[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54010-54031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23241]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

U.S. Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. 2017-10]


Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection 
Systems for Access Control Technologies

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Librarian of Congress adopts 
exemptions to the provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 
(``DMCA'') that prohibits circumvention of technological measures that 
control access to copyrighted works, codified in the United States 
Code. As required under the statute, the Acting Register of Copyrights, 
following a public proceeding, submitted a Recommendation concerning 
proposed exemptions to the Librarian of Congress. After careful 
consideration, the Librarian adopts final regulations based upon the 
Acting Register's Recommendation.

DATE: Effective October 28, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and 
Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at [email protected], 
Anna Chauvet, Assistant General Counsel, by email at 
[email protected], or Kevin Amer, Senior Counsel for Policy and 
International Affairs, by email at [email protected]. Each can be 
contacted by telephone by calling (202) 707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Librarian of Congress, pursuant to 
section 1201(a)(1) of title 17, United States Code, has determined in 
this seventh triennial rulemaking proceeding that the prohibition 
against circumvention of technological measures that effectively 
control access to copyrighted works shall not apply to persons who 
engage in noninfringing uses of certain classes of such works. This 
determination is based upon the Recommendation of the Acting Register 
of Copyrights, which was transmitted to the Librarian on October 5, 
2018.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Acting Register of Copyrights, Section 1201 Rulemaking: 
Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the 
Prohibition on Circumvention, Recommendation of the Acting Register 
of Copyrights (Oct. 2018) (``Acting Register's Recommendation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The below discussion summarizes the rulemaking proceeding and 
Register's Recommendation, announces the Librarian's determination, and 
publishes the regulatory text specifying the exempted classes of works. 
A more complete discussion of the rulemaking process, the evidentiary 
record, and the Acting Register's analysis can be found in the Acting 
Register's Recommendation, which is posted at www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/.

I. Background

A. Statutory Requirements

    Congress enacted the DMCA in 1998 to implement certain provisions 
of the WIPO Copyright and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaties. 
Among other things, title I of the DMCA, which added a new chapter 12 
to title 17 of the U.S. Code, prohibits circumvention of technological 
measures employed by or on behalf of copyright owners to protect access 
to their works. In enacting this aspect of the law, Congress observed 
that technological protection measures (``TPMs'') can ``support new 
ways of disseminating copyrighted materials to users, and . . . 
safeguard the availability of legitimate uses of those materials by 
individuals.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Staff of H. Comm. 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 7 (Comm. Print 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1201(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that ``[n]o person 
shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls 
access to a work protected under [title 17].'' Under the statute, to 
``circumvent a technological measure'' means ``to descramble a 
scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, 
bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without 
the authority of the copyright owner.'' \3\ A technological measure 
that ``effectively controls access to a work'' is one that ``in the 
ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of 
information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the 
copyright owner, to gain access to the work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(3)(A).
    \4\ Id. at 1201(a)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1201(a)(1) also includes what Congress characterized as a 
``fail-safe'' mechanism,\5\ which requires the Librarian of Congress, 
following a rulemaking proceeding, to publish any class of copyrighted 
works as to which the Librarian has determined that noninfringing uses 
by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to 
be, adversely affected by the prohibition against circumvention in the 
succeeding three-year period, thereby exempting that class from the 
prohibition for that period.\6\ The Librarian's determination to grant 
an exemption is based upon the recommendation of the Register of 
Copyrights, who conducts the rulemaking proceeding.\7\ The Register, in 
turn, consults with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and 
Information of the Department of Commerce, who oversees the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (``NTIA''), in the 
course of formulating her recommendation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 2, at 36 (1998) (``Commerce 
Comm. Report'').
    \6\ See 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1).
    \7\ Id. at 1201(a)(1)(C).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary responsibility of the Register and the Librarian in the 
rulemaking proceeding is to 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 do 
this, 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.
    Under the statutory framework, the Librarian, and thus the 
Register, must consider ``(i) the availability for use of copyrighted 
works; (ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, 
preservation, and educational purposes; (iii) 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; (iv) the effect of circumvention of 
technological measures on the market

[[Page 54011]]

for or value of copyrighted works; and (v) such other factors as the 
Librarian considers appropriate.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significantly, exemptions adopted by rule under section 1201(a)(1) 
apply only to the conduct of circumventing a technological measure that 
controls access to a copyrighted work. Other parts of section 1201, by 
contrast, address the manufacture and provision of--or ``trafficking'' 
in--products and services designed for purposes of circumvention. 
Section 1201(a)(2) bars trafficking in products and services that are 
used to circumvent technological measures that control access to 
copyrighted works (for example, a password needed to open a media 
file),\10\ while section 1201(b) bars trafficking in products and 
services used to circumvent technological measures that protect the 
exclusive rights of the copyright owner in their works (for example, 
technology that prevents the work from being reproduced).\11\ The 
Librarian of Congress has no authority to adopt exemptions for the 
anti-trafficking prohibitions contained in section 1201(a)(2) or 
(b).\12\ More broadly, activities conducted under the regulatory 
exemptions must still comply with other applicable laws, including non-
copyright provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 1201(a)(2).
    \11\ Id. at 1201(b).
    \12\ See id. at 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also significant is the fact that the statute contains certain 
permanent exemptions to permit specified uses. These include: Section 
1201(d), which exempts certain activities of nonprofit libraries, 
archives, and educational institutions; section 1201(e), which exempts 
``lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, 
or intelligence activity'' of a state or the federal government; 
section 1201(f), which exempts certain ``[r]everse 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.

C. 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 Acting Register's Recommendation and the 
Copyright Office's recent policy study on section 1201.\13\ 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.'' \14\ ``[I]t is the totality 
of the rulemaking record (i.e., the evidence provided by commenters or 
administratively noticed by the Office) that must, on balance, reflect 
the need for an exemption by a preponderance of the evidence. Such 
evidence must, on the whole, show that it is more likely than not that 
users of a copyrighted work will, in the succeeding three[hyphen]year 
period, be adversely affected by the prohibition on circumvention in 
their ability to make noninfringing uses of a particular class of 
copyrighted works.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Acting Register's Recommendation at 9-19; U.S. Copyright 
Office, Section 1201 of Title 17 105-15 (2017), https://www.copyright.gov/policy/1201/section-1201-full-report.pdf 
(``Section 1201 Report'').
    \14\ Section 1201 Report at 111; accord Register of Copyrights, 
Section 1201 Rulemaking: Sixth Triennial Proceeding to Determine 
Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention, Recommendation of 
the Register of Copyrights 14 (Oct. 2015). References to the 
Register's Recommendations in prior rulemakings are cited by the 
year of publication followed by ``Recommendation'' (e.g., ``2015 
Recommendation''). Prior Recommendations are available on the 
Copyright Office website at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/.
    \15\ Section 1201 Report at 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish a case 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 also 
examine the statutory factors listed in section 1201(a)(1)(C): ``(i) 
The availability for use of copyrighted works; (ii) the availability 
for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational 
purposes; (iii) 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; (iv) the 
effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or 
value of copyrighted works; and (v) such other factors as the Librarian 
considers appropriate.'' In some cases, weighing these factors requires 
the consideration of the benefits that the technological measure brings 
with respect to the overall creation and dissemination of works in the 
marketplace, in addition to any negative impact.
    Finally, when granting an exemption, section 1201(a)(1) specifies 
that the exemption adopted as part of this rulemaking must be defined 
based on ``a particular class of works.'' \16\ Among other things, the 
determination of the appropriate scope of a ``class of works'' 
recommended for exemption may also 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.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(B).
    \17\ 2006 Recommendation at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Streamlined Renewal Process

    Following a comprehensive policy study, and in response to 
stakeholder feedback, for this seventh triennial proceeding, the Office 
introduced a streamlined process to renew section 1201 exemptions 
adopted during the 2015 rulemaking.\18\ Previously, in recognition of 
legislative history stating that the basis of an exemption should be 
established de novo in each triennial proceeding,\19\ the Office had 
required the factual record be developed anew in each rulemaking.\20\ 
In its Section 1201 Report, the Office evaluated the possibility of a 
renewal process, noting a ``broad consensus in favor of streamlining 
the process for renewing exemptions to which there is no meaningful 
opposition.'' \21\ As described in further detail in that report, the 
Office ultimately concluded that ``the statutory language appears to be 
broad enough to permit determinations to be based upon evidence drawn 
from prior proceedings, but only upon a conclusion that this evidence 
remains reliable to support granting an exemption in the current

[[Page 54012]]

proceeding.'' \22\ The Office concluded that renewal may be sought only 
for exemptions in their current form, without modification, and that 
the Register ``must apply the same evidentiary standards in 
recommending the renewal of exemptions as for first- time exemption 
requests.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section 1201 Report at 127-28, 145-46.
    \19\ See Commerce Comm. Report at 37 (explaining that for every 
rulemaking, ``the assessment of adverse impacts on particular 
categories of works is to be determined de novo'').
    \20\ Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on 
Copyrighted Works, 82 FR 29804, 29805 (June 30, 2017) (``NOI'').
    \21\ Section 1201 Report at vi.
    \22\ Id. at 143.
    \23\ Id. at 142, 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office detailed the renewal process in its notices for this 
proceeding.\24\ 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.\25\ That is, the same material facts and 
circumstances underlying the previously-adopted regulatory exemption 
may be relied on to renew the exemption.\26\ Because the statute itself 
requires that exemptions must be adopted upon a fresh determination 
concerning the next three-year period, the fact that the Librarian 
previously adopted an exemption creates no presumption that readoption 
is appropriate. Instead, the Office first solicited petitions 
summarizing the continuing need and justification for the exemption, 
and petitioners signed a declaration stating that, ``to the best of 
their personal knowledge, there has not been any material change in the 
facts, law, or other circumstances set forth in the prior rulemaking 
record such that renewal of the exemption would not be justified.'' 
\27\ Next, the Office solicited comments from participants opposing the 
readoption of the exemption. Opponents were required to provide 
evidence that would allow the Acting Register to reasonably conclude 
that the prior rulemaking record and any further information provided 
in the petitions are insufficient for her to recommend renewal without 
the benefit of a further developed record. For example, ``a change in 
case law might affect whether a particular use is noninfringing, new 
technological developments might affect the availability for use of 
copyrighted works, or new business models might affect the market for 
or value of copyrighted works.'' \28\ If the appropriateness of 
renewing an exemption is meaningfully contested, that exemption would 
be fully noticed for written comment and public hearing to generate an 
updated administrative record for the Register to evaluate whether to 
recommend readoption, modification, or elimination of that exemption to 
the Librarian.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NOI, 82 FR at 29805-07; Exemptions to Permit Circumvention 
of Access Controls on Copyrighted Works, 82 FR 49550, 49552 (Oct. 
26, 2017) (``NPRM'').
    \25\ NOI, 82 FR at 29805-06; NPRM, 82 FR at 49552.
    \26\ Section 1201 Report at 143-44; NOI, 82 FR at 29806; NPRM, 
82 FR at 49552.
    \27\ NPRM, 82 FR at 49552.
    \28\ Section 1201 Report at 145.
    \29\ See NPRM, 82 FR at 49554 (stating that if a renewal 
petition is meaningfully opposed, ``the exemption would be 
considered pursuant to the more comprehensive rulemaking process 
(i.e., three rounds of written comment, followed by public 
hearings)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The streamlined renewal process elicited favorable responses during 
the 2018 rulemaking hearings. As detailed below, as a result of this 
new process, the Acting Register was able to recommend renewal of all 
exemptions adopted in the 2015 rulemaking, and subsequently consider 
whether some of them should be modified to accommodate additional new 
uses through the development of an expanded administrative record.

II. History of the Seventh Triennial Proceeding

    In this rulemaking, the Copyright Office used the phased comment 
structure introduced in the last proceeding, to best facilitate a clear 
and thorough record. As promised in its Section 1201 Report,\30\ the 
Office also created video tutorials explaining the rulemaking process, 
issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') earlier to give 
parties more time to participate, and offered increased opportunities 
for participant input, including through an established procedure for 
transparent ex parte meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Section 1201 Report at 149-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office initiated the seventh triennial rulemaking proceeding 
through a Notice of Inquiry (``NOI'') on June 30, 2017.\31\ The NOI 
requested petitions for renewals, petitions in opposition to renewal, 
and any petitions for new exemptions. In response, the Office received 
thirty-nine renewal petitions, five comments regarding the scope of the 
renewal petitions, and one comment in opposition to renewal of a 
current exemption.\32\ The Office also received twenty-three petitions 
for new exemptions, including seventeen seeking to expand certain 
current exemptions, and six petitions for new exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ NOI, 82 FR at 29804.
    \32\ Comments received in this rulemaking are available at 
http://copyright.gov/1201/2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, on October 26, 2017, the Office issued its NPRM identifying 
the existing exemptions for which the Acting Register intended to 
recommend renewal, and outlined the proposed classes for new exemptions 
(including proposed expansions of previously- adopted exemptions) for 
which three rounds of public comments were initiated.\33\ Those classes 
were organized into twelve classes of works. Seven of the twelve 
proposed exemptions seek expansions of existing exemptions, while five 
propose new exemptions. The Office received 181 total submissions in 
response to the NPRM, substantially less than the approximately 40,000 
submissions received in the last rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NPRM, 82 FR at 49550, 49553-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After analyzing the written comments, the Office held seven days of 
hearings in Washington, DC (April 10-13) and Los Angeles, California 
(April 23-25). For the first time, the roundtables at both locations 
held audience participation panels and were live streamed online. Video 
recordings for these roundtables are available through the Office's 
website and YouTube pages.\34\ In total, the Office heard testimony 
from seventy-seven individuals. After the hearings, the Office issued 
questions to hearing participants in four proposed classes and received 
eighteen responses.\35\ Subsequently, the Office received an 
unsolicited letter from the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property 
Section of the Criminal Division of the United States Department of 
Justice (``CCIPS'') regarding Proposed Class 10, and the Office 
solicited comment from Class 10 participants in response.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Video recordings of the roundtables are available at 
https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/ and https://www.youtube.com/uscopyrightoffice/.
    \35\ Participant's post-hearing letter responses are available 
on the Office's website. Responses to Post- Hearing Questions, U.S. 
Copyright Office, (last visited Oct 2, 2018), https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/post-hearing/answers/.
    \36\ Letter from John T. Lynch, Jr., Chief, Comput. Crime & 
Intellectual Prop. Section, Criminal Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to 
Regan A. Smith, Gen. Counsel & Assoc. Register of Copyrights, U.S. 
Copyright Office (June 28, 2018), https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/USCO-letters/USDOJ_Letter_to_USCO.pdf; Letter from to Regan A. 
Smith, Gen. Counsel & Assoc. Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright 
Office, to Class 10 Participants (June 29, 2018), https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/additional-correspondence/Proposed_Class_10_Letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in its NPRM, the Office determined that further informal 
communications with non-governmental participants might be beneficial 
in limited circumstances.\37\ The Office thus established guidelines 
for ex parte meetings, noting that the Office will not consider or 
accept any new documentary materials at these

