Page:2021 Final 1201 Rule.pdf/10

59636 the exemption for Class 14(a) to address the eligibility requirements for libraries, archives, and museums, but not to remove the premises limitation. The Register recommends removing the premises limitation in the exemption for Class 14(a).

12. Proposed Class 15: Computer Programs—3D Printing

Class 15 seeks to expand two provisions of the current exemption that permits the circumvention of access controls on computer programs in 3D printers to enable the use of non-manufacturer approved feedstock. Michael Weinberg filed a petition to replace the term “feedstock” with the term “material,” stating that the latter is more commonly used within the industry and that the two terms are interchangeable. Additionally, Mr. Weinberg sought to eliminate the phrase “microchip-reliant” from the exemption, arguing that 3D printers may use technology other than microchips to verify 3D printing materials. Mr. Weinberg provided evidence that manufacturers are increasingly moving beyond microchip-based verification techniques, such as using optical scanners. No parties opposed proposed class 15. NTIA supported the proposed exemption.

For the reasons discussed in greater detail in the Register’s Recommendation, the Register concluded that changing the word “feedstock” to “material” is not a substantive change, and found that the removal of the term “microchip-reliant” does not alter the fair use analysis because the expansion is directed at the same uses the Office previously concluded were fair.

13. Proposed Class 16: Computer Programs—Copyright License Investigation

SFC petitioned for a new exemption that would permit investigating whether a particular computer program includes FOSS, and if so, whether the use of the program complies with applicable license terms. SFC, supported by the Free Software Foundation, subsequently agreed to add limitations to require that the circumvention be undertaken on a lawfully acquired device or machine; that it be solely for the purpose of investigating potential copyright infringement; that it be performed by, or at the direction of, a party that has standing to bring a breach of license claim; and that it otherwise comply with applicable law. NTIA supported the proposed exemption as modified.

Opponents—DVD CCA and AACS LA; the Equipment Dealers Association, and its regional affiliates, and Associated Equipment Distributors; Joint Creators; and Marcia Wilbur—argued that FOSS licensors could obtain the information they seek by other means. They objected to application of the proposed exemption to a broad category of devices, and requested exclusion of DVD and Blu-ray players, video game consoles, set-top boxes, and vehicles. They argued that any exemption should be limited to investigating potential violations of FOSS licenses, rather than infringement of any proprietary software, and that the investigation must be based on a good-faith, reasonable belief that the device may violate FOSS license terms. Finally, opponents expressed concerns about devices being left exposed to piracy or unauthorized access after circumvention.

For the reasons discussed in the Register’s Recommendation, the Register recommended adopting an exemption with several limitations. First, the purpose of the investigation must be limited to investigating whether a computer program potentially infringes FOSS, and the user must have a good-faith, reasonable belief in the need for the investigation. Second, circumvention must be undertaken by, or at the direction of, a party that would have standing to bring either a breach of license claim or a copyright infringement claim. Third, the copy of a computer program made pursuant to the exemption, or the device or machine on which it operates, cannot be used in a manner that facilitates copyright infringement. Finally, video game consoles should be excluded from the types of devices on which TPMs may be circumvented.

14. Proposed Class 17: All Works—Accessibility Uses

Petitioners, a coalition of accessibility groups, requested a new exemption to create accessible versions of any copyrighted works that are inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. They argued that the Librarian has the authority to define a class of works that share the attribute of being inaccessible to individuals with disabilities and that creating accessible versions of inaccessible works is unquestionably a fair use. Proponents argued that a broad exemption is warranted to prevent individuals with disabilities from being forced to make piecemeal requests every three years when new accessibility issues arise. NTIA supported the proposed exemption.

Joint Creators, DVD CCA and AACS LA, and AAP filed comments opposing the proposed exemption, focusing primarily on the ground that the statute does not give the Librarian the authority to adopt a class consisting of “all works” sharing a particular attribute. Joint Creators also raised concerns about the lack of limitations on the use of copies, such as prohibiting further distribution to individuals without disabilities.

As discussed in greater detail in the Register’s Recommendation, although the Register supports the policy goals that underpin the proposed exemption, the statute requires proponents to provide evidence of actual or likely adverse effects resulting from the prohibition on circumvention with respect to “particular class[es]” of works. Here, the Register determined that proponents submitted insufficient evidence of such adverse effects as to most types of works. Proponents did, however, provide evidence to support an exemption to enable individuals with disabilities to use alternate input devices to play video games.

C. Classes Considered but Not Recommended

Based upon the record in this proceeding, the Register recommended that the Librarian determine that the following classes of works shall not be exempt during the next three-year period from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures set forth in section 1201(a)(1):

1. Proposed Class 2: Audiovisual Works—Texting

Proposed Class 2 would allow circumvention of technological measures protecting motion pictures and other audiovisual works to create short audiovisual clips for expressive purposes in text messages. Petitioner did not provide legal arguments or evidence in support of its petition and did not participate in the public hearings. Petitioner failed to explain how the proposed uses were noninfringing and why an exemption is