Home > Submissions > Domestic > Circumvention

Circumvention

  • LCA Submits Statement to House Committee Regarding Unlocking Consumer Choice Wireless Competition Act
    On June 26, 2013, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) submitted comments to the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet in regard to the hearing on H.R. 1123: The Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. Read Statement

  • LCA Writes Comments Regarding Library of Congress 1201 NOI
    On November 29, 2011, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) submitted comments to the Library of Congress in response to their Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding 1201 of the Copyright Act. LCA asks that the previous exemptions for the prohibition of circumvention of copyright protection systems for access control technologies be renewed. Read Comments

  • LCA Members and Other Organizations Respond to Questions Concerning Screen Capture Software
    On July 9, 2009, LCA and other institutions responded to Robert Kasunic, Principal Legal Advisor at the Office of the General Council regarding screen capture software and its relationship to DMCA Section 1201. Read letter [PDF]

  • LCA Testifies Regarding DMCA Section 1201
    On May 6, 2009, Jonathan Band testified on behalf of LCA on renewal and expansion of the film clip compilation exemption to the DMCA Section 1201 prohibition on circumvention of access control technologies. Read testimony [PDF]

  • LCA Submits Reply on Exemptions to DMCA Section 1201
    On February 2, 2009, the LCA and Music Library Association submitted comments in support of the renewal and modest broadening of the existing exemption for film clip compilations in two related ways: works included in any college or library, and works used in classrooms by instructors in all subjects. Read comments [PDF]

  • LCA and MLA Provide Comments on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems
    On December 2, 2008, the Library Copyright Alliance and the Music Library Association submitted comments on exceptions that the Library of Congress should grant pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C), pursuant to the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) published by the Copyright Office. Read comments [PDF]

  • LCA Supports Fair Use Act
    On March 21, 2007, the Library Copyright Alliance sent a letters to the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in strong support of the introduction of the Freedom And Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship (FAIR USE) Act of 2007, H.R.2001. At the end of 2006, Dr. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, approved six exemptions from the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures contained in section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. These exemptions will sunset in three years. The FAIR USE Act makes these six exemptions permanent. Two of these exemptions are particularly important to the library community: the exemptions for screen readers for the visually impaired and for film clip compilations for college media studies classes. Read Letter [PDF]

  • Library Copyright Alliance Strongly Supports H.R. 1201, the FAIR USE Act
    On February 27, 2007, the LCA distributed a press release in strong support of the Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship (FAIR USE) Act of 2007, H.R. 1201.
    Read LCA Press Release [PDF]
    Read Bill [PDF]

  • LCA and MLA provide Comments on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems
    On December 1, 2005, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) and the Music Library Association (MLA) submitted comments on exceptions that the Library of Congress should grant pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C), pursuant to the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) published by the Copyright Office.

LCA and MLA are pleased to observe that in the NOI, the Office seems to have backed away from rigid application of the “substantial adverse impact” standard articulated in the previous rulemakings. Moreover, the Office has qualified the standard for actual harm from always requiring a showing of “actual instances of verifiable problems” to “generally” requiring such a showing. Nonetheless, the Office continues to interpret the “likely” adverse effects standard as “require[ing] proof that adverse effects are more likely than not to occur.” Read Comments [PDF]