[[Page 54013]]

meetings, and requiring participants to provide a letter summarizing 
the meeting for the Office to include in the rulemaking record.\38\ The 
Office held nine ex parte meetings with participants concerning five 
proposed classes.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ NPRM, 82 FR at 49563; see Section 1201 Report at 150-51 
(documenting stakeholder desire for such further communication).
    \38\ NPRM, 82 FR at 49563; Ex Parte Communications, U.S. 
Copyright Office (last visited Oct. 2, 2018), https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/ex-parte-communications.html.
    \39\ See Ex Parte Communications, U.S. Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/ex-parte-communications.html (last 
visited Oct. 2, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required by section 1201(a)(1), the Acting Register consulted 
with NTIA during this rulemaking. NTIA provided input at various stages 
and participated in the public hearings held in Washington, DC and Los 
Angeles. NTIA formally communicated its views on each of the proposed 
exemptions to the Acting Register on September 25, 2018.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NTIA's recommendations can be viewed at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/2018_NTIA_Letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Register's Recommendation

A. Renewal Recommendations

    As set forth in the NPRM, the Acting Register received petitions to 
renew every one of the exemptions adopted pursuant to the sixth 
triennial rulemaking. To the extent any renewal petition proposed uses 
beyond the current exemption, the Office disregarded those portions of 
the petition for purposes of considering the renewal of the exemption, 
and instead focused on whether it provided sufficient information to 
warrant readoption of the exemption in its current form.\41\ While a 
single party filed an opposition to renewal, the Acting Register 
concluded that its opposition was not sufficiently material to 
undermine the conclusion that the record and legal reasoning from the 
prior rulemaking supported renewal.\42\ Finding the renewal petitions 
sufficient under the guidelines outlined above, the Acting Register 
thus recommended renewal of each of the existing exemptions.\43\ The 
existing exemptions, and the bases for the recommendation to readopt 
each exemption in accordance with the streamlined renewal process, are 
summarized below. Where noted, these exemptions served as a baseline 
for the Acting Register in considering subsequent requests for 
expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, e.g., NPRM, 82 FR at 49554.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions regarding 
streamlined renewals can be found in the NPRM. See id. at 49552-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Literary Works Distributed Electronically--Assistive Technologies
    Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemption for 
literary works distributed electronically (i.e., e-books), for use with 
assistive technologies for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or 
have print disabilities. No oppositions were filed against readoption 
of this exemption. The petitions demonstrated the continuing need and 
justification for the exemption, stating that individuals who are 
blind, visually impaired, or print disabled are significantly 
disadvantaged with respect to obtaining accessible e-book content 
because TPMs interfere with the use of assistive technologies such as 
screen readers and refreshable Braille displays. In addition, the 
petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and experience with regard 
to the assistive technology exemption; they are all organizations that 
advocate for the blind, visually impaired, and print disabled.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of the 
following exemption:

    Literary works, distributed electronically, that are protected 
by technological measures that either prevent the enabling of read-
aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other 
applications or assistive technologies:
    (i) When a copy of such a work is lawfully obtained by a blind 
or other person with a disability, as such a person is defined in 17 
U.S.C. 121; provided, however, that the rights owner is remunerated, 
as appropriate, for the price of the mainstream copy of the work as 
made available to the general public through customary channels; or
    (ii) When such work is a nondramatic literary work, lawfully 
obtained and used by an authorized entity pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 121.
2. Literary Works--Compilations of Data Generated by Implanted Medical 
Devices--To Access Personal Data
    Hugo Campos, member of the Coalition of Medical Device Patients and 
Researchers, and represented by the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, 
petitioned to renew the exemption covering access to patient data on 
networked medical devices. No oppositions were filed against the 
petition to renew this exemption. Mr. Campos's petition demonstrated 
the continuing need and justification for the exemption, stating that 
patients continue to need access to data output from their medical 
devices to manage their health. Mr. Campos himself is a patient needing 
access to the data output from his medical device.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of the 
following exemption:

    Literary works consisting of compilations of data generated by 
medical devices that are wholly or partially implanted in the body 
or by their corresponding personal monitoring systems, where such 
circumvention is undertaken by a patient for the sole purpose of 
lawfully accessing the data generated by his or her own device or 
monitoring system and does not constitute a violation of applicable 
law, including without limitation the Health Insurance Portability 
and Accountability Act of 1996, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 
1986 or regulations of the Food and Drug Administration, and is 
accomplished through the passive monitoring of wireless 
transmissions that are already being produced by such device or 
monitoring system.
3. Computer Programs--``Unlocking'' of Cellphones, Tablets, Mobile 
Hotspots, or Wearable Devices
    Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemption for 
computer programs that operate cellphones, tablets, mobile hotspots, or 
wearable devices (e.g., smartwatches), to allow connection of a used 
device to an alternative wireless network (``unlocking''). No 
oppositions were filed against the petitions seeking to renew this 
exemption. The petitions demonstrated the continuing need and 
justification for the exemption, stating that consumers of the 
enumerated products continue to need to be able to unlock the devices 
so they can switch network providers. For example, the Institute of 
Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (``ISRI'') stated that its members 
continue to purchase or acquire donated cell phones and tablets, and 
try to reuse them, but that wireless carriers still lock devices to 
prevent them from being used on other carriers. In addition, the 
petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and experience with regard 
to this exemption: Competitive Carriers Association, Owners' Rights 
Initiative (``ORI''), and ISRI represent companies that rely on the 
ability to unlock cellphones.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of this 
exemption and will consider proposed expansions below in the discussion 
on Proposed Class 5.
4. Computer Programs--``Jailbreaking'' of Smartphones, Smart TVs, 
Tablets, or Other All-Purpose Mobile Computing Devices
    Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemptions for 
computer programs that operate smartphones, smart TVs, tablets, or 
other all-purpose mobile computing devices, to allow the

[[Page 54014]]

device to interoperate with or to remove software applications 
(``jailbreaking''). The petitions demonstrate the continuing need and 
justification for the exemptions, and that petitioners had personal 
knowledge and experience with regard to these exemptions. Specifically, 
the petitions state that, absent the exemptions, TPMs applied to the 
enumerated products would have an adverse effect on noninfringing uses, 
such as being able to install third-party applications on a smartphone 
or to download third-party software on a smart TV to enable 
interoperability. For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's 
(``EFF's'') petition outlined its declarant's experience searching 
current mobile computing device markets and technologies, working as a 
software engineer, and participating in four prior 1201 rulemakings. 
Similarly, the Libiquity petition was submitted by a person who 
``work[s] with the operating system and many of the system libraries 
that lie at the core of the firmware systems of a large majority of 
smartphones, portable all-purpose mobile computing devices, and smart 
televisions.'' In a brief two-page comment, BSA  The Software 
Alliance (``BSA'') opposed the readoption of this exemption, asserting 
that ``alternatives to circumvention exist,'' and that ``jailbreaking 
can undermine the integrity and security of a platform's operating 
system in a manner that facilitates copyright infringement and exposes 
users to heightened risks of privacy violations.''
    In the NPRM, the Office concluded that BSA's opposition was not 
sufficient to draw the conclusion that the past rulemaking record is no 
longer reliable, or that the reasoning adopted in the Register's 2015 
Recommendation cannot be relied upon for the next three-year period. 
Specifically, the Office stated that BSA's comment largely re-
articulated a general opposition to a jailbreaking exemption, and noted 
that the past three rulemakings have adopted some form of an exemption 
for jailbreaking certain types of mobile computing devices. The Office 
also noted that BSA had failed to identify any specific circumvention 
alternatives, changes in case law, new technological developments, or 
new issues that had not already been considered and evaluated in 
granting the exemption previously.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of this 
exemption and will consider proposed expansions below in the discussion 
on Proposed Class 6.
5. Computer Programs--Diagnosis, Repair, and Lawful Modification of 
Motorized Land Vehicles
    Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemption for 
computer programs that control motorized land vehicles, including farm 
equipment, for purposes of diagnosis, repair, and modification of the 
vehicle. The petitions demonstrated the continuing need and 
justification for the exemption to prevent owners of motorized land 
vehicles from being adversely impacted in their ability to diagnose, 
repair, and modify their vehicles as a result of TPMs that protect the 
copyrighted computer programs on the electronic control units 
(``ECUs'') that control the functioning of the vehicles. Indeed, the 
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, which during the sixth 
triennial rulemaking initially opposed any exemption that would impact 
the software and TPMs in vehicles, now supports the exemption as 
striking an appropriate balance between encouraging marketplace 
competition and innovation while mitigating the impact on safety, 
regulatory, and environmental compliance. The petitioners demonstrated 
personal knowledge and experience with regard to this exemption; each 
either represents or gathered information from individuals conducting 
repairs or businesses that manufacture, distribute, and sell motor 
vehicle parts, and perform vehicle service and repair.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of this 
exemption and will consider proposed expansions below in the discussion 
on Proposed Class 7.
6. Computer Programs--Security Research
    Multiple organizations and security researchers petitioned to renew 
the exemption for purposes of good-faith security research. The 
petitioners demonstrated the continuing need and justification for the 
exemption, and personal knowledge and experience with regard to this 
exemption. For example, Professors Bellovin, Blaze, and Heninger stated 
that they have conducted their own security research in reliance on the 
existing exemption, and that they ``regularly engage'' with other 
security researchers who have similarly relied on the exemption. They 
provided an example of a recent computer security conference in which 
thousands of participants relied on the existing exemption to examine 
and test electronic voting devices--the results of which were reported 
to election officials to improve the security of their voting systems.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of this 
exemption and will consider proposed expansions below in the discussion 
on Proposed Class 10.
7. Computer Programs--3D Printers
    Michael Weinberg and ORI jointly petitioned to renew the exemption 
for computer programs that operate 3D printers to allow use of 
alternative feedstock. No oppositions were filed against readoption of 
this exemption. The petition demonstrated the continuing need and 
justification for the exemption, and the petitioners demonstrated 
personal knowledge and experience, in particular, through Mr. 
Weinberg's experience petitioning for the exemption adopted in 2015. In 
addition, the petition states that printers continue to restrict the 
use of third-party feedstock, thereby requiring renewal of the 
exemption.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of this 
exemption and will consider proposed expansions below in the discussion 
on Proposed Class 12.
8. Video Games Requiring Server Communication--for Continued Individual 
Play and Preservation of Games by Libraries, Archives, and Museums
    Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemption for video 
games for which outside server support has been discontinued. The 
petitions stated that individuals still need the exemption to engage in 
continued play and libraries and museums continue to need the exemption 
to preserve and curate video games in playable form. In addition, the 
petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and experience with regard 
to this exemption through past participation in the 1201 triennial 
rulemaking relating to access controls on video games and consoles, 
and/or representing major library associations with members that have 
relied on this exemption.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of this 
exemption and will consider proposed expansions below in the discussion 
on Proposed Class 8.
9. Audiovisual Uses--Educational and Derivative Uses
    Multiple individuals and organizations petitioned to renew the 
exemption consisting of multiple subparts covering use of short 
portions of motions pictures for various educational and derivative 
uses. No

[[Page 54015]]

oppositions were filed. Petitions to renew the various subparts of the 
exemption are discussed below.
9a. Audiovisual Uses--Educational Uses--Colleges and Universities
    Multiple individuals and organizations petitioned to renew the 
exemption's subpart covering use of motion picture clips for 
educational uses by college and university instructors and students 
(codified at 37 CFR 201.40(b)(1)(iv) (2016)). No oppositions were filed 
against readoption. The petitions demonstrated the continuing need and 
justification for the exemption, and personal knowledge and experience 
with regard to the exempted use. For example, Professors Decherney, 
Sender, and Carpini, the Department of Communications at the University 
of Michigan (``DCSUM''), the International Communication Association 
(``ICA''), the Society for Cinema and Media Studies (``SCMS''), the 
American Association of University Professors (``AAUP''), and the 
Library Copyright Alliance (``LCA'') stated that courses on video 
essays (or multimedia or videographer criticism), now taught at many 
universities, would not be able to exist without relying on this 
exemption. Similarly, Professor Hobbs, who represents more than 17,000 
digital and media literacy educators, and the National Association for 
Media Literacy Education (``NAMLE''), an organization devoted to media 
literacy with more than 3,500 members, stated that teachers must 
sometimes circumvent a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System 
(``CSS'') when screen-capture software or other non-circumventing 
alternatives are unable to produce the required level of high-quality 
content.
9b. Audiovisual Uses--Educational Uses--Primary and Secondary Schools 
(K-12)
    Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemption's subparts 
covering use of motion picture clips for educational uses by K-12 
instructors and students. No oppositions were filed against readoption. 
The petitions demonstrated the continuing need and justification for 
the exemption, stating that K-12 instructors and students continue to 
rely on excerpts from digital media for class presentations and 
coursework, and must sometimes use screen-capture technology. In 
addition, the petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and 
experience with regard to this exemption through representation of 
thousands of digital and literacy educators and/or members supporting 
K-12 instructors and students, combined with past participation in the 
section 1201 triennial rulemaking.
9c. Audiovisual Uses--Educational Uses--Massive Open Online Courses 
(``MOOCs'').
    Professors Decherney, Sender, and Carpini, DCSUM, ICA, SCMS, and 
LCA petitioned to renew the exemption's subpart covering use of motion 
picture clips for educational uses in MOOCs. No oppositions were filed 
against readoption. The petition demonstrated the continuing need and 
justification for the exemption, stating that instructors continue to 
rely on the exemption to develop, provide, and improve MOOCs, as well 
as increase the number of (and therefore access to) MOOCs in the field 
of film and media studies. For example, the declarant, Professor 
Decherney, demonstrated personal knowledge by describing his reliance 
on the exemption to teach MOOCs on film and media studies.
9d. Audiovisual Uses--Educational Uses--Educational Programs Operated 
by Libraries, Museums, and Other Nonprofits
    Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the subpart of the 
exemption covering use of motion picture clips for educational uses in 
digital and literacy programs offered by libraries, museums, and other 
nonprofits. No oppositions were filed against readoption. The petitions 
demonstrated the continuing need and justification for the exemption, 
and demonstrated personal knowledge and experience with regard to the 
exempted use. For example, LCA stated that librarians across the 
country have relied on the current exemption and will continue to do so 
for their digital and literacy programs. In addition, Professor Hobbs 
and NAMLE stated that librarians will continue to rely on the exemption 
for their digital and literacy programs, and to advance the digital 
media knowledge of their patrons.
9e. Audiovisual Uses--Derivative Uses--Multimedia E-Books Offering Film 
Analysis
    A professor and two organizations collectively petitioned to renew 
the subpart of the exemption covering the use of motion picture clips 
for multimedia e-books offering film analysis. No oppositions were 
filed against readoption. The petition demonstrated the continuing need 
and justification for the exemption, attesting that the availability of 
video necessary for authors to undertake film analysis in e-books 
continues to be limited to formats encumbered by technological 
protection measures. In addition, the petitioners demonstrated personal 
knowledge through Professor Buster's continued work on an e-book series 
based on her lecture series, ``Deconstructing Master Filmmakers: The 
Uses of Cinematic Enchantment,'' and Authors Alliance's feedback that 
its members continue to desire authoring e-books that incorporate film 
for the purpose of analysis.
9f. Audiovisual Uses--Derivative Uses--Documentary Filmmaking
    Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the subpart of the 
exemption covering the use of motion picture clips for uses in 
documentary films. No oppositions were filed against readoption. The 
petitions summarized the continuing need and justification for the 
exemption, and the petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and 
experience with regard to the exempted use. For example, Film 
Independent (``FI''), the International Documentary Association 
(``IDA''), Kartemquin Educational Films, Inc. (``KEF''), the Center for 
Independent Documentary (``CID''), and Women in Film and Video 
(``WIFV'') stated that TPMs such as encryption continue to prevent 
filmmakers from accessing needed material in a sufficiently high 
quality to satisfy demands of distributors and viewers. Petitioners 
state that they personally know many filmmakers who have found it 
necessary to rely on this exemption, and will continue to do so.
9g. Audiovisual Uses--Derivative Uses--Noncommercial Remix Videos
    Two organizations petitioned to renew the subpart of the exemption 
covering the use of motion picture clips for uses in noncommercial 
videos. No oppositions were filed against readoption. The petitions 
demonstrated the continuing need and justification for the exemption, 
and the petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and experience with 
regard to the exempted use. For example, the Organization for 
Transformative Works (``OTW'') has advocated for the noncommercial 
video exemption in past triennial rulemakings, and has heard from a 
number of noncommercial remix artists who have used the exemption and 
anticipate needing to use it in the future. Similarly, New Media Rights 
(``NMR'') stated that it has spoken to a number of noncommercial video 
creators who have relied on this exemption, and intend to do so in the 
future.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of this 
exemption, including all of its subparts, and will

