by allowing a “class of works” 51
to be defined in terms of its uses or users. While several commentators noted that the Copyright
Office essentially changed the meaning of “class of works” in the middle of the rulemaking 5253
process, its doing so will likely not affect the status of the exemptions.

As a result of the most recent § 1201(a)(1) rulemaking process, the Librarian of Congress granted
the following six exemptions.

Before this exemption, film and media studies professors who wanted to show segments of DVDs
to their students could not create compilations of those segments because copying them into a
compilation would require bypassing the content scrambling systems (CSSs) protecting DVDs.
Thus, professors and students previously lost 30 seconds of class time, or more, every time a new

49 Id.
50 Id.
51 In fact, when arriving at its narrowed definition ofclass of works” in terms of the works attributes in 1999-2000,
the Copyright Office noted that the DMCA statute apparently allowed a broader definition ofclass of works” in terms
of the works uses and users. See 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 65 Fed. Reg. 64,556, 64,559 (Oct. 27, 2000) ([T]he statutory
language is arguably ambiguous, and one could imagine an interpretation of section 1201(a)(1) that permitted a class of
works to be defined in terms of criteria having nothing to do with the intrinsic qualities of the works.”).
52 See, e.g., Alex Curtis, DMCA Exemptions 2006: The Good, the Bad, and the Bewildering (Nov. 27, 2006), available
on Dec. 19, 2008, at http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/734.
53 As long as the Copyright Offices interpretation is reasonable, courts will grant it deference if it were challenged as a
rulemaking action. Courts consider whether (1) the statute permits or forbids an agencys interpretation and (2) if the
statute is unclear, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable or permissible. If the agency’s interpretation is
reasonable, the court will defer to it. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). If
the Copyright Office’s interpretation is challenged as an adjudicative action, courts consider (1) the thoroughness of the
evidence in the agency’s decision; (2) the validity of its reasoning; (3) its consistency with earlier and later
pronouncements; and (4)all those factors which give it power to persuade.” Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134,
140 (1944).
54 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,473-74 (Nov. 27, 2006).





DVD was loaded and displayed its introductory materials.55 Under the exemption, professors can
copy segments to other presentation media that allow seamless transitions between materials
originally from different DVDs.

Computer programs and video games constitute important parts of modern American cultural
history, and archives and museums are thus interested in preserving them for future generations.
However, where these programs are protected by access control devices, such as hardware-
authentication, the DMCA precludes archivists from circumventing those devices even to make a
copy for preservation purposes. Under this exemption, archivists can now work around such 57
access control devices to make preservation copies.

Some manufacturers restrict access to their copyrighted works by relying on “dongles,” or 59
hardware locks attached to computers that interact with software to prevent unauthorized access.
But when the locks malfunction and the manufacturer is unresponsive or no longer in business,
consumers are unable to use these programs because the DMCA bars them from bypassing the
dongle to access the program. This exemption ensures that consumers facing problems with
dongles can still use their software.

People who are blind or visually impaired rely on read-aloud programs and screen readers to turn
eye-readable text into audible speech. However, some manufacturers distribute e-books with their
read-aloud and screen reader functions disabled through access control devices. People who are
blind or visually impaired cannot circumvent these access control devices to “read” the books’
content. With this exemption, they can circumvent access control devices when no version of the 61
e-book works with the read-aloud or screen reader functions.

55 Id.
56 Id. at 68,474-75.
57 Id.
58 Id. at 68,475.
59 Id.
60 Id. at 68,475-76.
61 Id.






Cell phone companies prevent customers from “recycling” their cell phones, or using them with
other carriers once their contracts have expired, by using “software locks” to block access to the 63
operating system that connects the phone to the carrier’s network. While the DMCA prohibits
circumventing software locks, this exemption allows cell phone users to bypass the software 64
locks and change their phones over to other networks.

In November 2005, many consumers were unhappy to learn that Sony-BMG had sold them
Celine Dion, Neil Diamond, and other music compact discs that secretly installed rootkit software 66
on their computers. Rootkit is software designed to conceal running processes, files, or systems
data from a computer’s operating system. Researchers attempting to determine the extent of the
problem and potential fixes for it were stymied in their efforts by the DMCA’s prohibition on
circumvention, which kept them from bypassing access controls on the CDs to figure out how the 67
rootkit installation worked. With this exemption, researchers will be able to investigate and
correct similar problems in the future.
These six exemptions are effective through October 27, 2009.68 They are the largest group of
exemptions the Librarian has granted to date, although three of these (preservation or archival
reproduction of computer programs and video games, computer programs protected by dongles, 69
and e-books) essentially correspond to prior exemptions. The 2003 and 2006 e-book exemptions
were slightly different in that the 2003 exemption allowed circumvention only where all existing
editions of the work prevented enabling the e-book’s read-aloud function and screen reader,
whereas the 2006 exemption allows circumvention where all existing editions of the work prevent 70
enabling the e-book’s read-aloud function or screen reader. See Appendix for a comparison of
the exemptions granted in 2000, 2003, and 2006.

