[DRAFT] Limitations on Legal Protection for DRM

[Railana]

The purpose of this resolution is to limit the abuse of technological protection measures in World Assembly member states. This is a pretty niche area of law, but still an important one.

Limitations on Legal Protection for DRM
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

Acknowledging that some copyright holders use technological protection measures (commonly known as "digital rights management", or DRM) to restrict the use of their copyrighted works,

Recognizing that certain World Assembly member states have adopted highly restrictive legal protections for technological protection measures that prohibit the circumvention of such measures, even for the purpose of exercising a limitation or exception to copyright,

Believing that such measures have an anti-competitive effect and disrupt the balance between the rights of copyright holders and the general public,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines "technological protection measure", for the purposes of this resolution, as any mechanism that, in its ordinary course of operation, restricts the use of a copyrighted work that is expressed in a digital format;
2. Further defines "circumvention of a technological protection measure", for the purposes of this resolution, as the act of rendering a technological protection measure ineffective in restricting access to or the use of a copyrighted work without the authorization of the appropriate copyright holder,
3. Requires that member states recognize the exercise of a limitation or exception to copyright, and the facilitation thereof, in respect of a copyrighted work as a legitimate defence to:
   
   1. the circumvention of a technological protection measure, and
   2. the manufacture or distribution of devices or computer programs capable of circumventing a technological protection measure;
4. Authorizes a member state to limit the distribution of devices or computer programs capable of circumventing a technological protection measure to licensed parties, notwithstanding the provisions of section 3(b), but only if that member state:
   
   1. creates licensing requirements consistent with the purpose of this resolution, which is to ensure that technological protection measures can be legally circumvented for the purpose of exercising of a limitation or exception to copyright, or the facilitation thereof,
   2. permits licensed parties to circumvent a technological protection measure, where the purpose of such circumvention is to exercise a limitation or exception to copyright, or the facilitation thereof, and to offer such circumvention as a service to the general public, and
   3. requires state-funded libraries and archives to offer such circumvention services to the general public for free or for a nominal fee;
5. Clarifies that this resolution only affects the scope of the exclusive rights granted to a copyright holder and any associated causes of civil or criminal liability under copyright law and related legislation;
6. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution prohibits the World Assembly from further legislating on copyright or technological protection measures.

[Totally Not Leningrad Union]

Well written, but I refuse to support a draft similar to SOPA.

[Railana]

Well written, but I refuse to support a draft similar to SOPA.

((OOC: This legislation restricts the ability of member nations to use draconian copyright laws to restrict fair use, fair dealing, and their national equivalents. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Stop Online Piracy Act.))

[Totally Not Leningrad Union]

Well written, but I refuse to support a draft similar to SOPA.

This legislation restricts the ability of member nations to use draconian copyright laws to restrict fair use, fair dealing, and their national equivalents. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Stop Online Piracy Act.

dammit, i read the whole thing wrong

[Gruenberg]

OOC: My concerns would be that "fair use" has no meaning in WA law (that I'm aware of), meaning parts of this offer little substance.

[Railana]

My concerns would be that "fair use" has no meaning in WA law (that I'm aware of), meaning parts of this offer little substance.

((OOC: I'll make an appropriate change.))

[Starkmoor]

Well written and good intentions. We support this 100%.

[Auralia]

Bumping this. It will be submitted under Auralia.

[Marxist Germany]

Bumping this. It will be submitted under Auralia.

OOC:You're back!

[Araraukar]

OOC: How is this not covered by what you passed before?

[Auralia]

OOC: How is this not covered by what you passed before?

Could you clarify why you believe this is covered by past resolutions?

[Araraukar]

OOC: How is this not covered by what you passed before?

Could you clarify why you believe this is covered by past resolutions?

OOC: The copyright one. Why do you think it doesn't cover this? Unless you're not talking about copyrighted material at all, in which case you need to change at least your preamble.

[Auralia]

Could you clarify why you believe this is covered by past resolutions?

OOC: The copyright one. Why do you think it doesn't cover this? Unless you're not talking about copyrighted material at all, in which case you need to change at least your preamble.

FCR requires member states to recognize copyright, but doesn't touch on the issue of technological protection measures used to control access to copyrighted works.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Titles beginning with ‘on’ are generally disliked, since they don’t provide much detail as to the focus of the proposal. Otherwise, this looks good.)

“Support.”

[Araraukar]

but doesn't touch on the issue of technological protection measures used to control access to copyrighted works.

OOC: And why should international legislation exist for DRM systems? Especially pro-DRM? Shouldn't that be up to each nation to decide? This very much sounds like the toothpaste flavour territory...

[Auralia]

but doesn't touch on the issue of technological protection measures used to control access to copyrighted works.

