Audiovisual Works Released on DVD, When Circumvention Is Undertaken
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Before the U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS In the matter of exemption to prohibition on circumvention of copyright protection systems for access control technologies Docket No. RM 2008-08 Comments of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Proposed Classes 5A, 5D, 11A and of The Wireless Alliance, ReCellular and FlipSwap in Support of Proposed Class 5D Submitted by: Fred von Lohmann Jennifer S. Granick Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell St. San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 436-9333 (415) 436-9993 (fax) [email protected] Pursuant to the Notice of Inquiry of Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies1 (“NOI”), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) submits these reply comments on behalf of itself and, with respect to the portion of this reply comment discussing Proposed Class 5D, on behalf of The Wireless Alliance, ReCellular and FlipSwap, the original applicants for Class 5D. These reply comments provide additional legal and factual support for each of the following proposed classes of works for which an exemption has been sought: Proposed Class 5A: Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets 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 telephone handset. Proposed Class 5D: Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when 1 73 Fed. Reg. 58083 (Oct. 6, 2008). circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network, regardless of commercial motive. Proposed Class 11A: Audiovisual works released on DVD, where circumvention is undertaken solely for the purpose of extracting clips for inclusion in noncommercial videos that do not infringe copyright. I. Additional Support for Proposed Class 5A Summary of Argument: EFF submits additional factual evidence in support of this proposed class in the form additional information about Apple’s restrictions on independent iPhone application developers, additional technical information regarding the technologies used by smart phone vendors to restrict the applications that a smart phone owner can use, and a petition signed by 8,215 individuals who support the proposed class. A. Apple Imposes Arbitrary, Anti-Competitive Restrictions on Independent iPhone Developers EFF’s original submission proposing class 5A included a discussion of the predicament faced by owners of Apple iPhones, who are restricted by the design of the iPhone to using only applications purchased from Apple’s own iTunes App Store. As a result, independent iPhone developers must seek Apple’s approval before they can sell applications to iPhone users. Simply put, Apple is using the restrictions built into the iPhone, not to protect any copyright interest in Apple’s iPhone software, but rather to enforce a set of business model decisions that disserve iPhone owners and suppress competition from independent iPhone application vendors. Accordingly, there is no reason that 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) should provide legal protection to this Apple strategy. The following reported incidents highlight the arbitrary and anti-competitive aspects of Apple’s policies: • Apple has blocked several applications (Podcaster2, Mail Wrangler3) for “duplicating functionality” offered by Apple’s own software. In the case of Podcaster, Apple subsequently deployed substantially identical functionality in its own iTunes application a few months later, demonstrating the anti-competitive nature of this policy. • Although Apple has recently approved web browsers other than its own for use on the iPhone, all of them rely on Apple’s own Webkit browser technology, leaving iPhone owners without access to competing browsers like Mozilla’s Firefox and OmniWeb.4 2 David Chartier, “Apple denies iPhone podcast app for ‘duplicating iTunes,’” Ars Technica, Sept. 12, 2008, <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/09/apple-denies-iphone-podcast-app-for- duplicating-itunes.ars>. 3 Angelo DiNardi, “MailWrangler and the Apple App Store,” Sept. 20, 2008, <http://angelo.dinardi.name/2008/09/20/mailwrangler-and-the-apple-app-store/>. 4 Sacha Segan, The iPhone’s Bogus “Alternative Browsers”, PC Magazine, Jan. 27, 2009, <http:// www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2339605,00.asp>. 2 • Apple continues to bar applications that utilize “non-public APIs,” notwithstanding the fact that software from Apple and its favored partners (such as Google) are able to make use of these undocumented APIs.5 • Several ebooks have been banned from the App Store for content that Apple deemed “objectionable,” with at least one title being restored only after the author removed “dirty words” from his book.6 • Several applications have been removed for being “risqué,” while others have been permitted only after modifying their App Store marketing materials to meet Apple’s requirements.7 At the same time, other equally “off color” applications remain available without restriction.8 • Several applications, including Newber and iCall, remain in limbo, victims of unexplained delays in