62 Id. at 68,476-77.
63 See TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Sol Wireless Group, Inc.,Complaint No. 05-23279 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 21, 2005),
available on Dec. 19, 2008, at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/reply/14granick_WA.pdf, at ¶ 42-49 (alleging a
violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) against a cell phone recycling company).
64 However, this exemption does not extend to trafficking in devices that help consumers change their cell phones over
to other networks, because such trafficking is covered in a section of the DMCA to which the exemptions do not apply.
See also id. at 50-58 (alleging a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) against a cell phone recycling company).
65 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68472, 68477 (Nov. 27, 2006).
66 Electronic Frontier Foundation, Are You Infected with Sony-BMGs Rootkit? EFF Confirms Secret Software on 19
CDs (Nov. 9, 2005), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2005/11/09.
67 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,477 (Nov. 27, 2006).
68 Id. at 68,472.
69 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 65 Fed. Reg. 64,556, 64,564 (Oct. 27, 2000); 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 68 Fed. Reg. 62,011,
62,013 (Oct. 31, 2003).
70 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,476-77 (Nov. 27, 2006); 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 68 Fed. Reg.
62,011, 62,014 (Oct. 31, 2003).





The 2006 rulemaking denied all but 6 of the 74 proposed exemptions.71 Among those denied were
exemptions for
• space-shifting, which would have allowed circumvention in order to copy a lawfully
obtained audiovisual or musical work from the medium or device on which it was 72
intended for use onto other media or devices;
• region-coded DVDs, which would have allowed users to play DVDs that are
engineered to work only on players coded for one geographic region on players with 73
different region-codes;
• works protected by access control devices that prevent the creation of back-up copies,
which would have allowed consumers to make copies of lawfully obtained works to 74
prevent their damage or destruction; and
• audiovisual works and sound recordings protected by broadcast flags, which could in
the future allow users to time-shift, format-shift, and record for personal use television 75
and radio programs.
Many exemptions were denied because there was no evidence of harm, or no harm involving 76
access control devices, and their proponents complained only of insubstantial inconvenience.
The 2006 rulemaking also marked the first time that the Copyright Office and the Librarian
rejected a preexisting exemption proposed for renewal. The exemption for compilations
consisting of lists of Internet programs blocked by filtering software, which had been granted in

2000 and 2003, was rejected in 2006 because its proponents relied on the record from three years 77


earlier. Because proponents did not address the current market conditions or demonstrate that 78
the exemption had been used, it was denied.

71 Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to
Copyrighted Works (Nov. 16, 2006), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/comments/
index.html.
72 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,478 (Nov. 27, 2006).
73 Id. at 68,478.
74 Id. U.S. copyright law generally provides users with the right to create backup copies of computer programs, see 17
U.S.C. § 117, but users may not circumvent an access control device to exercise their rights under 17 U.S.C. § 117.
75 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,479 (Nov. 27, 2006). Because broadcast flags are not currently
mandated for either television or radio broadcasts, as the Copyright Office noted in the 2006 rulemaking, it is hard to
assess exactly what granting this exemption would allow users to do. Id. For more information about broadcast flags,
see CRS Report RL33797, Copyright Protection of Digital Television: The Broadcast Video Flag, by Brian T. Yeh,
and CRS Report RS22489, Copyright Protection of Digital Audio Radio Broadcasts: The “Audio Flag, by Brian T.
Yeh.
76 See, e.g., 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472, 68,478 (Nov. 27, 2006) (rejecting an exemption for region-
coded DVDs because “[r]egion coding imposes, at most, an inconvenience rather than an actual or likely harm”).
77 Id. at 68,477-78.
78 Id.





