zlacker

> (current title) DMCA Excemptions to "Copyright Protection Systems" Being Reconsidered

"Reconsidered" is a very poor choice of wording here, as it makes it sound like they are intending to take back these exemptions, in the future tense. As someone involved in this process often, my heart skipped a beat when I saw this headline.

In fact, all but one existing exemption was renewed. I dug into the Registrar to figure out which one was not being recommended, as it was remarkably difficult to figure it out... the information ended up being in some footnote.

> A renewal petition was not filed for the current exemption permitting circumvention of video games in the form of computer programs for the purpose of allowing an individual with a physical disability to use alternative software or hardware input methods. See 37 CFR 201.40(b)(21). The Office therefore will not recommend this exemption to the Librarian for renewal.

>>saurik+(OP)
I wonder if that one fell through the cracks. I could see those who use them not realizing it was permitted by an act of the Librarian.

>>saurik+(OP)
My understanding is that the exemptions are made every three years and only for a three year period. So while the LOC isn't necessarily _intending_ to take back exemptions, their is not necessarily an intention to leave them in place for another three years. As you noted, this time around an exemption that existed previously is no longer granted. I certainly didn't mean to make your heart skip a beat, but we also shouldn't take the exemptions there for granted.

>>saurik+(OP)
So strange that to maintain the public's rights, they have to organize and petition every three years to individually keep each one. Seems like that once granted, the default should be against revoking exemptions.

>>ballen+Jw1
What a great point. Why is it that the peoples' rights require renewal every three years, rather than the restrictions of the peoples' rights that require renewal?