80 FR 77668 - Software-Enabled Consumer Products Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 240 (December 15, 2015)

Page Range		77668-77672
FR Document		2015-31411
The U.S. Copyright Office is undertaking a study at the request of Congress to review the role of copyright law with respect to software-enabled consumer products. The topics of public inquiry include whether the application of copyright law to software in everyday products enables or frustrates innovation and creativity in the design, distribution and legitimate uses of new products and innovative services. The Office also is seeking information as to whether legitimate interests or business models for copyright owners and users could be improved or undermined by changes to the copyright law in this area. This is a highly specific study not intended to examine or address more general questions about software and copyright protection.
Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 240 (Tuesday, December 15, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 240 (Tuesday, December 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77668-77672]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31411]


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

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

U.S. Copyright Office

[Docket No. 2015-6]


Software-Enabled Consumer Products Study: Notice and Request for 
Public Comment

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

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is undertaking a study at the 
request of Congress to review the role of copyright law with respect to 
software-enabled consumer products. The topics of public inquiry 
include whether the application of copyright law to software in 
everyday products enables or frustrates innovation and creativity in 
the design, distribution and legitimate uses of new products and 
innovative services. The Office also is seeking information as to 
whether legitimate interests or business models for copyright owners 
and users could be improved or undermined by changes to the copyright 
law in this area. This is a highly specific study not intended to 
examine or address more general questions about software and copyright 
protection.

DATES: Written comments must be received no later than February 16, 
2016 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Written reply comments must be 
received no later than March 18, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. The 
Office will be announcing one or more public meetings, to take place 
after written comments are received, by separate notice in the future.

ADDRESSES: All comments must be submitted electronically. Specific 
instructions for submitting comments will be posted on the Copyright 
Office Web site at http://www.copyright.gov/policy/software on or 
before February 1, 2016. To meet accessibility standards, all comments 
must be provided in a single file not to exceed six megabytes (MB) in 
one of the following formats: Portable Document File (PDF) format 
containing searchable, accessible text (not an image); Microsoft Word; 
WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or ASCII text file format (not a 
scanned document). Both the web form and face of the uploaded comments 
must include the name of the submitter and any organization the 
submitter represents. The Office will post all comments publicly in the 
form that they are received. If electronic submission of comments is 
not feasible, please contact the Office using the contact information 
below for special instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarang V. Damle, Deputy General 
Counsel, [email protected]; Catherine Rowland, Senior Advisor to the 
Register of Copyrights, [email protected]; or Erik Bertin, Deputy 
Director of Registration Policy and Practice, [email protected]. Each can 
be reached by telephone at (202) 707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copyrighted software can be found in a wide 
range of everyday consumer products--from cars, to refrigerators, to 
cellphones, to thermostats, and more. Consumers have benefited greatly 
from this development: Software brings new

[[Page 77669]]

qualities to ordinary products, making them safer, more efficient, and 
easier to use. At the same time, software's ubiquity raises significant 
policy issues across a broad range of subjects, including privacy, 
cybersecurity, and intellectual property rights. These include 
questions about the impact of existing copyright law on innovation and 
consumer uses of everyday products and innovative services that rely on 
such products. In light of these concerns, Senators Charles E. Grassley 
and Patrick Leahy (the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of 
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary) have asked the U.S. Copyright 
Office to ``undertake a comprehensive review of the role of copyright 
in the complex set of relationships at the heart'' of the issues raised 
by the spread of software in everyday products.\1\ The Senators called 
on the Office to seek public input from ``interested industry 
stakeholders, consumer advocacy groups, and relevant federal 
agencies,'' and make appropriate recommendations for legislative or 
other changes.\2\ The report must be completed no later than December 
15, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter from Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Maria A. Pallante, Register of 
Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office, at 1 (Oct. 22, 2015), available 
at http://www.copyright.gov/policy/software.
    \2\ Id. at 2.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This study is not the proper forum for issues arising under section 
1201 of the Copyright Act, which addresses the circumvention of 
technological protection measures on copyrighted works. Earlier this 
year, the Register of Copyrights testified that certain aspects of the 
section 1201 anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium 
Copyright Act (``DMCA'') were unanticipated when enacted almost twenty 
years ago, and would benefit from further review. These issues include, 
for example, the application of anticircumvention rules to everyday 
products, as well as their impact on encryption research and security 
testing. If you wish to submit comments about section 1201, please do 
so through the forthcoming section 1201 study, information on which 
will be available shortly at www.copyright.gov.