OOC: And why should international legislation exist for DRM systems? Especially pro-DRM? Shouldn't that be up to each nation to decide? This very much sounds like the toothpaste flavour territory...

This proposal is not pro-DRM. It is anti-DRM, as it requires member states to permit the practice of circumventing DRM.

As the proposal states, when member states prohibit users from circumventing DRM, this has an anti-competitive effect and disrupts the balance between the rights of copyright holders and the general public.

For example, iTunes used to use DRM to protect songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store. This meant that the songs could only be played using an Apple product or device, such as iTunes or an iPhone. Without the right to circumvent the DRM, users would be forced to purchase Apple devices to play their music, even if other devices were otherwise better choices.

It's important to have international legislation on this issue because countries with IP-heavy economies, such as the United States, tend to include anti-circumvention provisions in trade agreements. World Assembly legislation would supersede such agreements, ensuring that all member states benefit from the user right to circumvent DRM.

[Araraukar]

As the proposal states, when member states prohibit users from circumventing DRM, this has an anti-competitive effect and disrupts the balance between the rights of copyright holders and the general public.

OOC: Know what else has anti-competitive effect? Copyrights and patents. But you've at least changed the title, so that's a step in the right direction.

World Assembly legislation would supersede such agreements, ensuring that all member states benefit from the user right to circumvent DRM.

Except it doesn't really read like that. Could you rewrite clause 3 to make more sense without needing to read the copyright resolution? Or define the specific terms you keep using there and later on.

[Auralia]

Except it doesn't really read like that. Could you rewrite clause 3 to make more sense without needing to read the copyright resolution? Or define the specific terms you keep using there and later on.

That's not really possible. DRM doesn't make sense in the absence of copyright.

But there's nothing in this proposal that presupposes FCR -- only the existence of copyright.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: In what way is this free trade?)

[Araraukar]

That's not really possible. DRM doesn't make sense in the absence of copyright.

But there's nothing in this proposal that presupposes FCR -- only the existence of copyright.

OOC: Thus...

Could you ... define the specific terms you keep using there and later on.

[Dreadton]

*mumbles "I knew I shouldn't have slept through Copyright law*

Delegate,

How would this bill impact DRMs on copyrighted works that are abandoned or when the copyright holder no longer exist? Company abandon software and go out of business all the time. Would this bill prevent a person from circumventing a DRM on software s/he bought that is no longer supported by the company?

What about Right to Repair? If I purchase, say farm equipment, and it needs repair. However, the manufacturer put in software that prevents repairs unless a certain computer program is used that is only sold by the company to a select few people (OOC: i.e. John Deere's current policy) ? Does the citizen have the right to circumvent the DRM protections then?

[Auralia]

OOC: Thus...

Could you ... define the specific terms you keep using there and later on.

I don't think that's necessary. The dictionary definition of copyright is sufficient.

(OOC: In what way is this free trade?)

For the reasons stated in the preamble -- DRM has an anti-competitive effect.

How would this bill impact DRMs on copyrighted works that are abandoned or when the copyright holder no longer exist? Company abandon software and go out of business all the time. Would this bill prevent a person from circumventing a DRM on software s/he bought that is no longer supported by the company?

To be clear, this proposal does not prohibit anyone from circumventing DRM in any case whatsoever. Its sole effect is to require member states to permit the circumvention of DRM.

To answer your specific question, this proposal has no effect on public domain works, since they by definition are not subject to copyright protection.

What about Right to Repair? If I purchase, say farm equipment, and it needs repair. However, the manufacturer put in software that prevents repairs unless a certain computer program is used that is only sold by the company to a select few people (OOC: i.e. John Deere's current policy) ? Does the citizen have the right to circumvent the DRM protections then?

If a member state recognizes the right to repair as a valid limitation or exception to copyright, then yes, this proposal would require that member states permit the circumvention of DRM for that purpose.

However, no international legislation currently requires member states to recognize the right to repair as a valid limitation or exception to copyright. That's actually a good proposal idea -- we'll consider submitting a sister draft with a list of limitations or exceptions to copyright that member states must recognize.

[United Massachusetts]

Support.

[Dreadton]

The Nation of Dreadton offers its tentative support. We are seeking further input from experts.

[Araraukar]

a limitation or exception to copyright

Could you ... define the specific term

OOC: Also, you still haven't answered how this wouldn't be covered already. It's pretty much either already covered or contradictory. If you want to focus on the DRMs themselves, I suggest dropping all mentions of copyright (yes, they're often the reason for DRM, but just greed can be as well, so you'd still be making sense) and tagging on the usual "as allowed by the previously passed and still extant resolutions" thing.

Also, I suggest changing the title, because it still very much makes it look as though you're wanting to protect DRMs instead of limiting them.