[[Page 54016]]

consider proposed expansions below in the discussion on Proposed Class 
1.

B. New or Expanded Designations of Classes

    Based upon the record in this proceeding regarding proposed 
expansions to existing exemptions or newly proposed exemptions, the 
Acting Register recommends that the Librarian determine that the 
following classes of works be exempt from the prohibition against 
circumvention of technological measures set forth in section 
1201(a)(1):
1. Proposed Class 1: Audiovisual Works--Criticism and Comment \44\
    Several petitions sought expansion of the existing exemption for 
circumvention of access controls protecting ``short portions'' of 
motion pictures on DVDs, Blu-Ray discs, and digitally transmitted video 
for purposes of criticism and comment by various users, including 
creators of noncommercial videos, college and university faculty and 
students, faculty of MOOCs, documentary filmmakers, and for nonfiction 
multimedia e-books offering film analysis. With the exception of one 
petition, proponents sought to keep the limitation to circumvention for 
uses of ``short portions'' of motion pictures, which the Register has 
previously found to be ``integral'' in recommending the current 
exemption. The proposed expansions implicate the same types of TPMs 
regardless of proposed noninfringing use, namely CSS-protected DVDs, 
AACS-protected Blu-ray discs, and various TPMs applicable to online 
distribution services. Because the new proposals raised some shared 
concerns, including the impact of TPMs on the alleged noninfringing 
uses of motion pictures and whether alternative methods of accessing 
the content could alleviate potential adverse impacts, the Office 
grouped these petitions into one class. This approach also accounted 
for a petition which proposed an ``overarching exemption that would 
embrace multiple audiovisual classes'' and collapse (essentially) all 
of the subparts in the existing exemption to eliminate limitations on 
the types of user or use--and instead allow circumvention so long as 
the purpose is for criticism and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions for this 
class, including citations to the record and relevant legal 
authority, can be found in the Recommendation at 31-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Screen-Capture Technology
    For several of the activities it covers, the current exemption 
expressly permits the use of screen-capture technology and also allows 
circumvention only where the user ``reasonably believes that screen-
capture software or other non-circumventing alternatives are unable to 
produce the required level of high-quality content.'' Here, proponents 
sought to remove references to screen-capture technology, arguing that 
it is not a viable alternative because it does not permit the proposed 
uses, or else results in degraded-quality (and thus unusable) content. 
Others contended that the dual references to screen-capture technology 
are confusing. In response, opponents argued that screen-capture 
technology remains an adequate alternative to circumvention.
    In the 2015 rulemaking, the Register concluded that certain uses of 
motion picture clips for criticism and comment do not require access to 
higher-quality content, and that screen-capture technology may be an 
alternative to circumvention--but that it can be unclear to users as to 
whether screen-capture technology may in fact involve circumvention. 
Accordingly, in this rulemaking the Acting Register recommended 
retaining a screen-capture provision for these categories to address 
the possibility of circumvention when using this technology. In 
addition, the Acting Register found it appropriate to continue to 
distinguish between purposes requiring high-quality motion picture 
clips and more general purposes that do not.
AACS2 Technology
    Opponents argued that the exemption should not be expanded to 
include AACS2 technology, which is employed to protect ultra-high-
definition or ``4K'' content distributed on Ultra HD Blu-ray discs. 
Opponents maintained that none of the petitions expressly sought 
extension to AACS2, and that the current exemption does not extend to 
AACS2 on Ultra HD Blu-ray discs, as that technology did not exist at 
the time of the 2015 rulemaking. In response, proponents asserted that 
the Acting Register should extend the proposed exemption to AACS2 
technology because although AACS2 is different in form, it is 
fundamentally the same in function.
    The Acting Register found the record insufficient to support 
extending the proposed class to AACS2. Her analysis of this proposed 
exemption thus addressed only TPMs employed on DVDs and Blu-ray discs, 
and by various online streaming services to protect motion pictures.
a. Single Overarching Exemption for Purposes of Comment and Criticism
    EFF, NMR, and OTW proposed permitting circumvention to make use of 
motion picture excerpts so long as the purpose is for criticism and 
comment. They did not provide specific examples of proposed 
noninfringing uses or analyze such proposed uses under the 1201 
statutory factors, but rather focused on ``the value of adopting a 
simple overarching exemption that would embrace multiple audiovisual 
classes'' for purposes of criticism and comment. EFF, NMR, and OTW 
asserted that the existing language is ``practically unreadable'' due 
to their complexities, and ``a challenge for clients and attorneys 
alike to apply in practice.''
    Opponents contended that the petition to create a single 
overarching exemption overstates the complexity of the existing 
exemption, and that the proposed expansion would eliminate carefully 
drawn distinctions among potential users of motion picture content. 
Opponents also asserted that to be appropriately narrow, exemptions 
should identify the specific persons who will be adversely affected in 
their abilities to make noninfringing uses by the section 1201 
prohibition.
    NTIA opposed the removal of all limitations on the types of user or 
use, concluding that ``eliminating all of the categories of specific 
users . . . would stray too far from the statutory requirement of 
specificity.''
    The Acting Register declined to recommend adopting EFF, NMR, and 
OTW's proposed language, finding it overly broad for purposes of 
section 1201, and inconsistent with the rulemaking record upon which 
the current exemption has been adopted. She noted that courts evaluate 
fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the context in which use 
of the work is being made is part of that inquiry (e.g., commercial 
versus noncommercial use). She found that the proposed language would 
eliminate these legally important distinctions.
b. Universities and K-12 Educational Institutions
    BYU filed a petition to create a single consolidated exemption that 
would permit circumvention for nonprofit educational purposes in 
accordance with sections 110(1) and 110(2) of the Copyright Act. BYU 
proposed eliminating the ``criticism and comment'' limitation, 
references to screen-capture technology, and distinctions based on 
education level and type of educational course.
    Opponents argued that although section 110(1) allows certain public

[[Page 54017]]

performances of complete motion pictures in classrooms without 
obtaining licenses, it does not allow those performances to be made 
from unauthorized copies. Opponents also noted that sections 110(1) and 
110(2) provide exceptions only to the public performance and display 
rights, not to the rights of reproduction or distribution, and that 
therefore they would not fully cover the proposed uses, which involve 
making and ``librarying'' copies of full-length films.
    NTIA recommended allowing circumvention for colleges and 
universities to make use of entire motion pictures. In its view, the 
storage of a copy ``in a central secured server available only for 
transmission to the institution's classrooms'' is ``not fundamentally 
different from the uses allowed by the existing exemption'' for 
purposes of analyzing whether the activity is a fair use.
    The Acting Register concluded that section 110 cannot, by itself, 
establish that BYU's proposed activities are noninfringing because any 
performances of motion pictures under sections 110(1) and 110(2) must 
originate from lawfully acquired copies. The Acting Register thus 
evaluated whether the copies made and used to facilitate the proposed 
motion picture performances were themselves noninfringing under section 
112(f) and/or the fair use doctrine. The Acting Register determined 
that on its face, section 112(f) does not permit nonprofit educational 
institutions to make copies to facilitate performances under section 
110(1). She found, however, that section 112(f) does support a 
conclusion that making and temporarily storing digital copies of motion 
pictures to perform ``reasonable and limited portions'' in distance 
teaching would be noninfringing, assuming the other requirements of 
section 110(2) are met. But she determined that such activity appears 
to be already covered by the existing exemption.
    Regarding the use of short motion picture clips in face-to-face 
teaching, the Acting Register concluded that the record demonstrates 
that a significant number of the proposed uses are likely to be fair, 
such as using short film clips to create compilations from foreign 
language films with and without subtitles. By contrast, based on the 
relevant case law, the Acting Register could not conclude as a general 
matter that the contemplated uses of full-length motion pictures are 
likely to be fair. She found that DVD and Blu-ray players are still 
widely available on the market and that extending the exemption to such 
uses could undermine the value of the market for works in those 
formats. She noted that, although institutions may incur a cost in re-
purchasing digital versions of audiovisual works, the section 1201 
exemption process is not meant to guarantee consumers the ability to 
access content through their preferred method or format.
    Ultimately, the Acting Register recommended an expansion that 
allows K-12 and university faculty and students to engage with motion 
picture excerpts of high quality in contexts other than courses 
requiring close analysis of film excerpts, as well as for teaching or 
scholarship more generally. Based upon additional examples provided in 
this rulemaking cycle, the Acting Register recommended that the 
exemption retain the requirement that a person must reasonably believe 
that non-circumventing alternatives are unworkable, but remove the 
references to ``film studies or other courses requiring close 
analysis'' and eliminate distinctions between K-12 and universities and 
colleges, as well as between faculty and students. The Acting Register 
recommended, however, that the exemption require K-12 students to act 
under the direct supervision of K-12 educators.
c. Massively Open Online Courses (``MOOCs'')
    Professors Decherney, Sender, Carpini, and DCSUM requested an 
expansion to allow faculty of MOOCs to circumvent for ``all online 
courses'' (i.e., remove the limitation to ``film studies or other 
courses requiring close analysis of film and media excerpts''), and for 
MOOCs offered by unaccredited and for-profit educational institutions. 
They maintained that without expanding the exempted use of MOOCs, there 
would be no ability for unaccredited, for-profit, or for-credit online 
educational offerings to use motion picture clips in MOOCs without 
licensing. They also argued that because the motion picture clips in 
this context would be used exclusively for educational purposes, such 
use would be unlikely to harm the market for motion pictures.
    Opponents argued that proponents failed to support their assertion 
that including for-profit and unaccredited educational institutions 
likely constitutes fair use, and that the record lacked any examples of 
for-profit or unaccredited educational institutions wanting, but 
unable, to offer MOOCs, suggesting the expansion would cover only 
speculative uses.
    Based on its review of the record, NTIA recommended expansion to 
for-profit educational institutions, but not to unaccredited 
educational institutions.
    The Acting Register concluded that the record lacked examples 
sufficient to evaluate or recommend expansion to for-profit or 
unaccredited educational institutions, and did not demonstrate that 
section 1201 is inhibiting the use of motion pictures in online 
education offered by for-profit and/or unaccredited educational 
institutions. The Acting Register also found that proponents' broadly 
framed proposal seeking to encompass ``all online courses'' would 
seemingly encompass any online video that could be characterized as an 
educational experience. The Register therefore recommended that the 
MOOCs language from the existing exemption be readopted without 
substantive changes.
d. Filmmaking
    FI, IDA, and KEF sought expansion of the current exemption to 
permit circumvention for use of motion picture clips in all types of 
films (i.e., remove the ``documentary'' limitation), a request rejected 
by the Register in 2015. Proponents argued that the exemption should be 
expanded because defining a ``documentary'' film is difficult, as many 
films that are not traditionally classified as a ``documentary'' use 
motion picture excerpts to engage in educational and social commentary. 
Proponents also asserted that many filmmakers do not know whether they 
are permitted to use the exemption.
    The 2015 rulemaking identified fair use as the noninfringing basis 
for this exemption, and the Acting Register evaluated the proposed 
expansion on the same grounds. Proponents provided multiple examples of 
non-documentary films using short motion picture clips for parody or 
for the clip's biographical or historical significance, ostensibly to 
provide criticism or commentary. Proponents also disputed that either 
clips created using non-circumventing screen capture technology, or 
clips obtained via licensing are viable alternatives for the proposed 
uses, and argued that expansion of the exemption to non-documentaries 
would not affect the market for motion pictures.
    Opponents maintained that proponents failed to develop a record of 
likely noninfringing uses to support extension of the exemption to non-
documentary films. Opponents also argued that the proposed uses would 
negatively impact the clip licensing market for motion pictures, and 
that licenses are readily available for using short portions of motion 
pictures. Opponents further contended that screen-capture technologies 
serve as valid alternatives to circumvention.
    NTIA concluded that the existing exemption should be expanded to 
all