Apple’s “approval” process for the App Store.9 • After independent developers began developing software to enable “cut-and-paste” functionality on the iPhone, Apple revised the iPhone firmware to disable the application.10 These examples underscore the fact that there is no copyright-related rationale for preventing iPhone owners from “jailbreaking” their phones, enabling them to interoperate with applications lawfully obtained from a source of their own choosing. As the Copyright Office noted in 2006: When application of the prohibition on circumvention of access controls would offer no apparent benefit to the author or copyright owner in relation to the work to which access is controlled, but simply offers a benefit to a third party who may use § 1201 to control the use of hardware which, as is increasingly the case, may be operated in part through the use of computer software or firmware, an exemption may well be warranted.11 5 Tom Krazit, Apple Kills iPhone App, Claiming API Violation, CNET News, Dec. 15, 2008, <http://news.cnet.com/8300-13579_3-37-4.html> (rejecting Peeps, a photo organizer application); Tom Krazit, Google Admits Breaking App Store Rules, CNET News, Nov. 25, 2008, <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10108348-37.html>. 6 Banned titles include a comic book entitled “Murderdrome,” see “Apple Bans Murderdrome Comic,” MacNN Blog, Aug. 26, 2008, <http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/08/26/apple.pulls.another.app/>, and a text e-book, “Knife Music,” see Tom Krazit, Apple Approves e-Book After Dirty Words Removed, CNET News, Jan. 15, 2009 (<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10144025-37.html>). 7 Jason Kincaid, “Boobs and Booty Banned from the App Store,” TechCrunch Blog, Jan. 27, 2009, <http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/27/boobs-and-booty-banned-from-the-app-store/>. 8 Tom Krazit, Apple to Developer: No, You Pull My Finger, CNET News, Sept. 4, 2008, <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10032963-37.html>. 9 Rafe Needleman, More iPhone Apps You Can’t Have: Newber and iCall, CNET News, Jan. 6, 2009, <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10133039-37.html>. 10 Matt Asay, Apple Shuts OpenClip: No More Copy-and-Paste, CNET News, Aug. 25, 2008, <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10025034-16.html>. 11 2006 Recommendation at 52. 3 B. Technical Overview of Smart Phone Jailbreaking In order to lend additional factual support to Proposed Class 5A, EFF has prepared a technical overview of the mechanisms used by phone providers and carriers to impose restrictions on phone owners, as well as a basic understanding of some of the most common methods used to defeat these protection measures. That overview is attached hereto as Appendix A. This document provides further evidence that mobile phone vendors and network carriers are likely to argue that modifications that defeat restrictions on the kinds of applications that phone owners may run (“jailbreaking”) violate 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)’s prohibition on circumvention of technical protections measures used to control access to copyrighted works. C. FreeYourPhone.org Petition In January 2009, EFF created a web site, located at FreeYourPhone.org, in order to foster public awareness of proposed classes 5A and 5D, reasoning that many individuals have chafed under the restrictions imposed on mobile phones by both phone manufacturers and network carriers. Over the span of just a few weeks, 8,215 individuals signed an online petition supporting the proposed classes. The petition and complete list of signers is attached as Appendix B to these comments. Dozens more individuals provided specific, individual stories regarding their personal experiences, illustrating ways in which these restrictions have stymied noninfringing uses of mobile phones and related firmware. Those stories will be submitted directly to the Copyright Office by the individuals and constitute precisely the “actual instances of verifiable problems” that the Copyright Office identified in the NOI as “the most compelling cases of actual harm.”12 This factual evidence demonstrates that a large number of individuals have an interest in “jailbreaking” their phones in order to run the software of their choice, thus supporting the conclusion that the application of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) to the proposed class has a substantial adverse impact on noninfringing uses of the proposed class of works. II. Additional Support for Proposed Class 5D Summary of Argument: EFF, The Wireless Alliance, ReCellular and FlipSwap submit additional factual evidence in support of this proposed class in the form of additional technical information regarding the technologies used by smart phone vendors to implement “carrier locks” on mobile phones and a petition signed by ___ individuals who support the proposed class. The applicants also submit additional legal support for the proposed exemption, discussing further potential refinements to the scope of the proposed class in light of the applications by MetroPCS and Pocket Communications (Proposed Classes 5B and 5C).