User:Dreamyshade/Anti-circumvention article project
Let's improve articles that explain anti-circumvention laws: get them closer to being up to date, complete, clear to non-specialist readers, and well-sourced.
I've included some potential references as footnotes on these notes. Also feel free to add to this list of tasks!
Articles that need work
[edit]Outdated:
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Top priority task: Previous exemptions - update with summaries of the 2012 and 2015 exemptions. Could use the Federal Register as main source, plus news articles: 2012,[1] 2015.[2][3]
- Criticisms - expand with other criticisms.
- Reform and opposition - check for non-neutral, non-verifiable, and outdated statements. Add or improve sources for the remaining statements. Opinion pieces: 2015.[4][5]
- Title I: WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implemention Act - note the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act.
- The Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 - explain its relationship to Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act.
- iOS jailbreaking#United States and IOS#Jailbreaking - update with a summary of the relevant 2015 exemptions.
- Rooting (Android OS)#Legality - this is basically a copy of the iOS jailbreaking list, so update it with the relevant 2015 exemptions. Alternatively, evaluate whether it makes sense to maintain these two separate lists or to merge them and cross-link in some way.
- Hacking of consumer electronics#Legality - fix inaccurate statements, update for 2015 exemptions, and expand.
Incomplete:
- Trans-Pacific Partnership#Intellectual property provisions - improve integration of recent news update and add references.
- Trans-Pacific Partnership intellectual property provisions - check anti-circumvention parts of this article and make sure they're up to date and easy to understand.
- Anti-circumvention and Digital rights management#Laws regarding DRM - these two articles contain similar lists of laws, so evaluate whether they should be merged or cross-linked in some way. Also expand them to cover the laws of many more countries, possibly including an updated version of the list below. That list below is based on iOS jailbreaking#Legal status, which includes some useful references.
- Copyright Directive#Implementation by member states - this only lists a few countries, so expand it (or link to a suitable list in another article).
- PlayStation Jailbreak#Legality - find some decent sources for this and rewrite this incomplete section based on those sources. (The rest of the article needs rewriting based on sources too.) On George Hotz, copyedit its PlayStation section and add a link to the PlayStation Jailbreak article.
- WIPO Copyright Treaty - add references and expand descriptions of reception of the treaty.
- iFixit - add information about DMCA reform advocacy.[6]
Other problems:
- Derek Khanna - fix neutral point of view and conflict of interest issues.
Useful for reference:
- List of parties to international treaties protecting rights related to copyright
- List of parties to international copyright agreements
Sources
[edit]Potential references footnoted in above section:
- ^ Vosgerchian, Jessica (November 7, 2012). "Latest DMCA Exemptions Restrict Jailbreaking of Smart Devices, Relax Video and E-book Circumvention Rules". Jolt Digest. Retrieved November 20, 2015.
- ^ Orphanides, K. G. (October 28, 2015). "Explained: new US copyright exclusions for abandoned games". Wired. Retrieved November 20, 2015.
- ^ Kravets, David (October 27, 2015). "US regulators grant DMCA exemption legalizing vehicle software tinkering". Ars Technica. Retrieved November 20, 2015.
- ^ Maeve Sheehan, Kerry (October 27, 2015). "How Army of Darkness Is Like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act". Slate. Retrieved November 20, 2015.
- ^ Tanner, Julia (November 15, 2015). "If You Want Tech Freedom, Congress Needs To Change A Law". TechCrunch. Retrieved November 20, 2015.
- ^ Koebler, Jason (November 24, 2015). "How to Fix Everything". Motherboard. Retrieved November 30, 2015.
Potentially useful sources for improving lists of anti-circumvention laws around the world: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/3879/1/3879.pdf has a bunch of hints for finding info, including:
"Since its partial defeat at WIPO, the US has negotiated explicit anti-circumvention provisions in bilateral free-trade agreements with Jordan (merely repeating and clarifying WCT article 11), Singapore, Chile (specifically allowing circumvention under authority of law i.e. fair use), Bahrain, Australia and Morocco. These provisions are also contained in the multilateral Central America-Dominican Republic-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and the Free-Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) draft treaties...One of the sticking points at that meeting was the demand from Mercosur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay) that IP be excluded from the process...The US has recently concentrated on the bilateral and more limited CAFTA multilateral agreements described earlier, as well as on negotiations with the Andean Community (Peru, Colombia and Ecuador) and Panama."
"A survey of EU implementation of anti-circumvention provisions has found that there is widespread divergence between member states on the definitions of, restrictions on and penalties for circumvention. Most startlingly, some member states that joined the EU in 2004 have ignored the consensus amongst the old member states that circumvention for the purposes of exercising the exemptions in the Copyright Directive could not be allowed. Slovenia’s implementation, for example, provides that..."
https://www.eff.org/pages/seven-lessons-comparison-technological-protection-measure-provisions has more about several countries, starting with:
"Anti-circumvention provisions based on those in the DMCA have been included in the IP chapters of the bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) that the U.S. has recently concluded with Jordan (Article 4(13)), Singapore (Article 16.4(7)), Chile (Article 17.7(5)), CAFTA (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic) (Article 15.5(7)), Australia (Article 17.4(7)), Morocco (Article 15.5(8)) and Bahrain (Article 14.4(7)). In addition, Article 22 of Subsection B.2.c of the third draft of the IP Chapter of the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement also requires signatories to provide legal sanctions for circumventing technological measures added to protect copyrighted works."
Lists
[edit]Treaties and agreements:
| Parties | Year | Name | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| European Union | 2001 | Copyright Directive | party to WIPO Copyright Treaty |
| 92 countries | 1996 | WIPO Copyright Treaty |
Countries:
| Country | Year | Name | Under which agreements | Content of law |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2006 | Copyright law of Australia#Copyright Amendment Act 2006 | Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement | |
| Canada | 2012 | Copyright Modernization Act (Copyright law of Canada#Reform .281988-2012.29) | WIPO Copyright Treaty | prohibiting tampering with digital locks, with exceptions including software interoperability |
| Czech Republic | 2006 | the amendment No. 216/2006 Coll. of the Czech Copyright Act[1] | Copyright Directive | |
| Finland | 2005 | 2005 amendment to the Finnish Copyright Act and Penal Code | Copyright Directive | |
| France | 2006 | loi no 2006-961 du 1er août 2006 relative au droit d'auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l'information, better known as "DADVSI" | Copyright Directive | |
| India | 2012 | Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012 (Copyright law of India) | not a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty; listing on the US Special 301 Report "Priority Watch List" applied pressure | permits circumventing DRM for non-copyright-infringing purposes |
| Israel | none | "signatory to, but has not yet ratified, the WIPO Copyright Treaty" | Digital rights management#Israel says "In September 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the current copyright law could not be interpreted to prohibit the circumvention of digital rights management, though the Court left open the possibility that such activities could result in liability under the law of unjust enrichment." | |
| New Zealand | 2008 | Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 | allows the use of technological protection measure (TPM) circumvention methods as long as the use is for legal, non-copyright-infringing purposes | |
| United Kingdom | 2003 | Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 | Copyright Directive | makes circumventing DRM protection measures legal for the purpose of interoperability but not copyright infringement |
| United States | 1998 | Digital Millennium Copyright Act | WIPO Copyright Treaty |