[[Page 54018]]

films. It maintained that the record supports a finding that in many 
instances the use of short portions of motion pictures is likely a 
noninfringing fair use and that opponents failed to demonstrate the 
expansion to non-documentaries would cause market harm.
    Based on the extensive record, the Acting Register recommended that 
the existing exemption for documentary films be expanded to include a 
subset of fictional (e.g., narrative) films for purposes of criticism 
and comment, where the clip is used for parody or its biographical or 
historically significant nature. She concluded this limitation would 
best reflect the examples in the record, many of which appear to 
involve the use of clips for purposes of criticism and comment, while 
preserving the requirement that filmmakers continue to seek 
authorization before using excerpts for general storytelling uses. The 
Acting Register found that the use of small portions of films for these 
purposes is consistent with principles of fair use and is unlikely to 
supplant the market for motion pictures, but cautioned that filmmakers 
would continue to need to obtain authorization for uses of clips 
outside of these uses.
e. Multimedia E-Books
    The Authors Alliance, AAUP, OTW, the Interactive Fiction Technology 
Foundation, and Professor Buster (collectively, ``Authors Alliance et 
al.'') sought expansion of the current exemption to permit 
circumvention for use of motion picture clips in all nonfiction 
multimedia e-books by removing the ``offering film analysis'' 
limitation. Authors Alliance et al. also sought expansion to fictional 
multimedia e-books and removal of references to screen-capture 
technology.
    The 2015 rulemaking identified fair use as the noninfringing basis 
for this exemption, and the proposed expansion was evaluated on the 
same grounds. Proponents asserted that the uses of clips for comment or 
criticism in nonfiction multimedia e-books beyond those offering film 
analysis, as well as fictional multimedia e-books, are transformative 
and thus fair. Proponents also argued that expansion will not 
negatively impact the market for or value of copyrighted works. 
Proponents asserted that screen capture is an inadequate alternative to 
circumvention and that licensing remains an unworkable alternative due 
to high fees, difficulties in locating the rightsholders, and the 
delays caused by protracted negotiations.
    In response, opponents argued that the record lacked evidence of 
actual use of a motion picture clip in a fictional e-book or in an 
``other nonfiction'' e-book, and that in the absence of actual use, 
evaluating the proposal is all but impossible. Regarding nonfictional 
uses, opponents asserted that many of the alleged additional uses would 
qualify under the current ``film analysis'' limitation. As to fictional 
uses, opponents maintained that the creation of fan fiction multimedia 
e-books would frequently infringe the right to prepare derivative 
works. Opponents also asserted that as with the proposed filmmaking 
expansion, there will be harm to the clip licensing market if the 
proposed e-books uses are exempted.
    NTIA recommended expanding the exempted use to include all 
nonfiction multimedia e-books (i.e., eliminating the ``offering film 
analysis'' limitation), but did not recommend expansion to fictional 
multimedia e-books.
    The Acting Register found that the record failed to establish that 
the proposed uses in fictional e-books would likely be noninfringing, 
and thus she did not recommend expanding the exemption to such works. 
She did find, however, that the record supported expansion to all 
nonfiction multimedia e-books. Such an expansion, she concluded, is 
unlikely to harm, and may increase, the availability of copyrighted 
works. In addition, the Acting Register found that the proposed uses 
will facilitate criticism, comment, teaching and/or scholarship, and 
that they are unlikely to substitute for the original work in the 
marketplace.
f. Conclusion for Class 1
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian 
adopt the following exemption:

    Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as 
defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where the motion picture is lawfully made 
and acquired on a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System, on a 
Blu-ray disc protected by the Advanced Access Content System, or via 
a digital transmission protected by a technological measure, and the 
person engaging in circumvention under paragraph (b)(1)(i) and 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section reasonably believes that non-
circumventing alternatives are unable to produce the required level 
of high-quality content, or the circumvention is undertaken using 
screen-capture technology that appears to be offered to the public 
as enabling the reproduction of motion pictures after content has 
been lawfully acquired and decrypted, where circumvention is 
undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the 
motion pictures in the following instances:
    (i) For the purpose of criticism or comment:
    (A) For use in documentary filmmaking, or other films where the 
motion picture clip is used in parody or for its biographical or 
historically significant nature;
    (B) For use in noncommercial videos (including videos produced 
for a paid commission if the commissioning entity's use is 
noncommercial); or
    (C) For use in nonfiction multimedia e-books.
    (ii) For educational purposes:
    (A) By college and university faculty and students or 
kindergarten through twelfth-grade (K-12) educators and students 
(where the K-12 student is circumventing under the direct 
supervision of an educator), including of accredited general 
educational development (GED) programs, for the purpose of 
criticism, comment, teaching, or scholarship;
    (B) By faculty of massive open online courses (MOOCs) offered by 
accredited nonprofit educational institutions to officially enrolled 
students through online platforms (which platforms themselves may be 
operated for profit), in film studies or other courses requiring 
close analysis of film and media excerpts, for the purpose of 
criticism or comment, where the MOOC provider through the online 
platform limits transmissions to the extent technologically feasible 
to such officially enrolled students, institutes copyright policies 
and provides copyright informational materials to faculty, students, 
and relevant staff members, and applies technological measures that 
reasonably prevent unauthorized further dissemination of a work in 
accessible form to others or retention of the work for longer than 
the course session by recipients of a transmission through the 
platform, as contemplated by 17 U.S.C. 110(2); or
    (C) By educators and participants in nonprofit digital and media 
literacy programs offered by libraries, museums, and other nonprofit 
entities with an educational mission, in the course of face-to-face 
instructional activities, for the purpose of criticism or comment, 
except that such users may only circumvent using screen-capture 
technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling the 
reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully 
acquired and decrypted.

2. Proposed Class 2: Audiovisual Works--Accessibility 45
    Proposed Class 2 would allow circumvention of technological 
measures protecting motion pictures (including television shows and 
videos) on DVDs, Blu-ray discs, and via digital transmissions, for 
disability services professionals at educational institutions to create 
accessible versions for students with disabilities by adding captions 
and/or audio description.\46\ Proponents

[[Page 54019]]

explained that nearly all educational institutions are subject to 
disability laws such as the Americans With Disabilities Act (``ADA''), 
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (``Section 504''), and the 
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (``IDEA''), which require 
accommodations for students with disabilities. Proponents maintained 
that creating accessible versions by adding captions and/or audio 
description is necessary because inaccessible motion pictures remain 
prevalent in the video industry, and copyright owners fail to 
retroactively make motion pictures accessible or grant permission to 
disability services offices to make those works accessible, even when 
contacted directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions for this 
class, including citations to the record and relevant legal 
authority, can be found in the Recommendation at 89-111.
    \46\ ``Captioning'' is ``the process of converting the audio 
content'' of audiovisual material, such as a motion picture, ``into 
text and displaying the text on a screen, monitor, or other visual 
display system.'' Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, What is Captioning?, 
NAD.ORG, https://www.nad.org/resources/technology/captioning-for-access/what-is-captioning/ (last visited Oct. 2, 2018). By contrast, 
``audio description'' is a narration added to the soundtrack of 
audiovisual material, such as a motion picture, to describe 
significant visual details (e.g., descriptions of new scenes, 
settings, costumes, body language) for individuals with sight 
impairments. Am. Council of the Blind, The Audio Description 
Project, ACB.ORG, http://www.acb.org/adp/ad.html (last visited Oct. 
2, 2018). Audio description may also be referred to as ``video 
description'' or ``descriptive narration.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proponents asserted that adding captions and/or audio description 
to motion pictures for the purpose of making them accessible to 
students with disabilities constitutes fair use based on the 
legislative history of section 107. Proponents also argued that viable 
alternatives to circumvention do not exist, and that not allowing 
circumvention will negatively affect the market for the copyrighted 
motion pictures because educational institutions will not use content 
that they cannot easily convert into an accessible format.
    In response, opponents noted that while accessibility is an 
important issue, the proposed class was too broad because it did not 
take into account the extent to which DVDs and Blu-ray discs already 
include closed captions and audio description. They argued that the 
result of altering a motion picture--such as by adding captioning and/
or audio description--is likely a derivative work that involves a 
creative interpretation of the underlying work. Opponents generally 
contended that the wide availability of versions with captioning and/or 
audio description already in the market constitutes a viable 
alternative to circumvention.
    NTIA recommended that the proposed exemption allow ``disability 
services offices and equivalent units'' to ``circumvent TPMs on 
audiovisual works in educational settings to add accessibility 
features'' to motion pictures, including ``through the provision of 
closed and open captions and audio description.'' In agreement with the 
Acting Register, NTIA believes that the exemption should apply 
``regardless of grade level'' of the student, and apply to both 
nonprofit and for-profit educational institutions required to make 
motion pictures accessible to students under disability laws.
    The Acting Register concluded that an exemption should be granted, 
with a few adjustments to the language outlined in the petition. She 
recommended that the exemption permit circumvention where the 
accessible version is created as a necessary accommodation for a 
student or students with disabilities under a federal or state 
disability law, such as the ADA, IDEA, or Section 504. In addition, the 
Acting Register recommended that the exemption apply to for-profit and 
nonprofit educational institutions, as well as to K-12 institutions, 
colleges, and universities, because they are subject to such disability 
laws. The Acting Register also recommended that the exemption allow 
circumvention only after the educational institution has conducted a 
reasonable market check and determined that an accessible version is 
not available, not available at a fair price, or not available in a 
timely way. The record suggested that these searches are already 
occurring, and that regardless of whether a decision is made to create 
an accessible version, outsource the creation of an accessible version, 
or purchase an accessible version, the educational institution would 
incur a cost. In this way, the market check requirement seeks to 
prevent copies being made of works already available in accessible 
formats, while encouraging the motion picture industry to further 
expand the availability of accessible versions in the marketplace. 
Finally, the recommended exemption requires the accessible versions to 
be provided to students and stored by the educational institution in a 
manner that reasonably prevents unauthorized further dissemination of 
the work.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian 
adopt the following exemption:

    (i) Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as 
defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where the motion picture is lawfully 
acquired on a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System, on a 
Blu-ray disc protected by the Advanced Access Content System, or via 
a digital transmission protected by a technological measure, where:
    (A) Circumvention is undertaken by a disability services office 
or other unit of a kindergarten through twelfth-grade educational 
institution, college, or university engaged in and/or responsible 
for the provision of accessibility services to students, for the 
purpose of adding captions and/or audio description to a motion 
picture to create an accessible version as a necessary accommodation 
for a student or students with disabilities under an applicable 
disability law, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act, the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act;
    (B) The educational institution unit in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) 
of this section has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an 
accessible version cannot be obtained at a fair price or in a timely 
manner; and
    (C) The accessible versions are provided to students or 
educators and stored by the educational institution in a manner 
intended to reasonably prevent unauthorized further dissemination of 
a work.
    (ii) For purposes of this paragraph (b)(2), ``audio 
description'' means an oral narration that provides an accurate 
rendering of the motion picture.
3. Proposed Class 5: Computer Programs--Unlocking \47\
    Proposed Class 5 would expand an existing exemption for activity 
known as ``unlocking,'' that is, circumvention of access controls on 
computer programs for the purpose of enabling a wireless device to 
connect to a different mobile network provider. The Copyright Office 
has received petitions to permit the unlocking of cellphones since 
2006. In 2015, as directed by the Unlocking Consumer Choice and 
Wireless Competition Act (``Unlocking Act''),\48\ the Register 
considered whether to expand the exemption to additional categories of 
wireless devices. Based on the record in that proceeding, the Register 
recommended, and the Librarian granted, an exemption covering 
cellphones, all-purpose tablet computers, portable mobile connectivity 
devices such as mobile hotspots, and wearable devices such as 
smartwatches or fitness devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The Register's analysis and conclusions for this class, 
including citations to the record and relevant legal authority, can 
be found in the Recommendation at 145-63.
    \48\ Public Law 113-144, 128 Stat. 1751 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current exemption also is limited to used devices, i.e. those 
previously activated on a wireless carrier. First adopted in 2010, this 
limitation was implemented in response to concerns raised by wireless 
carriers engaged in the business of selling cellphones at substantially 
discounted prices and recouping that investment through the sale of 
prepaid wireless service. These companies feared that including new

[[Page 54020]]

phones in the class could foster illegal trafficking activity, which 
involves ``the bulk purchase of unused handsets that have been offered 
for sale at subsidized prices . . . and then unlocking and reselling 
those unlocked handsets for a profit.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 2015 Recommendation at 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proceeding, ISRI petitioned for expansions that would (1) 
remove the enumerated device categories and instead permit 
circumvention to unlock ``any wireless device''; and (2) eliminate the 
requirement that a wireless device be ``used.'' As to the limitation on 
devices, proponents argued that the owner of any connected device 
should be able to transfer it to the carrier of his or her choice. 
Proponents warned that the rapid pace of innovation within the Internet 
of Things industry makes it impossible to predict the specific 
categories of wireless devices that consumers may need to unlock. 
Regarding the ``used'' limitation, proponents argued that illegal 
trafficking does not implicate copyright interests and that concerns 
about such activity therefore are outside the proper scope of this 
rulemaking. Proponents further suggested that, in contrast to 2015, 
there now exists a need to unlock unused devices, offering examples of 
corporations acquiring excess devices that are never activated but that 
they later seek to recycle. The Office received no comments opposing 
either of these requested expansions.
    NTIA recommended granting both aspects of the petition. As it did 
in 2015, NTIA concluded that ``proponents have provided sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that circumvention of TPMs on all lawfully 
acquired wireless devices is a noninfringing use.'' In its view, the 
statutory prohibition ``limits consumer choice of wireless network 
providers, limits recyclers' ability to recycle or resell wireless 
devices, and limits competition between wireless network providers.'' 
NTIA also concluded that proponents met their burden with respect to 
unused devices, pointing to evidence that since 2015, ``business 
practices have changed, resulting in a need for bulk and individual 
unlocking of new wireless devices.'' NTIA proposes replacing the term 
``used'' in the exemption with the phrase ``lawfully acquired.''
    The Acting Register recommended expanding the exemption to unused 
devices falling within the categories listed in the current exemption. 
She concluded that unlocking such devices is likely noninfringing under 
section 117(a) of the Copyright Act for the same reasons noted in the 
2015 Recommendation with respect to used devices. She further found 
that unlocking such devices is likely a fair use, regardless of whether 
the devices are new or used. With respect to potential cellphone 
trafficking, the Acting Register found that although such activity 
limits the network provider's ability to sell devices at a discount, 
there were no allegations relating to trafficking raised in this 
proceeding, and it is not clear that the economic harm caused by that 
activity affects the value of the computer programs allowing devices to 
connect to wireless networks. She further noted that other causes of 
action, such as unfair competition or unjust enrichment, may be 
available to address injury to non-copyright interests. In addition, 
the Acting Register concluded that absent an exemption, users are 
likely to be adversely affected in their ability to unlock unused 
devices of these types. She found that extending the exemption to such 
devices will increase the availability of the software within them and 
that the record lacked evidence that doing so would harm the market for 
copyrighted works.
    The Acting Register therefore recommended removal of the provision 
in the current exemption requiring that a covered device be ``used.'' 
Consistent with NTIA's recommendation, she proposed adding language 
requiring that such a device be ``lawfully acquired.'' Because the 
regulations implementing the Unlocking Act already require that 
circumvention under this exemption be initiated by the ``owner'' of the 
relevant device or by a person or service provider at the direction of 
the owner, the Acting Register views this as a technical, rather than a 
substantive, change.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 37 CFR 201.40(c) (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Acting Register determined, however, that the record was 
insufficient to support expanding the exemption to additional types of 
wireless devices. As in 2015, she found the record too sparse to 
support a finding that unlocking wireless devices of all types is 
likely to be a fair use. Proponents did provide evidence regarding 
three specific categories of devices: Home security devices, 
agricultural equipment, and vehicle GPS trackers. Based on the record, 
the Acting Register concluded that these devices are similar to those 
covered by the current exemption in relevant respects, and that 
unlocking them therefore is likely to be a fair use. But she concluded 
that proponents failed to establish that they are, or are likely to be, 
adversely affected by section 1201 in their ability to unlock these 
types of devices. Proponents did not demonstrate that it would be 
possible to connect these devices to an alternate wireless network even 
if an exemption were granted. The Acting Register thus found that they 
failed to carry their burden to show actual or likely adverse effects 
resulting from the bar on circumvention. She therefore declined to 
recommend removal of the exemption's enumerated device categories.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian 
adopt the following exemption:

    Computer programs that enable the following types of lawfully 
acquired wireless devices to connect to a wireless 
telecommunications network, when circumvention is undertaken solely 
in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and 
such connection is authorized by the operator of such network:
    (i) Wireless telephone handsets (i.e., cellphones);
    (ii) All-purpose tablet computers;
    (iii) Portable mobile connectivity devices, such as mobile 
hotspots, removable wireless broadband modems, and similar devices; 
and
    (iv) Wearable wireless devices designed to be worn on the body, 
such as smartwatches or fitness devices.