Supporters of the 2006 exemptions characterized them as beneficial to consumers generally, or to
specific user groups. Because the Librarian granted more exemptions in 2006 than in prior years, 79
some predicted that this year’s exemptions “will open ‘big chinks’ in DMCA authority.” Others
focused specifically on the cell phone exemption, calling it “good news for consumers.
Consumers pay dearly for their phones. It’d be nice if they can keep them working with other 80
carriers.” The Chronicle of Higher Education similarly described the exemptions allowing film
and media professors to create compilations and computer scientists to research the security flaws 81
of sound recordings and audiovisual works distributed on CD as “wins” for scholars.
Some critics of the exemptions faulted the exemptions for not going far enough in protecting
consumers. Pro-consumer groups noted that a number of the exemptions are tailored to narrow
user groups not made up of “average” consumers (e.g., the exemptions for film studies professors
and archiving computer programs), and that the exemptions that would have been most beneficial 82
to consumers (e.g., space-shifting) were rejected. They also objected that the exemptions are too 83
limited to counteract the negative effects of the DMCA, which “block[s] good technologies.”
In contrast, some industry groups criticized the exemptions for their potential to harm specific
industries. The cell phone exemption, in particular, generated significant opposition from cell 84
phone carriers and industry associations. For example, in December 2006, TracFone Wireless, 85
Inc., filed suit in federal district court in Florida challenging this exemption; however, the
lawsuit was formally withdrawn by the company in June 2007. One reason for dropping the
lawsuit, according to the company, was because TracFone has experienced success in suing
resellers that make retail purchases of thousands of new TracFone handsets, then unlock them for 86
sale overseas. Federal courts have held that the cellphone exemption does not apply to

79 New Exemptions Loosen DMCA Circumvention Ban, COMMUNICATIONS DAILY, Nov. 28, 2006 (2006 WLNR
20716497) (quoting Information Week blogger David DeJean).
80 TracFone Seeks Reversal of Library of Congress Ruling, TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTS, Dec. 15, 2006 (2006
WLNR 21440416) (quoting Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst for the Consumers Union).
81 Scott Carlson, Scholars Win Exemptions to Digital-Copyright Act, CHRON. OF HIGHER EDUC., Dec. 8, 2006, at A31.
82 Alex Curtis, DMCA Exemptions 2006: The Good, the Bad, and the Bewildering (Nov. 27, 2006), available on Dec.
19, 2008, at http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/734. See also Jason H. Tokoro, Stuffing the DMCATurkey”
with 6 New Exemptions a Day before Thanksgiving, Nov. 23, 2006, available on Dec. 19, 2008, at
http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/weather.cgi?WeatherID=572 (quoting Fred von Lohmann, an
attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as saying that the Copyright Office “may not have done enough to
benefit consumers).
83 Scott Brader, Copyright Law: Tiny Changes, NETWORK WORLD, Dec. 1, 2006, at 36.
84 TracFone Seeks Reversal of Library of Congress Ruling, TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTS (Dec. 15, 2006) (2006
WLNR 21440416).
85 TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Billington, Complaint No. 06-22942 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 5, 2006), available on Dec. 19, 2008,
at http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/tracefone.pdf. TracFone argued, first, that this exemption was promulgated in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because the Copyright Office failed to provide adequate notice and
opportunity to comment; acted arbitrarily, capriciously, in abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with the law; and
granted a vague and overly broad exemption. Id. at 37-38. TracFone further argued that the DMCAs delegation of
rulemaking authority to the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights is either an unconstitutional intra-
branch delegation of Congress’s legislative power or an unconstitutional exercise of executive power by the legislative
branch. Id. at ¶ 46-47.
86 David Kravets, Ruling Allows Cell Phone Unlocking, but Telco Sues Anyway, WIRED, Aug. 8, 2007, available on
Dec. 19, 2008, at http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/tracfone.





companies that purchase and unlock TracFone handsets in bulk “for the purpose of reselling those
handsets for a profit, and not for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone 87
communication network.” However, some legal scholars and other observers have questioned
whether these judicial opinions have interpreted the cellphone exemption too narrowly and, as a 88
result, have rendered the exemption effectively “useless.”

Representative Rick Boucher introduced H.R. 1201, the Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing th
U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007 (FAIR USE Act of 2007), in the 110 Congress; the bill was
later referred to the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Section 3(a) of H.R. 1201 would have codified the Librarian of Congress’s 2006 exemptions and
made them permanent (rather than have them be subject to renewal, revision, or rejection in
2009). In addition, Section 3(b) of the bill would have authorized six additional exemptions, for
the following circumstances in which technological protection measures may be circumvented:
(1) instructors wishing to make a compilation of portions of audiovisual works for
educational use in a classroom (and therefore not limited solely to college-level media
studies courses, as in the Librarians first exemption);
(2) consumers wanting to skip past or avoid commercials or personally objectionable content
in an audiovisual work (however, the sponsor of the bill cautions that this provision does 89
not authorize consumers to make back up DVDs for archival or any other purpose”);
(3) consumers interested in transmitting a work over a home or personal network, but not in
order to upload that work to the Internet for mass, indiscriminate redistribution;
(4) individuals wishing to gain access to one or more public domain works that are included 90
in a compilation consisting primarily of works in the public domain;
(5) reporters, teachers, and others wanting to gain access to a work of substantial public
interest solely for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research;
and

