Page:2021 Final 1201 Rule.pdf/2

59628 government; section 1201(f), which exempts certain “reverse engineering” activities to facilitate interoperability; section 1201(g), which exempts certain types of research into encryption technologies; section 1201(h), which exempts certain activities to prevent the “access of minors to material on the internet”; section 1201(i), which exempts certain activities “solely for the purpose of preventing the collection or dissemination of personally identifying information”; and section 1201(j), which exempts certain acts of “security testing” of computers and computer systems.

B. Rulemaking Standards

In adopting the DMCA, Congress imposed legal and evidentiary requirements for the section 1201 rulemaking proceeding, as discussed in greater detail in the Register’s Recommendation and the Copyright Office’s 2017 policy study on section 1201. The Register will recommend granting an exemption only “when the preponderance of the evidence in the record shows that the conditions for granting an exemption have been met.” The evidence must show “that it is more likely than not that users of a copyrighted work will, in the succeeding three-year period, be adversely affected by the prohibition on circumvention in their ability to make noninfringing uses of a particular class of copyrighted works.”

The Librarian must assess whether the implementation of access controls impairs the ability of individuals to make noninfringing uses of copyrighted works within the meaning of section 1201(a)(1). To aid in this process, the Register develops a comprehensive administrative record using information submitted by interested members of the public, and makes recommendations to the Librarian concerning whether exemptions are warranted based on that record.

To establish the need for an exemption, proponents must show, at a minimum, (1) that uses affected by the prohibition on circumvention are or are likely to be noninfringing; and (2) that as a result of a technological measure controlling access to a copyrighted work, the prohibition is causing, or in the next three years is likely to cause, an adverse impact on those uses. In addition, the Librarian must examine the statutory factors listed in section 1201(a)(1): (1) The availability for use of copyrighted works; (2) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes; (3) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research; (4) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and (5) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.

Finally, section 1201(a)(1) specifies that any exemption adopted as part of this rulemaking must be defined based on “a particular class of works.” Among other things, the determination of the appropriate scope of a “class of works” recommended for exemption may take into account the adverse effects an exemption may have on the market for or value of copyrighted works. Accordingly, “it can be appropriate to refine a class by reference to the use or user in order to remedy the adverse effect of the prohibition and to limit the adverse consequences of an exemption.”

'''II. History of the Eighth Triennial Proceeding'''

The Office initiated the eighth triennial rulemaking proceeding through a Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) on June 22, 2020. The NOI requested petitions for renewal of exemptions adopted in the 2018 rulemaking, petitions in opposition to renewal, and any petitions for new exemptions, including proposals to expand a current exemption. The Office received twenty-six petitions for new exemptions, including thirteen comments seeking to expand certain current exemptions.

As in the prior rulemaking, the Office employed a streamlined process for renewing existing exemptions in this proceeding, detailing the renewal process in its public notices. Streamlined renewal is based upon a determination that, due to a lack of legal, marketplace, or technological changes, the factors that led the Register to recommend adoption of the exemption in the prior rulemaking are expected to continue into the forthcoming triennial period. That is, the same material facts and circumstances underlying the previously-adopted regulatory exemption may be relied on to renew the exemption. Because the statute requires that exemptions be adopted upon a new determination concerning the next three-year period, the fact that the Librarian previously adopted an exemption creates no presumption that readoption is appropriate.

The Register’s Recommendation provides a detailed description of the process the Office used to create a record for each renewal petition. In brief, the Office first solicited renewal petitions as well as comments from participants opposing the readoption of the exemption. The Office received thirty-two renewal petitions and fifteen comments in response to those petitions. Seven comments supported renewal of a current exemption, and eight comments raised discrete concerns with specific petitions, but did not oppose readoption of the relevant exemption.

On October 15, 2020, the Office issued its notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) identifying the existing exemptions for which the Register intended to recommend renewal, and outlined the proposed classes for new exemptions, for which three rounds of public comments were initiated. Those proposals were organized into seventeen classes of works. Six of the seventeen proposed exemptions sought