4. Proposed Class 6: Computer Programs--Jailbreaking \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions for this 
class, including citations to the record and relevant legal 
authority, can be found in the Recommendation at 163-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Class 6 would expand an existing exemption for activity 
known as ``jailbreaking''--that is, the process of gaining access to 
the operating system of a computing device to install and execute 
software that could not otherwise be installed or run on that device, 
or to remove pre-installed software that could not otherwise be 
uninstalled. An existing exemption permits the jailbreaking of 
smartphones and portable all-purpose mobile computing devices. In this 
proceeding, EFF filed a petition seeking to expand the current 
exemption by: (1) Adding voice assistant devices, such as the Amazon 
Echo and Google Home, to the categories of devices covered by the 
exemption; and (2) allowing jailbreaking not only to install, run, or 
remove software, but also for the purpose of enabling or disabling 
hardware features of the relevant device.
    In proponents' view, the fair use analysis relied upon by the 
Register in recommending the previous jailbreaking exemptions is 
equally applicable in the context of voice assistant devices. Moreover, 
regarding the 1201 statutory factors, proponents argued that a

[[Page 54021]]

jailbreaking exemption will have either no effect or a positive effect 
on the availability of copyrighted firmware and application software.
    Opponents principally argued that jailbreaking is likely to enable 
voice assistant devices to access pirated content. Opponents asserted 
that piracy concerns are greater in the context of voice assistant 
devices than in that of other devices, as the former are relatively 
simple devices that do not incorporate the same ``hardware and software 
complexity'' that exists in personal computers, and therefore they 
provide more limited security options. Opponents further suggested that 
jailbreaking would facilitate the installation of counterfeit apps and 
apps that enable unauthorized access to copyrighted content. Opponents 
challenged the contention that jailbreaking is necessary to promote the 
development of new applications.
    NTIA recommended granting the exemption in the form requested by 
proponents.
    It agreed that jailbreaking voice assistant devices is unlikely to 
harm the market for copyrighted works, noting that there is no evidence 
of market harm for the devices covered by the current exemption. NTIA 
rejected opponents' argument about unauthorized access to entertainment 
content on the ground that it ``fail[s] to explain why infringement is 
more likely on voice assistant platforms than on smartphones, tablets, 
and other devices already subject to the exemption.'' NTIA further 
concluded that proponents had demonstrated that users in this class are 
adversely affected by the statutory prohibition.
    The Acting Register found that proponents met their burden of 
showing that jailbreaking voice assistant devices within the meaning of 
the current exemption is likely to be a fair use. She concluded that 
the record failed to show that the prior jailbreaking exemptions have 
harmed the market for firmware in smartphones or all-purpose mobile 
devices, and that nothing in the record suggests that a different 
conclusion is warranted for voice assistant devices. Additionally, the 
Acting Register found the record insufficient to establish that an 
expanded exemption is likely to harm the market for copyrighted works 
streamed to voice assistant devices. While acknowledging that piracy of 
streamed content is a highly significant concern, the evidence was 
insufficient to conclude that allowing jailbreaking of voice assistant 
devices created a greater risk of unauthorized access to streaming 
content than exists with respect to other devices, and suggested that 
subscription streaming services typically control access to their 
content with TPMs separate from those protecting the firmware. The 
Acting Register thus recommended adoption of an exemption authorizing 
the jailbreaking of voice assistant devices, which must be ``designed 
to take user input primarily by voice.'' The recommended exemption 
excludes video game consoles, set-top boxes, DVD and Blu-Ray players, 
and similar devices that typically are operated using buttons. To 
address opponents' serious concerns over the potential use of 
jailbroken devices as platforms for unauthorized content, the Acting 
Register recommended including language expressly excluding 
circumvention undertaken for purpose of accessing such material.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian 
adopt the following exemption:

    Computer programs that enable voice assistant devices to execute 
lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is 
accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of 
such applications with computer programs on the device, or to permit 
removal of software from the device, and is not accomplished for the 
purpose of gaining unauthorized access to other copyrighted works. 
For purposes of this paragraph (b)(8), a ``voice assistant device'' 
is a device that is primarily designed to run a wide variety of 
programs rather than for consumption of a particular type of media 
content, is designed to take user input primarily by voice, and is 
designed to be installed in a home or office.

5. Proposed Class 7: Computer Programs--Repair \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions for these 
classes, including citations to the record and relevant legal 
authority, can be found in the Recommendation at 185-231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several organizations petitioned to expand the current exemption 
allowing for circumvention of access controls controlling the 
functioning of motorized land vehicles for purposes of diagnosis, 
repair, or lawful modification of a vehicle function to allow an 
additional range of activities. The Office synthesized these 
suggestions into Proposed Class 7. Although the commenters' proposals 
varied in scope, and there was no singular unified proposed exemption, 
the Acting Register grouped them into the following four categories:

    (1) Removing the current limitation prohibiting circumvention of 
TPMs to access computer programs primarily designed for the control 
of vehicle telematics and entertainment systems;
    (2) expanding the exemption to apply to other types of software-
enabled devices, including appliances, computers, toys, and other 
Internet of Things devices;
    (3) extending the exemption to allow circumvention by third-
party service providers, and in particular, independent vehicle 
repair shops, for purposes of diagnosis, repair, and lawful 
modification; and
    (4) allowing the acquisition, use, and dissemination of 
circumvention tools in furtherance of diagnosis, repair, and 
modification.

    The Acting Register first considered proposed expansions within the 
context of motorized land vehicles, and then addressed expansion of the 
exemption to other types of devices.
    Regarding motorized land vehicles, proponents asserted that 
diagnosis, repair, and lawful modification of vehicle telematics and 
entertainment systems are fair uses and noninfringing under section 
117. Proponents contended that, because these systems are increasingly 
integrated with functional vehicle firmware, access is necessary to 
engage in diagnosis, repair, and lawful modification of vehicle 
functions--activities the Register found to be likely noninfringing in 
recommending the existing exemption. Proponents sought access to 
telematics systems in order to obtain diagnostic data for the same 
purposes. Proponents asserted that vehicle firmware is ``effectively 
useless'' outside of the vehicle, with essentially no separate market 
for the software apart from the vehicles. In addition, proponents 
suggested users should be permitted to access ``storage capacity'' in 
vehicle entertainment systems, and to repair infotainment/entertainment 
modules.
    In response, opponents contended that the proposed activities are 
not favored under fair use because access to entertainment and 
telematics systems could allow unauthorized access to expressive 
content. Opponents asserted that telematics and entertainment firmware 
have value apart from a vehicle, and may be paid for on a continuing 
basis separate from the vehicle purchase. Opponents also argued that 
circumvention of telematics is unnecessary because diagnostic data is 
still available through the onboard diagnostics port and, further, a 
nationwide Memorandum of Understanding requires manufacturers to make 
this data available to vehicle owners and independent repair shops.
    Commenters seeking to expand the exemption to allow diagnosis, 
repair, and modification of other software-enabled devices likewise 
asserted that these activities are noninfringing under the fair use 
doctrine and section 117. The Acting Register considered these

[[Page 54022]]

arguments for those types of devices cognizably reflected in the 
record, namely home appliances, smartphones, video game consoles, 
computers and ancillary or peripheral computing devices, and 
consumables, plus a few examples of specific additional devices.
    Opponents maintained that repair of these devices is not a 
transformative use because it merely causes a device to be used for the 
same purpose for which it was originally intended. In some cases, 
opponents also suggested that once the firmware on some devices is 
accessed, even for repair, it is compromised such that it can no longer 
prevent piracy; and consequently, these uses diminish the value of and 
market for the devices and other creative works. Regarding repair of 
video game consoles specifically, opponents expressed concern that 
circumvention of TPMs creates the risk of unauthorized access to 
content and piracy.
    Concerning third-party assistance, several proponents requested 
that the exemption specifically permit third parties, such as repair 
services, to assist owners in carrying out the authorized activities. 
Alternatively, proponents suggested removing the current exemption 
language requiring that circumvention be ``undertaken by the authorized 
owner'' of the vehicle. Regarding circumvention tools, proponents asked 
the Office to recommend language that would allow exemption 
beneficiaries, including third parties, to not only make, use, and 
acquire tools, but also to distribute them. Opponents contended that 
the proposals concerning third-party assistance and circumvention tools 
would impermissibly expand the exemption to activity that would 
constitute unlawful trafficking in violation of sections 1201(a)(2) and 
(b).
    NTIA supported expanding the exemption to a ``new definable sub-
class'' of home appliances and mobile handsets (such as cell phones) 
``when circumvention is a necessary step to allow the diagnosis, 
repair, or lawful modification of a device function.'' NTIA concluded 
that these are noninfringing fair uses, in part because ``diagnosis is 
a critical component of repairing a device'' and subsequent 
modification of devices is transformative. With respect to vehicles, 
NTIA supported expanding the existing exemption to allow ``use of 
telematics data for diagnostic purposes.'' It recommended, however, 
``limiting use to obtaining the diagnostic data from the telematics 
module for purposes of repair and modification of the vehicle, and not 
repair or modification to the module itself.'' As to vehicle 
entertainment systems, NTIA ``continue[d] to have reservations about 
the strength of [the] record and the potential for infringement'' and 
did not recommend an expansion to permit access for the proposed uses, 
including ``storage capacity.''
    NTIA further recommended removing the current exemption's reference 
to ``the authorized owner of the vehicle''--a change that it 
characterizes as ``extending the current exemption to allow third-party 
service providers to diagnose, repair and modify software- enabled 
vehicles on behalf of owners.'' But NTIA recommended denying the 
proposals to ``permit third-party commercialization of software repair 
tools for vehicles in this class,'' concluding that such activity is 
``likely to constitute trafficking.''
    The Acting Register recommended expanding the current exemption in 
areas where there was sufficient record support for such a change, 
while retaining language to ensure that both the class of works and the 
permitted uses are appropriately defined. As a result, the Acting 
Register recommended two separate exemptions, one relating to motorized 
land vehicles, and one related to the repair and maintenance of 
additional categories of devices.
    Regarding motor vehicles, the recommended exemption removes the 
requirement that circumvention be ``undertaken by the authorized 
owner'' of the vehicle, instead providing that it apply where such 
items are ``lawfully acquired.'' This change responds to proponents' 
concerns that the language of the existing exemption improperly 
excludes other users with a legitimate interest in engaging in 
noninfringing diagnosis, repair, or modification activities. The Acting 
Register expressed no view on whether particular types of third-party 
assistance may or may not implicate the anti-trafficking provisions. 
Those provisions, found in section 1201(a)(2) and (b), are unchanged 
and must be separately analyzed to determine whether third-party 
assistance would be permissible.
    The Acting Register also recommended removing the language 
excluding access to computer programs designed for the control of 
telematics or entertainment systems. The Acting Register was persuaded 
that, due to increasing integration of vehicle computer systems since 
the 2015 rulemaking, retaining this limitation may impede noninfringing 
uses that can only be accomplished by incidentally accessing these 
systems. Nonetheless, the Acting Register credited opponents' concerns 
about unauthorized access to expressive works through subscription 
services unrelated to vehicle functioning, and accordingly the 
recommended exemption specifically excludes access to ``programs 
accessed through a separate subscription service.'' While the broadened 
exemption permits incidental access to a vehicle infotainment system, 
it provides that such access is allowed only to the extent it is ``a 
necessary step to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of 
a vehicle function'' and includes the additional requirement that 
circumvention may not be ``accomplished for the purpose of gaining 
unauthorized access to other copyrighted works.'' Because the Acting 
Register found the record insufficient to support expanding the 
exemption to permit diagnosis, repair, or lawful modification of the 
telematics and infotainment systems themselves, the regulatory language 
does not extend to those activities.
    In addition, the Acting Register recommended a new exemption 
allowing for the circumvention of TPMs restricting access to firmware 
that controls smartphones and home appliances and home systems for the 
purposes of diagnosis, maintenance, or repair. In doing so, the Acting 
Register adopted the definitions of ``maintenance'' and ``repair'' in 
section 117(d). Here again, the recommended text includes the condition 
that circumvention not be ``accomplished for the purpose of gaining 
unauthorized access to other copyrighted works.'' The Acting Register 
did not recommend extending this exemption to circumvention for 
purposes of modifying a device function, concluding that 
``modification'' was not defined with sufficient precision to conclude 
as a general category it is likely to be noninfringing.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian 
adopt the following exemptions:

    (1) Computer programs that are contained in and control the 
functioning of a lawfully acquired motorized land vehicle such as a 
personal automobile, commercial vehicle or mechanized agricultural 
vehicle, except for programs accessed through a separate 
subscription service, when circumvention is a necessary step to 
allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle 
function, where such circumvention does not constitute a violation 
of applicable law, including without limitation regulations 
promulgated by the Department of Transportation or the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and is not accomplished for the purpose of 
gaining unauthorized access to other copyrighted works.
    (2) Computer programs that are contained in and control the 
functioning of a lawfully

[[Page 54023]]

acquired smartphone or home appliance or home system, such as a 
refrigerator, thermostat, HVAC or electrical system, when 
circumvention is a necessary step to allow the diagnosis, 
maintenance or repair of such a device or system, and is not 
accomplished for the purpose of gaining access to other copyrighted 
works. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(10):
    (i) The ``maintenance'' of a device or system is the servicing 
of the device or system in order to make it work in accordance with 
its original specifications and any changes to those specifications 
authorized for that device or system; and
    (ii) The ``repair'' of a device or system is the restoring of 
the device or system to the state of working in accordance with its 
original specifications and any changes to those specifications 
authorized for that device or system.