87 TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Dixon, 475 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1238 (M.D.Fla. 2007); see also TracFone Wireless, Inc. v.
GSM Group, Inc., 555 F.Supp.2d 1331, 1337 (S.D.Fla. 2008).
88 Professor Rebecca Tushnet, TracFone wins another DMCA round, Rebecca Tushnets 43(B)log, available on Dec.
19, 2008, at http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2008/06/tracfone-wins-another-dmca-round.html (“[T]he exemption only has
meaning if it allows people to open the phones and resell them, because otherwise the exemption is useless.”); see also
John Haubenreich, The iPhone and the DMCA: Locking the Hands of Consumers, 61 VAND. L. REV. 1507, 1542 (Oct.
2008) (noting that as a result of these court cases, “[a]n exemption granting protection for unlocking cell phones by
individual consumers would not apply to those technically skilled enough actually to do the unlocking. Thus, the only
people legally able to unlock phones would be ordinary consumers, few of whom have the knowledge and tools
necessary to unlock a phone.”).
89 153 Cong. Rec. E408 (Extension of Remarks, Feb. 27, 2007) (statement of Rep. Boucher).
90 The sponsor of H.R. 1201 explained that the purpose of this exemption is topreclude content owners from denying
the public access to public domain works simply by repackaging them with one or more copyrighted works and then
applying a digital lock to restrict or deny access to all of the works.Id.





(6) a library or an archive satisfying the requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 108(a)(2),91 needing to
preserve or secure a copy or to replace a copy in its collections that is damaged,
deteriorating, lost, or stolen.

The 2006 exemptions to the DMCA’s prohibition on circumvention of technological measures
controlling access to copyrighted works allows users, under certain circumstances, to circumvent
those access controls in order to (1) make compilations of video clips for film and media studies
courses; (2) archive obsolete computer programs or games; (3) bypass “dongles,” or hardware
locks, that are obsolete; (4) use read-aloud functions or screen readers with e-books; (5) connect
wireless telephone handsets to communication networks; and (6) test for or correct security flaws
in works distributed on CD. These exemptions are effective until October 27, 2009, at which time
they will be superseded by new exemptions issued by the Librarian of Congress, on the
recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, following a notice-and-comment rulemaking th
proceeding conducted pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). H.R. 1201, introduced in the 110
Congress, would not have altered the triennial rulemaking proceeding, but rather would have
codified the 2006 exemptions and statutorily authorize six new exemptions to Section 1201 of the
DMCA. The outcome of the fourth § 1201 rulemaking proceeding, currently underway and th
scheduled for completion by fall of 2009, will likely influence whether the 111 Congress
considers similar or other legislation relating to DMCA exemptions.

91 17 U.S.C. § 108(a)(2) requires thatthe collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii)
available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but
also to other persons doing research in a specialized field.







2000a 2003b 2006c
1. Compilations consisting of 1. Compilations consisting of lists of 1. Audiovisual works included in the
lists of websites blocked by Internet programs blocked by educational library of a college or
filtering software applications. filtering software. university’s film or media studies
2. Literary works, including 2. Computer programs protected department when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making
computer programs and by dongles that prevent access due compilations of portions of these works
databases, protected by access to malfunction or damage, or which for educational use in the classroom.
control mechanisms that fail to are obsolete.
permit access because of 3. Computer programs and video 2. Preservation or archival reproduction of
malfunction, damage or games distributed in formats that computer programs and video games
obsoleteness. have become obsolete and require distributed in formats that have become
original hardware or media as a obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of
condition of access. access.
4. Literary works in e-book format, 3. Computer programs protected by
when all existing editions of the dongles that prevent access due to
work contain access controls that malfunction or damage and which are
prevent enabling the e-book’s read-obsolete.
aloud function and screen readers
to read the text into specialized 4. Literary works distributed in e-book
format. format when all existing e-book editions
contain access controls that prevent
enabling the read-aloud function or screen
readers.
5. Computer programs in the form of
firmware enabling wireless telephone
handsets to connect to communication
networks, when the circumvention is for
the purpose of connecting to a
communication network.
6. Good faith testing, investigating or
correcting of security flaws or
vulnerabilities in sound recordings and AV
works distributed in CD format.
Sources:
a. 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 65 Fed. Reg. 64,555 (Oct. 27, 2000), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2000/65fr64555.html.
b. 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 68 Fed. Reg. 62,011 (Oct. 31, 2003), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2003/68fr2011.html.
c. 1201(a)(1) Exemptions, 70 Fed. Reg. 68,472 (Nov. 27, 2006), available on Dec. 19, 2008, at
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.html.





Brian T. Yeh
Legislative Attorney
byeh@crs.loc.gov, 7-5182