6. Proposed Class 9: Computer Programs--Software Preservation \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Because the issues in this class are relevant to the 
analysis in Proposed Class 8, which pertains specifically to video 
games, the Acting Register addresses this class first. The Acting 
Register's analysis and conclusions for this class, including 
citations to the record and relevant legal authority, can be found 
in the Recommendation at 231-56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Class 9 seeks to address concerns that TPMs applied to 
computer programs can interfere with legitimate preservation 
activities. The Software Preservation Network (``SPN'') and the LCA 
filed a petition that would allow ``libraries, archives, museums, and 
other cultural heritage institutions'' to circumvent TPMs on ``lawfully 
acquired software for the purposes of preserving software and software-
dependent materials.'' SPN and LCA explained that the proposed 
exemption is intended to enable cultural heritage institutions to 
preserve both TPM-protected computer programs, as well as ``dependent'' 
materials--``writings, calculations, software programs, etc.'' stored 
in digital formats that are inaccessible without running the underlying 
program. Although proposed Class 9 constitutes a new exemption, 
proponents noted that the Register recommended, and the Librarian 
granted, exemptions for software preservation in 2003 and 2006, which 
allowed circumvention of access controls on computer programs and video 
games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require 
the original media or hardware as a condition of access. Proponents 
advanced three bases for finding their proposed activities to be 
noninfringing: (1) The fair use doctrine, (2) the section 108(c) 
exception for library and archival replacement copies, and (3) the 
section 117(a) exception for archival copies of computer programs.
    Opponents contended that the proposal is overbroad because (1) the 
exemption would improperly allow circumvention for activities beyond 
those provided for in the section 108 exceptions for libraries and 
archives; (2) the term ``computer program-dependent materials'' might 
be read to sweep in any category of copyrightable work; and (3) the 
term ``other cultural heritage institutions'' within the class of 
beneficiaries is undefined. Although opponents did not directly contest 
proponents' fair use arguments, they did assert that section 117(a)(2) 
does not protect proponents' activities.
    NTIA supported adopting the proposed exemption. In its view, the 
class was appropriately defined because it was limited to ``computer 
programs, to preservation uses, and to preservation-oriented 
institutional users.'' It agreed with proponents that the exemption 
should expressly refer to preservation of ``computer program-dependent 
materials,'' concluding that ``a user would not be able to access those 
materials without preserving the software protected by a TPM.'' It also 
agreed that the exemption should include video games, noting that 
proponents provided specific examples of games that may not be covered 
by the current preservation exemption. In addition, it found that there 
were no reasonable alternatives to circumvention, as the use of 
software with backwards compatibility ``is inadequate and can distort 
the original work.''
    The Acting Register recommended granting an exemption that 
incorporates most of the substance of proponents' request, with certain 
changes to address opponents' concerns. First, the recommended language 
limits the eligible users to libraries, archives, and museums, as 
defined according to the criteria proposed in the Office's recent 
Section 108 Discussion Document.\54\ The Acting Register declined to 
recommend including ``other cultural heritage institutions'' within the 
class of beneficiaries, finding that term to be undefined and 
potentially far-reaching. In addition, the Acting Register recommended 
that the exemption incorporate proponents' suggestion that the class be 
defined as computer programs ``that have been lawfully acquired and 
that are no longer reasonably available in the commercial 
marketplace.'' The Acting Register also recommended that in lieu of 
including the phrase ``computer program-dependent materials'' as a 
defined term, the recommended exemption simply provide that 
circumvention is permitted for the purpose of ``lawful preservation . . 
. of digital materials dependent upon a computer program as a condition 
of access.'' Finally, in response to concerns over having video game 
preservation governed by two separate exemptions, the Acting Register 
recommended that the portion of this class pertaining to video games be 
codified in the existing video game preservation exemption. Thus, the 
recommended exemption for Class 9 will cover computer programs other 
than video games, while an addition to the prior exemption for video 
games will provide for preservation of the video games addressed by 
this class (i.e., those that do not require an external server for 
gameplay). Preservation of server-based games will continue to be 
governed by the recommended exemption for Class 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See U.S. Copyright Office, Section 108 of Title 17 51 
(2017), https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section108/discussion-document.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian 
adopt the following exemption:

    (i) Computer programs, except video games, that have been 
lawfully acquired and that are no longer reasonably available in the 
commercial marketplace, solely for the purpose of lawful 
preservation of a computer program, or of digital materials 
dependent upon a computer program as a condition of access, by an 
eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are 
carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial 
advantage and the program is not distributed or made available 
outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, 
or museum.
    (ii) For purposes of the exemption in paragraph (b)(13)(i) of 
this section, a library, archives, or museum is considered 
``eligible'' if--
    (A) The collections of the library, archives, or museum are open 
to the public and/or are routinely made available to researchers who 
are not affiliated with the library, archives or museum;
    (B) The library, archives, or museum has a public service 
mission;
    (C) The library, archives, or museum's trained staff or 
volunteers provide professional services normally associated with 
libraries, archives, or museums;
    (D) The collections of the library, archives, or museum are 
composed of lawfully acquired and/or licensed materials; and
    (E) The library, archives, or museum implements reasonable 
digital security measures as appropriate for the activities 
permitted by this paragraph (b)(13).
8. Proposed Class 8: Computer Programs--Video Game Preservation \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions for this 
class, including citations to the record and relevant legal 
authority, can be found in the Recommendation at 256-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Class 8 proponents sought expansion of the provisions in the 
existing

[[Page 54024]]

exemption that allows eligible institutions to circumvent access 
controls to preserve video games for which external server support has 
been discontinued. As explained in the 2015 rulemaking, some video 
games require a network connection to a remote server operated by the 
game's developer before the video game can be accessed and played. When 
the developer takes such a server offline, a game can be rendered 
unplayable or limited to certain functions, such as single-player play 
or multiplayer play on a local network. The current exemption allows an 
eligible library, archives, or museum to circumvent this type of 
authentication mechanism to preserve lawfully acquired games in 
``complete'' form, i.e., those that can be played without accessing or 
reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an 
external computer server. The exemption requires that such games not be 
distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the 
eligible institution.
    The Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment (``MADE'') filed a 
petition seeking to expand the exemption to allow for circumvention of 
access controls on video games that need to access creative content 
stored on a remote server, which MADE refers to as ``online'' games. 
MADE contended that the current exemption, while helpful, does not 
allow it to preserve the growing number of online video games for 
future generations to study. Proponents explained that libraries, 
archives, and museums cannot engage in certain preservation activities 
involving online games without either copying the game's server code or 
reconstructing that server's functionality, which would also require an 
exemption to circumvent TPMs on these works. MADE also sought to 
broaden the class of users of the exemption to include volunteer 
``affiliate archivists,'' who wish to circumvent access controls off-
premises, but under the supervision of preservation entities.
    Opponents objected to the proposed expansions, arguing that 
proponents' intended use of the video games is not a true preservation 
use. Instead, opponents contended that proponents wish to engage in 
recreational play that could function as a market substitute. In 
addition, the Entertainment Software Association expressed concern that 
the server copy proponents wish to recreate is an unpublished work that 
has never been distributed to the public. Overall, opponents contend 
that the proposed uses are infringing. Opponents also objected to the 
use of affiliate archivists, contending that there is a heightened risk 
of market harm if the public can circumvent access controls on video 
games in their own homes.
    NTIA supported the adoption of an expanded exemption, but one 
narrower than that requested by proponents. It proposed an expansion to 
allow preservation ``where the user uses the server component--while 
still not providing any substantial expressive content--for 
administrative tasks beyond authentication, including command and 
control functions such as tracking player progress, facilitating 
communications between players, or storing high scores.'' To 
accommodate these uses, it recommended regulatory language that would 
apply in situations where ``all or nearly all of the audiovisual 
content and gameplay mechanics reside on the player or institution's 
lawfully acquired local copy of the game.'' NTIA did not, however, 
support adding an ``affiliate archivist'' user class, concluding that 
adding such a provision risks ``introducing confusing language or 
suggesting that any such preservationists may not need to be answerable 
to the institutions for which they are volunteering.''
    The Acting Register found that the record supported granting an 
expansion in the relatively discrete circumstances where a preservation 
institution legally possesses a copy of a video game's server code and 
the game's local code. She concluded that in such circumstances, the 
preservation activities described by proponents are likely to be fair 
uses. She further found that proponents demonstrated that such uses 
would be adversely affected by the statutory prohibition absent an 
exemption. The record indicated that an exemption would enable future 
scholarship by enabling researchers to experience games as they were 
originally played and thereby better understand their design or 
construction. The Acting Register additionally found such activity 
unlikely to harm the market for video games.
    The Acting Register did not, however, recommend an exemption to 
allow for instances where the preservation institution lacks lawful 
possession of the server software. She found the record insufficient to 
support a finding that the recreation of video game server software as 
described by proponents is likely to be a fair use. A number of 
scenarios described by proponents do not involve preserving server 
software that is already in an institution's collections, but instead 
appear to involve something more akin to reconstructing the remote 
server. She found that this activity distinguishes proponents' request 
from the preservation activity at issue in the case law upon which they 
relied. Moreover, she noted, the reconstruction of a work implicates 
copyright owners' exclusive right to prepare derivative works.
    Additionally, the Acting Register concluded that the record did not 
support the addition of an ``affiliate archivist'' user class to the 
exemption, finding such activity unlikely to constitute fair use. She 
noted that both the proposed exemption language and the proponents' 
institutions' practices seemed to lack appropriate protective 
guidelines to govern such volunteers' use of copyrighted materials.
    In light of the foregoing, the Acting Register recommended an 
exemption for ``server-dependent games,'' defined as video games that 
can be played by users who lawfully possess both a copy of a game 
intended for a personal computer or video game console and a copy of 
the game's code that is stored or was previously stored on an external 
computer server. The Acting Register continues to recommend an 
exemption for ``complete games,'' but proposed revising the exemption 
language to reflect that the exemption for ``complete games'' applies 
to both gamers and preservation uses, but the exemption for ``server 
dependent games'' applies only to preservation uses. In addition, for 
the reasons explained above in the discussion of Proposed Class 9, the 
Acting Register recommended adding a paragraph to the exemption in this 
class to accommodate preservation of non-server-based video games.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian 
adopt the following exemption:

    (i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in 
physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as 
complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized 
representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer 
server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable 
gameplay, solely for the purpose of:
    (A) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and 
modification of the computer program to restore access to the game 
for personal, local gameplay on a personal computer or video game 
console; or
    (B) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and 
modification of the computer program to restore access to the game 
on a personal computer or video game console when necessary to allow 
preservation of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, 
archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without

[[Page 54025]]

any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video 
game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical 
premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum.
    (ii) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in 
physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as 
complete games, that do not require access to an external computer 
server for gameplay, and that are no longer reasonably available in 
the commercial marketplace, solely for the purpose of preservation 
of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, archives, or 
museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of 
direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not 
distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of 
the eligible library, archives, or museum.
    (iii) Computer programs used to operate video game consoles 
solely to the extent necessary for an eligible library, archives, or 
museum to engage in the preservation activities described in 
paragraph (b)(12)(i)(B) or (b)(12)(ii) of this section.
    (iv) For purposes of this paragraph (b)(12), the following 
definitions shall apply:
    (A) For purposes of paragraph (b)(12)(i)(A) and (b)(12)(ii) of 
this section, ``complete games'' means video games that can be 
played by users without accessing or reproducing copyrightable 
content stored or previously stored on an external computer server.
    (B) For purposes of paragraph (b)(12)(i)(B) of this section, 
``complete games'' means video games that meet the definition in 
paragraph (b)(12)(iv)(A) of this section, or that consist of both a 
copy of a game intended for a personal computer or video game 
console and a copy of the game's code that was stored or previously 
stored on an external computer server.
    (C) ``Ceased to provide access'' means that the copyright owner 
or its authorized representative has either issued an affirmative 
statement indicating that external server support for the video game 
has ended and such support is in fact no longer available or, 
alternatively, server support has been discontinued for a period of 
at least six months; provided, however, that server support has not 
since been restored.
    (D) ``Local gameplay'' means gameplay conducted on a personal 
computer or video game console, or locally connected personal 
computers or consoles, and not through an online service or 
facility.
    (E) A library, archives, or museum is considered ``eligible'' 
when the collections of the library, archives, or museum are open to 
the public and/or are routinely made available to researchers who 
are not affiliated with the library, archives, or museum.
7. Proposed Class 10: Computer Programs--Security Research \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions for this 
class, including citations to the record and relevant legal 
authority, can be found in the Recommendation at 284-315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office received multiple petitions to expand the existing 
exemption allowing circumvention for the purpose of conducting good-
faith security research on certain types of software-enabled devices 
and machines. Proponents argued that the current language contains 
limitations that unnecessarily restrict its scope, as well as 
ambiguities that chill legitimate research. These include: (1) A 
provision limiting the exemption to specified categories of devices 
(``Device Limitation''); (2) a requirement that a device be ``lawfully 
acquired'' (``Lawfully Acquired Limitation''); (3) a requirement that 
circumvention be ``solely'' for the purpose of good-faith security 
research, and the definition of such research as accessing a program 
``solely'' for purposes of good-faith testing, investigation, and/or 
correction (``Access Limitation''); (4) a requirement that the research 
be ``carried out in a controlled environment designed to avoid any harm 
to individuals or the public'' (``Controlled Environment Limitation''); 
(5) a requirement that ``the information derived from the activity [be] 
used primarily to promote the security or safety of the class of 
devices or machines . . . or those who use such devices or machines, 
and is not used or maintained in a manner that facilitates copyright 
infringement'' (``Use Limitation''); and (6) a requirement that the 
circumvention ``not violate any applicable law'' (``Other Laws 
Limitation''). Proponents maintained that the proposed activity is 
noninfringing on one or both grounds relied upon by the Register in 
2015--section 117 and fair use.
    Opponents objected to removal of each of these provisions, arguing 
that the current language appropriately balances the interests of 
security researchers, copyright owners, and the general public. In 
their view, the adverse effects asserted by proponents are unsupported 
by the record and are based on unreasonable readings of the relevant 
text. Opponents also variously argued that removing the limitations 
would render the class impermissibly broad, give rise to infringing 
uses, and jeopardize public safety and national security.
    Following the close of the public comment period and the completion 
of the public hearings, the Office received a letter concerning this 
class from CCIPS. The CCIPS letter stated that ``[m]any of the changes 
sought in the petition appear likely to promote productive 
cybersecurity research, and CCIPS supports them,'' subject to certain 
limitations. With respect to the Device Limitation, CCIPS advised that 
it would support eliminating the language confining the exemption to 
devices ``primarily designed for use by individual consumers.'' It 
recommended clarification of the Controlled Environment Limitation and 
said that it ``would not object to its removal.'' As to the Lawfully 
Acquired Limitation, CCIPS stated concluded that the current language 
is preferable to conditioning the exemption on ownership of a 
particular copy of software. CCIPS also addressed the Other Laws 
Limitation, stating that it would not object to removal of the phrase 
``any applicable law'' were it standing alone, but recommending 
retaining the express reference to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 
1986.
    NTIA recommended granting the proposed expansion and proposed the 
same regulatory text it offered in 2015. That language would allow 
circumvention ``in order to conduct good faith security research'' on 
computer programs, ``regardless of the device on which they are run.'' 
NTIA further recommended that the Other Laws Limitation be replaced 
with a statement that the exemption ``does not obviate the need to 
comply with all other applicable laws and regulations.'' In addition, 
NTIA recommended removal of the Controlled Environment, Access, and Use 
Limitations, largely agreeing with proponents that those provisions may 
chill legitimate research.
    The Acting Register found that good-faith security research 
involving devices beyond those covered by the current exemption is 
likely to be a fair use. As the Register found in 2015, the Acting 
Register concluded that good-faith security research promotes several 
of the activities identified in section 107 as examples of favored 
purposes, including criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship, and 
research. In contrast to 2015, the current rulemaking record contained 
many additional examples of activities security researchers wished to 
engage in but for the Device Limitation. But the Acting Register did 
not find that section 117 provides an additional basis for finding such 
activity to be noninfringing. She found the record insufficient to 
support the conclusion that security researchers as a general matter 
are likely to own the copies of the device software, as is required 
under section 117.
    Ultimately, the Acting Register recommended that the exemption 
remove the Device Limitation, and include a provision allowing 
circumvention to be undertaken on a ``computer, computer system, or 
computer network on which the computer program operates.'' The latter 
provision is intended to address situations in which a researcher seeks

[[Page 54026]]

access to a structure, such as a building automation system, that 
cannot be ``acquired'' in the sense of obtaining physical possession of 
it, in contrast to instances where the researcher can lawfully acquire 
a device or machine. The exemption requires that circumvention in these 
circumstances be undertaken ``with the authorization of the owner or 
operator of such computer, computer system, or computer network.'' In 
addition, to address proponents' concerns over potential ambiguity in 
the Controlled Environment Limitation, the exemption removes the term 
``controlled,'' so that it simply would require the research to be 
``carried out in an environment designed to avoid any harm to 
individuals or the public.'' The Acting Register did not recommend 
removal of the other limitations challenged by proponents, finding that 
proponents had failed to demonstrate that those provisions are causing, 
or are likely to cause, any adverse effect on noninfringing security 
research.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian 
adopt the following exemption:

    (i) Computer programs, where the circumvention is undertaken on 
a lawfully acquired device or machine on which the computer program 
operates, or is undertaken on a computer, computer system, or 
computer network on which the computer program operates with the 
authorization of the owner or operator of such computer, computer 
system, or computer network, solely for the purpose of good-faith 
security research and does not violate any applicable law, including 
without limitation the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
    (ii) For purposes of this paragraph (b)(11), ``good-faith 
security research'' means accessing a computer program solely for 
purposes of good-faith testing, investigation, and/or correction of 
a security flaw or vulnerability, where such activity is carried out 
in an environment designed to avoid any harm to individuals or the 
public, and where the information derived from the activity is used 
primarily to promote the security or safety of the class of devices 
or machines on which the computer program operates, or those who use 
such devices or machines, and is not used or maintained in a manner 
that facilitates copyright infringement.
8. Proposed Class 12: Computer Programs--3D Printing \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions for this 
class, including citations to the record and relevant legal 
authority, can be found in the Recommendation at 319-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3D printing--also known as ``additive'' manufacturing--is a 
technology that translates digital files into physical objects by 
adding successive layers of material. Some 3D printer manufacturers use 
TPMs to limit the types of material--or ``feedstock''--that can be used 
in their 3D printers to manufacturer-approved feedstock.
    Proponents sought to expand a 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 eliminate the following language at the 
end of the exemption: ``provided, however, that the exemption shall not 
extend to any computer program on a 3D printer that produces goods or 
materials for use in commerce the physical production of which is 
subject to legal or regulatory oversight or a related certification 
process, or where the circumvention is otherwise unlawful.''
    Proponents put forth two arguments as to why the Acting Register 
should broaden the exemption by dropping this language: (1) The clause 
creates ambiguity such that the exemption itself cannot be applied or 
used in the majority of circumstances, and (2) the concerns that the 
clause seeks to address are more suitably addressed by other agencies. 
Stratasys, an opponent to the exemption, contended that this expanded 
range of activities is less likely to constitute fair use and should 
remain prohibited for reasons of public policy.
    NTIA supported renewing the exemption as well as expanding the 
exemption by removing the relevant limiting language. NTIA's proposed 
language differed from the current regulatory language in additional 
ways. For example, NTIA proposed incorporating the restriction that 
``circumvention is undertaken for the purpose of enabling 
interoperability of feedstock or filament with the device.'' NTIA, 
however, did not provide specific support for altering the regulatory 
text beyond removing the qualifying language.
    The 2015 rulemaking identified fair use as the noninfringing basis 
for this exemption, and the proposed expansion was evaluated on the 
same grounds. Because the record indicated that the state of the 3D 
printing market appears to be substantially the same as in 2015, and 
case law has not significantly altered the relevant fair use issues, 
the Acting Register concluded that the copying or modifying of printer 
software to accept non-manufacturer-approved feedstock is likely to be 
a fair use.
    Because the first four statutory factors do not fit neatly onto 
this situation, the Acting Register focused most of her analysis on the 
fifth factor to consider these related concerns. The Acting Register 
determined that the expanded record now shows that there are situations 
in which an individual may be complying with relevant law or 
regulations but still be at risk of violating section 1201 due to the 
exemption's qualifying language (e.g., individual sellers of homemade 
wares). The Acting Register concluded that the record established that 
the qualifying language in the existing exemption may be inhibiting 
otherwise beneficial or innovative uses of alternate feedstock, which 
is contrary to the intention of that exemption--and moreover, that 
there are safeguards outside of the current exemption addressing health 
and safety concerns associated with 3D printing.
    Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian 
adopt the following exemption:

    Computer programs that operate 3D printers that employ 
microchip-reliant technological measures to limit the use of 
feedstock, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose 
of using alternative feedstock and not for the purpose of accessing 
design software, design files, or proprietary data.

C. Classes Considered but Not Recommended

    Based upon the record in this proceeding, the Acting Register of 
Copyrights recommended that the Librarian determine that the following 
classes of works shall not be exempt from the prohibition against 
circumvention of technological measures set forth in section 
1201(a)(1):
1. Proposed Class 3: Audiovisual Works--Space-Shifting \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions for this 
class, including citations to the record and relevant legal 
authority, can be found in the Recommendation at 111-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Class 3 would allow circumvention of technical measures 
protecting motion pictures and other audiovisual works to engage in 
``space-shifting.'' As the 2015 rulemaking described, the Copyright 
Office's understanding is that space-shifting occurs when a work is 
transferred from one storage medium to another, such as from a DVD to a 
computer hard drive. Chris De Pretis petitioned for an exemption to 
allow circumvention by individuals to create a personal digital backup 
of content for private use, a proposal similar to those sought and 
rejected in previous rulemakings. The Office also received a petition 
from OmniQ, a corporate entity, proposing an exemption to allow so-
called ``non-reproductive'' space-shifting, including for commercial 
uses. A third proponent, SolaByte Corporation, filed a one-page

[[Page 54027]]

comment in support of OmniQ and testified at the public hearing.
    OmniQ primarily argued that its proposed technology did not result 
in a reproduction of a copyrighted work, and thus fair use analysis was 
unnecessary. Proponents also argued that the overall availability of 
works for public use is shrinking because the hardware and software 
needed to play disc media are becoming less available in the 
marketplace. They argued that online content distribution platforms, 
taken in the aggregate, only offer a small and always-changing fraction 
of the titles historically available on DVD and Blu-ray disc, and that 
the costs of these services are unacceptable, especially when users 
already own the content in disc form.
    In response, opponents argued that OmniQ's technology would 
reproduce works because they would constitute entirely new things 
(i.e., a copy). Opponents also contended that recent case law 
developments further demonstrate that space-shifting is not a fair use. 
In addition, opponents provided evidence of alternatives to 
circumvention in the form of a substantial number of online 
distribution platforms for accessing copyrighted audiovisual works, the 
vast majority of which they claim exist as viable business models only 
because of the ability to employ TPMs to protect the content from 
unauthorized uses.
    Unlike in prior rulemakings where NTIA ``supported limited versions 
of a noncommercial space-shifting exemption . . . mainly in the 
interest of consumer protection,'' NTIA did not support an exemption 
for this class in the present rulemaking. NTIA acknowledged that the 
``legal status of the concept of space-shifting remains a matter of 
dispute among copyright experts'' and that it ``has not been explicitly 
established as non-infringing on the basis of the fair use doctrine.'' 
NTIA added that ``proponents ha[d] not established in this proceeding 
that their specific proposal would be non-infringing.'' Moreover, NTIA 
recognized that ``[p]roponents failed to demonstrate that the 
`prevalence of [encrypted digital content] is diminishing the ability 
of individuals to use these works in ways that are otherwise lawful.' 
''
    The Acting Register found that under current law, OmniQ's self-
described process is likely to result in an unauthorized reproduction 
in violation of section 106(1), and that, as in 2015, the case law 
maintains that transferring digital files from one location to another 
implicates the reproduction right and is therefore infringing, even 
where the original copy is contemporaneously or subsequently deleted. 
With regard to personal space-shifting, in light of the lack of record 
and in the absence of clear supporting precedent, the Acting Register 
found no basis to depart from the fair use analysis and ultimate 
conclusion reached in the 2015 proceeding, where the Register was 
unable to determine that the proposed uses were noninfringing. She 
noted that the commercial nature and potential market effects of the 
OmniQ and SolaByte business models complicate the fair use analysis, 
and not in their favor. For example, the record included substantial 
evidence of extensive markets for internet-based distribution services 
for copyrighted audiovisual works, including digital rentals, online 
streaming and over-the-top services, on-demand cable and satellite 
television offerings, disc-to-digital services, and digital locker 
services, which could be negatively impacted by the proposed exemption. 
These markets also served as sufficient alternatives to circumvention, 
as they demonstrated a wide availability of easily accessible 
copyrighted works that could potentially be negatively affected by an 
exemption that allowed unauthorized copies to compete with these 
authorized access models. Based on the record in this proceeding, the 
Acting Register did not find that the statutory factors supported the 
proposed exemption.
2. Proposed Class 4: Audiovisual Works--HDCP/HDMI \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions for this 
class, including citations to the record and relevant legal 
authority, can be found in the Recommendation at 128- 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Class 4 would allow circumvention ``to make noninfringing 
uses of audiovisual works that are subjected to High-bandwidth Digital 
Content Protection (HDCP).'' Petitioner Andrew ``bunnie'' Huang 
described HDCP as ``a protocol used to restrict content sent over High-
Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) cables,'' or ``a standard for 
video transport from one device to another.'' He explained that many 
devices that play video discs and video game software encode their 
output using HDCP, and that this interferes with capturing the output 
for subsequent noninfringing uses.
    Multiple participants opposed this exemption, arguing that section 
1201 does not permit such a broad exemption, noting that HDCP is the 
industry standard for protecting audiovisual works in transit to a 
display device and that past Registers have rejected exemptions for 
``all noninfringing uses.'' They characterized Huang's discussion of 
the proposed uses as ``cursory,'' and suggested it was not possible to 
evaluate the proposed uses under the exemption without further detail. 
Opponents also suggested that multiple proposed uses would actually be 
infringing, and highlighted what they see as a significant online 
infringement risk if the exemption permitted in-the-clear copies of 
entire works. In addition, opponents set forth a large number of 
concrete examples of potential alternatives to circumvention that the 
petitioner failed to meaningfully challenge. Finally, they asserted 
that ``HDCP is a critically important component of the secure ecosystem 
through which content is delivered for home entertainment'' and noted 
that section 1201 was intended to encourage copyright owners to make 
their works available digitally and foster new means of distribution by 
providing reasonable assurances against fears of piracy.
    NTIA recommended against this exemption, stating that 
``[p]roponents did not provide sufficient evidence on the record about 
the alleged non-infringing uses,'' and that ``[w]hile there are several 
examples of potential non-infringing uses that could serve as the basis 
for an exemption, the proponents [had] not developed the argument in 
the record . . . .'' NTIA also observed that the proposed exemption 
``appear[ed] to be for the HDCP TPM itself, which is not appropriate 
for this rulemaking process.''
    The Acting Register also recommended against the exemption, largely 
agreeing with many of the bases advanced by opponents. Specifically, 
the Acting Register concluded that the proposed exemption was overly 
broad, as HDCP is the industry standard for protecting audiovisual 
works in transit to a display device, and thus limiting the proposal 
this way did not very meaningfully focus the scope beyond the starting 
point of all audiovisual works. The Acting Register also determined 
that some of the proposed uses may potentially be fair use depending 
upon factual circumstances, but that the record lacked the requisite 
detail and legal support for the Acting Register to conclude that the 
proposed uses are or are not likely to be noninfringing. Based upon the 
record, the Acting Register could not conclude that the overall 
availability for use of copyrighted works has been diminished or is 
likely to be in the next three years absent an exemption, noting that 
the proposed activities may well have a negative effect on the market 
for or value of copyrighted works. Finally, she concluded that the 
request was an individual case of de minimis impact, as

[[Page 54028]]

it was largely made upon a single request of an individual who resides 
in Singapore for which there appeared to be myriad alternative ways to 
achieve the proposed uses.
3. Proposed Class 11: Computer Programs--Avionics \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The Acting Register's analysis and conclusions for this 
class, including citations to the record and relevant legal 
authority, can be found in the Recommendation at 315-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Class 11 would permit circumvention of access controls on 
electronic systems used in aircraft, i.e., avionics, to enable access 
to aircraft flight, operations, maintenance and security bulk data 
collected by third parties upon authorization of the aircraft owner or 
operator in the course of complying with Federal Aviation 
Administration (``FAA'') standards, rules, and regulations. Due to 
reliance upon these electronic systems, proponents asserted that 
aircraft ``operators have faced a . . . rise in the complexity and 
scope of work needed to keep their fleet secure and operating 
efficiently,'' and that the FAA ``has mandated the review of the data, 
information, logs[,] and other information [by aircraft owners or 
operators] as a means to ensure safety, security[,] and regulatory 
compliance.''
    In NTIA's view, ``[p]roponents failed to demonstrate that the 
proposed class includes copyrighted works protected by TPMs.'' 
Moreover, NTIA continued, ``Air Informatics failed to identify clearly 
the proposed users of the exemption,'' suggesting that ``the 
prohibition on circumvention does not adversely affect and is not 
likely to adversely affect users.'' Lastly, NTIA maintained that 
``[r]easonable alternatives to circumvention seem to exist,'' noting 
that ``the two relevant parties can come to an agreement for access to 
and use of the data.''
    The Acting Register found that the record suggested that the data 
collected by aircrafts at issue consist of facts, which are not 
copyrightable. According to the petitioner, the information represents 
objective details about aircraft, such as flight operations and fuel 
economy. As Public Knowledge explained, the data inputs and outputs 
``are not classifiable as a `work' protected under Title 17'' and such 
``access does not implicate any colorable copyright concerns.'' The 
Acting Register also concluded that the collected information would not 
qualify as a copyrightable compilation, because it is formatted and 
compiled in accordance with an industry-wide standard. The Acting 
Register accordingly concluded that proponents have not alleged that 
the data or data compilations they are seeking to access are 
copyrightable, and thus subject to the prohibition on circumvention. 
Although petitioner raised some concerns regarding attempts by airplane 
manufacturers to control the aftermarket for the data in security 
research and analytics, the Acting Register determined that it was not 
clear that section 1201 is facilitating those actions, and noted that 
the security research exemption may potentially be utilized to cover 
such activities, to the extent applicable.

C. Conclusion

    Having considered the evidence in the record, the contentions of 
the commenting parties, and the statutory objectives, the Acting 
Register of Copyrights has recommended that the Librarian of Congress 
publish certain classes of works, as designated above, so that the 
prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that 
effectively control access to copyrighted works shall not apply to 
persons who engage in noninfringing uses of those particular classes of 
works.

    Dated: October 19, 2018.
Karyn A. Temple,
Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright 
Office.

Determination of the Librarian of Congress

    Having duly considered and accepted the Recommendation of the 
Acting Register of Copyrights, which Recommendation is hereby 
incorporated by reference, the Librarian of Congress, pursuant to 17 
U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), hereby publishes as a new rule the 
classes of copyrighted works that shall for a three-year period be 
subject to the exemption provided in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(B) from the 
prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that 
effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 
1201(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201

    Copyright, Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention.

Final Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 201 is 
amended as follows:

PART 201--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  17 U.S.C. 702.

0
2. Section 201.40 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  201.40  Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention.

* * * * *
    (b) Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set 
forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation 
of the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian has determined that the 
prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that 
effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 
1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing 
uses of the following classes of copyrighted works:
    (1) Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as 
defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where the motion picture is lawfully made and 
acquired on a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System, on a Blu-
ray disc protected by the Advanced Access Content System, or via a 
digital transmission protected by a technological measure, and the 
person engaging in circumvention under paragraph (b)(1)(i) and 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section reasonably believes that non-
circumventing alternatives are unable to produce the required level of 
high-quality content, or the circumvention is undertaken using screen-
capture technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling 
the reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully 
acquired and decrypted, where circumvention is undertaken solely in 
order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures in the 
following instances:
    (i) For the purpose of criticism or comment:
    (A) For use in documentary filmmaking, or other films where the 
motion picture clip is used in parody or for its biographical or 
historically significant nature;
    (B) For use in noncommercial videos (including videos produced for 
a paid commission if the commissioning entity's use is noncommercial); 
or
    (C) For use in nonfiction multimedia e-books.
    (ii) For educational purposes:
    (A) By college and university faculty and students or kindergarten 
through twelfth-grade (K-12) educators and students (where the K-12 
student is circumventing under the direct supervision of an educator), 
including of accredited general educational development (GED) programs, 
for the purpose of criticism, comment, teaching, or scholarship;

[[Page 54029]]

    (B) By faculty of massive open online courses (MOOCs) offered by 
accredited nonprofit educational institutions to officially enrolled 
students through online platforms (which platforms themselves may be 
operated for profit), in film studies or other courses requiring close 
analysis of film and media excerpts, for the purpose of criticism or 
comment, where the MOOC provider through the online platform limits 
transmissions to the extent technologically feasible to such officially 
enrolled students, institutes copyright policies and provides copyright 
informational materials to faculty, students, and relevant staff 
members, and applies technological measures that reasonably prevent 
unauthorized further dissemination of a work in accessible form to 
others or retention of the work for longer than the course session by 
recipients of a transmission through the platform, as contemplated by 
17 U.S.C. 110(2); or
    (C) By educators and participants in nonprofit digital and media 
literacy programs offered by libraries, museums, and other nonprofit 
entities with an educational mission, in the course of face-to-face 
instructional activities, for the purpose of criticism or comment, 
except that such users may only circumvent using screen-capture 
technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling the 
reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully 
acquired and decrypted.
    (2)(i) Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as 
defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where the motion picture is lawfully acquired 
on a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System, on a Blu-ray disc 
protected by the Advanced Access Content System, or via a digital 
transmission protected by a technological measure, where:
    (A) Circumvention is undertaken by a disability services office or 
other unit of a kindergarten through twelfth-grade educational 
institution, college, or university engaged in and/or responsible for 
the provision of accessibility services to students, for the purpose of 
adding captions and/or audio description to a motion picture to create 
an accessible version as a necessary accommodation for a student or 
students with disabilities under an applicable disability law, such as 
the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;
    (B) The educational institution unit in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of 
this section has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an 
accessible version cannot be obtained at a fair price or in a timely 
manner; and
    (C) The accessible versions are provided to students or educators 
and stored by the educational institution in a manner intended to 
reasonably prevent unauthorized further dissemination of a work.
    (ii) For purposes of this paragraph (b)(2), ``audio description'' 
means an oral narration that provides an accurate rendering of the 
motion picture.
    (3) Literary works, distributed electronically, that are protected 
by technological measures that either prevent the enabling of read-
aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other 
applications or assistive technologies:
    (i) When a copy of such a work is lawfully obtained by a blind or 
other person with a disability, as such a person is defined in 17 
U.S.C. 121; provided, however, that the rights owner is remunerated, as 
appropriate, for the price of the mainstream copy of the work as made 
available to the general public through customary channels; or
    (ii) When such work is a nondramatic literary work, lawfully 
obtained and used by an authorized entity pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 121.
    (4) Literary works consisting of compilations of data generated by 
medical devices that are wholly or partially implanted in the body or 
by their corresponding personal monitoring systems, where such 
circumvention is undertaken by a patient for the sole purpose of 
lawfully accessing the data generated by his or her own device or 
monitoring system and does not constitute a violation of applicable 
law, including without limitation the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act of 1996, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 or 
regulations of the Food and Drug Administration, and is accomplished 
through the passive monitoring of wireless transmissions that are 
already being produced by such device or monitoring system.
    (5) Computer programs that enable the following types of lawfully 
acquired wireless devices to connect to a wireless telecommunications 
network, when circumvention is undertaken solely in order to connect to 
a wireless telecommunications network and such connection is authorized 
by the operator of such network:
    (i) Wireless telephone handsets (i.e., cellphones);
    (ii) All-purpose tablet computers;
    (iii) Portable mobile connectivity devices, such as mobile 
hotspots, removable wireless broadband modems, and similar devices; and
    (iv) Wearable wireless devices designed to be worn on the body, 
such as smartwatches or fitness devices.
    (6) Computer programs that enable smartphones and portable all-
purpose mobile computing devices to execute lawfully obtained software 
applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose 
of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer 
programs on the smartphone or device, or to permit removal of software 
from the smartphone or device. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(6), a 
``portable all-purpose mobile computing device'' is a device that is 
primarily designed to run a wide variety of programs rather than for 
consumption of a particular type of media content, is equipped with an 
operating system primarily designed for mobile use, and is intended to 
be carried or worn by an individual.
    (7) Computer programs that enable smart televisions to execute 
lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is 
accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such 
applications with computer programs on the smart television.
    (8) Computer programs that enable voice assistant devices to 
execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is 
accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such 
applications with computer programs on the device, or to permit removal 
of software from the device, and is not accomplished for the purpose of 
gaining unauthorized access to other copyrighted works. For purposes of 
this paragraph (b)(8), a ``voice assistant device'' is a device that is 
primarily designed to run a wide variety of programs rather than for 
consumption of a particular type of media content, is designed to take 
user input primarily by voice, and is designed to be installed in a 
home or office.
    (9) Computer programs that are contained in and control the 
functioning of a lawfully acquired motorized land vehicle such as a 
personal automobile, commercial vehicle, or mechanized agricultural 
vehicle, except for programs accessed through a separate subscription 
service, when circumvention is a necessary step to allow the diagnosis, 
repair, or lawful modification of a vehicle function, where such 
circumvention does not constitute a violation of applicable law, 
including without limitation regulations promulgated by the Department 
of Transportation or the Environmental Protection Agency, and is not 
accomplished for the purpose of gaining

[[Page 54030]]

unauthorized access to other copyrighted works.
    (10) Computer programs that are contained in and control the 
functioning of a lawfully acquired smartphone or home appliance or home 
system, such as a refrigerator, thermostat, HVAC, or electrical system, 
when circumvention is a necessary step to allow the diagnosis, 
maintenance, or repair of such a device or system, and is not 
accomplished for the purpose of gaining access to other copyrighted 
works. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(10):
    (i) The ``maintenance'' of a device or system is the servicing of 
the device or system in order to make it work in accordance with its 
original specifications and any changes to those specifications 
authorized for that device or system; and
    (ii) The ``repair'' of a device or system is the restoring of the 
device or system to the state of working in accordance with its 
original specifications and any changes to those specifications 
authorized for that device or system.
    (11)(i) Computer programs, where the circumvention is undertaken on 
a lawfully acquired device or machine on which the computer program 
operates, or is undertaken on a computer, computer system, or computer 
network on which the computer program operates with the authorization 
of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system, or computer 
network, solely for the purpose of good-faith security research and 
does not violate any applicable law, including without limitation the 
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
    (ii) For purposes of this paragraph (b)(11), ``good-faith security 
research'' means accessing a computer program solely for purposes of 
good-faith testing, investigation, and/or correction of a security flaw 
or vulnerability, where such activity is carried out in an environment 
designed to avoid any harm to individuals or the public, and where the 
information derived from the activity is used primarily to promote the 
security or safety of the class of devices or machines on which the 
computer program operates, or those who use such devices or machines, 
and is not used or maintained in a manner that facilitates copyright 
infringement.
    (12)(i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in 
physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as 
complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized 
representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer 
server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable 
gameplay, solely for the purpose of:
    (A) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and 
modification of the computer program to restore access to the game for 
personal, local gameplay on a personal computer or video game console; 
or
    (B) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and 
modification of the computer program to restore access to the game on a 
personal computer or video game console when necessary to allow 
preservation of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, 
archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any 
purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game 
is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises 
of the eligible library, archives, or museum.
    (ii) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in 
physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as 
complete games, that do not require access to an external computer 
server for gameplay, and that are no longer reasonably available in the 
commercial marketplace, solely for the purpose of preservation of the 
game in a playable form by an eligible library, archives, or museum, 
where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or 
indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed or 
made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible 
library, archives, or museum.
    (iii) Computer programs used to operate video game consoles solely 
to the extent necessary for an eligible library, archives, or museum to 
engage in the preservation activities described in paragraph 
(b)(12)(i)(B) or (b)(12)(ii) of this section.
    (iv) For purposes of this paragraph (b)(12), the following 
definitions shall apply:
    (A) For purposes of paragraph (b)(12)(i)(A) and (b)(12)(ii) of this 
section, ``complete games'' means video games that can be played by 
users without accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or 
previously stored on an external computer server.
    (B) For purposes of paragraph (b)(12)(i)(B) of this section, 
``complete games'' means video games that meet the definition in 
paragraph (b)(12)(iv)(A) of this section, or that consist of both a 
copy of a game intended for a personal computer or video game console 
and a copy of the game's code that was stored or previously stored on 
an external computer server.
    (C) ``Ceased to provide access'' means that the copyright owner or 
its authorized representative has either issued an affirmative 
statement indicating that external server support for the video game 
has ended and such support is in fact no longer available or, 
alternatively, server support has been discontinued for a period of at 
least six months; provided, however, that server support has not since 
been restored.
    (D) ``Local gameplay'' means gameplay conducted on a personal 
computer or video game console, or locally connected personal computers 
or consoles, and not through an online service or facility.
    (E) A library, archives, or museum is considered ``eligible'' when 
the collections of the library, archives, or museum are open to the 
public and/or are routinely made available to researchers who are not 
affiliated with the library, archives, or museum.
    (13)(i) Computer programs, except video games, that have been 
lawfully acquired and that are no longer reasonably available in the 
commercial marketplace, solely for the purpose of lawful preservation 
of a computer program, or of digital materials dependent upon a 
computer program as a condition of access, by an eligible library, 
archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any 
purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the program is 
not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of 
the eligible library, archives, or museum.
    (ii) For purposes of the exemption in paragraph (b)(13)(i) of this 
section, a library, archives, or museum is considered ``eligible'' if--
    (A) The collections of the library, archives, or museum are open to 
the public and/or are routinely made available to researchers who are 
not affiliated with the library, archives, or museum;
    (B) The library, archives, or museum has a public service mission;
    (C) The library, archives, or museum's trained staff or volunteers 
provide professional services normally associated with libraries, 
archives, or museums;
    (D) The collections of the library, archives, or museum are 
composed of lawfully acquired and/or licensed materials; and
    (E) The library, archives, or museum implements reasonable digital 
security measures as appropriate for the activities permitted by this 
paragraph (b)(13).
    (14) Computer programs that operate 3D printers that employ 
microchip-reliant technological measures to limit

[[Page 54031]]

the use of feedstock, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the 
purpose of using alternative feedstock and not for the purpose of 
accessing design software, design files, or proprietary data.
    (c) Persons who may initiate circumvention. To the extent 
authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, the circumvention of a 
technological measure that restricts wireless telephone handsets or 
other wireless devices from connecting to a wireless telecommunications 
network may be initiated by the owner of any such handset or other 
device, by another person at the direction of the owner, or by a 
provider of a commercial mobile radio service or a commercial mobile 
data service at the direction of such owner or other person, solely in 
order to enable such owner or a family member of such owner to connect 
to a wireless telecommunications network, when such connection is 
authorized by the operator of such network.


    Dated: October 19, 2018.
Carla D. Hayden,

Librarian of Congress.

[FR Doc. 2018-23241 Filed 10-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1410-30-P