I. Background

    Copyright law has expressly protected computer programs,\4\ whether 
used in general purpose computers or embedded in everyday consumer 
products, since the enactment of the 1976 Copyright Act (``1976 Act''). 
Though the 1976 Act did not expressly list computer programs as 
copyrightable subject matter, the Act's legislative history makes it 
evident that Congress intended for them to be protected by copyright 
law as literary works.\5\ At the same time, in the 1976 Act, Congress 
recognized that ``the area of computer uses of copyrighted works'' was 
a ``major area [where] the problems are not sufficiently developed for 
a definitive legislative solution.'' \6\ Accordingly, as originally 
enacted, 17 U.S.C. 117 ``preserve[d] the status quo'' as it existed in 
1976 with respect to computer uses,\7\ by providing that copyright 
owners had no ``greater and lesser rights with respect to the use of 
the work in conjunction with automatic systems capable of storing, 
processing, retrieving, or transferring information, or in conjunction 
with any similar device, machine, or process, than those afforded to 
works under the law'' as it existed prior to the effective date of the 
1976 Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although the Copyright Act uses the term ``computer 
program,'' see 17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of ``computer program''), 
the terms ``software'' and ``computer program'' are used 
interchangeably in this notice.
    \5\ See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 55 (1976); see also National 
Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, Final 
Report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of 
Copyrighted Works 16 (1978) (``CONTU Report'').
    \6\ H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 55.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Public Law 94-553, sec. 117, 90 Stat. 2541, 2565 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the 1976 Act's enactment, the scope of copyright protection 
for computer programs has continued to be refined by Congress through 
legislation and by the courts through litigation. At least some of that 
attention has focused on the precise problem presented here: The 
presence of software in everyday products.

A. CONTU Report

    In the mid-1970s, Congress created the National Commission on New 
Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (``CONTU'') to study and report 
on the complex issues raised by extending copyright protection to 
computer programs.\9\ In its 1978 Report, CONTU recommended that 
Congress continue to protect computer programs under copyright law, 
specifically by amending section 101 of the 1976 Act to include a 
definition of computer programs and by replacing section 117 as enacted 
in the 1976 Act with a new provision providing express limitations on 
the exclusive rights of reproduction and adaptation of computer 
programs under certain conditions.\10\ Congress adopted CONTU's 
legislative recommendations in 1980.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CONTU Report at 3-4.
    \10\ Id. at 12.
    \11\ See Act of Dec. 12, 1980, Public Law 96-517, sec. 10, 94 
Stat. 3015, 3028-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While CONTU did not specifically anticipate that software would 
become embedded in everyday products, CONTU did recognize some general 
issues resulting from the fact that computer programs need a machine to 
operate. Specifically, CONTU recognized that the process by which a 
machine operates a computer program necessitates the making of a copy 
of the program and that adaptations are sometimes necessary to make a 
program interoperable with the machine.\12\ CONTU preliminarily 
addressed these issues by including in its recommended revisions to 
section 117 a provision permitting the reproduction or adaptation of a 
computer program when created as an essential step in using the program 
in conjunction with a machine, finding that ``[b]ecause the placement 
of a work into a computer is the preparation of a copy, the law should 
provide that persons in rightful possession of copies of programs be 
able to use them freely without fear of exposure to copyright 
liability.'' \13\ CONTU's recommendations for the new section 117 also 
included a provision permitting the making of copies and adaptations 
for archival purposes.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See CONTU Report at 12-14.
    \13\ Id. at 12-13.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, CONTU foresaw that the issues surrounding 
copyright protection for software would have to be examined again by 
Congress and the Copyright Office:

    [T]he Commission recognizes that the dynamics of computer 
science promise changes in the creation and use of authors' writings 
that cannot be predicted with any certainty. The effects of these 
changes should have the attention of Congress and its appropriate 
agencies to ensure that those who are the responsible policy makers 
maintain an awareness of the changing impact of computer technology 
on both the needs of authors and the role of authors in the 
information age. To that end, the Commission recommends that 
Congress, through the appropriate committees, and the Copyright 
Office, in the course of its administration of copyright 
registrations and other activities, continuously monitor the impact 
of computer applications on the creation of works of authorship.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 46.

B. Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990

    A decade later, in response to concerns that commercial rental of

[[Page 77670]]

computer programs would encourage illegal copying of such programs, 
Congress passed the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 
(``Computer Software Rental Act''), which amended section 109 of the 
Copyright Act to prohibit the rental, lease or lending of a computer 
program for direct or indirect commercial gain unless authorized by the 
copyright owner of the program.\16\ Notably, Congress also expressly 
provided an exception to this prohibition for ``a computer program 
which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied 
during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product.'' \17\ 
In doing so, Congress recognized that computer programs can be embedded 
in machines or products and tailored the rental legislation to avoid 
interference with the ordinary use of such products.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Public Law 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5134-35 (1990); 17 
U.S.C. 109(b)(1)(A).
    \17\ 17 U.S.C. 109(b)(1)(B)(i).
    \18\ See Computer Software Rental Amendments Act (H.R. 2740, 
H.R. 5297, and S. 198): Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, 
Intellectual Prop., and the Admin. of Justice of the H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, 101st Cong. 15-16 (1990) (statement of Rep. Mike Synar) 
(``Some parties have interpreted the [Computer Software Rental Act] 
as potentially affecting computer programs which may be contained as 
a component of another machine, such as a program which drives a 
mechanized robot or runs a microwave or a household kitchen utensil. 
Such a result was not intended and will be addressed in this 
legislation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. DMCA

    Congress revisited the issues surrounding software and copyright 
law with the DMCA.\19\ As particularly relevant here, the DMCA amended 
section 117 of the Copyright Act to permit the reproduction of computer 
programs for the purposes of machine maintenance or repair following a 
court of appeals decision \20\ that cast doubt on the ability of 
independent service organizations to repair computer hardware.\21\ This 
provision foreshadows the more general concerns raised by the spread of 
software in everyday products--namely, that maintaining or repairing a 
software-enabled product often will require copying of the software. 
Section 104 of the DMCA also directed the Office to study the effects 
of the DMCA amendments and the development of electronic commerce and 
associated technology on the operation of sections 109 and 117 of the 
Copyright Act, as well as ``the relationship between existing and 
emergent technology and the operation of sections 109 and 117.'' \22\ 
The Office subsequently published a report detailing its findings and 
recommendations in August 2001 (``Section 104 Report'').\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Public Law 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998).
    \20\ MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 
1993).
    \21\ See DMCA, sec. 302, 112 Stat. 2860, 2887 (1998); S. Rep. 
No. 105-190, at 21-22 (1998).
    \22\ DMCA, sec. 104, 112 Stat. 2860, 2876 (1998).
    \23\ See generally U.S. Copyright Office, DMCA Section 104 
Report (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Section 104 Report discussed a number of issues relevant to the 
discussion of software in everyday products. For instance, it addressed 
proposals to add a ``digital first sale'' right to section 109 of the 
Copyright Act to explicitly grant consumers the authority to resell 
works in digital format. Although the Office concluded that no 
legislative changes to section 109 were necessary at the time, it 
recognized that ``[t]he time may come when Congress may wish to 
consider further how to address these concerns.'' \24\ In particular, 
the Office anticipated some of the issues presented here when it 
highlighted ``the operation of the first sale doctrine in the context 
of works tethered to a particular device''--an example of which would 
be software embedded in everyday products--as an issue worthy of 
continued monitoring.\25\ Additionally, the Office noted the concern 
that unilateral contractual provisions could be used to limit 
consumers' ability to invoke exceptions and limitations in copyright 
law. Although the Office concluded that those issues were outside the 
scope of the study, and that ``market forces may well prevent right 
holders from unreasonably limiting consumer privileges,'' it also 
recognized that ``it is possible that at some point in the future a 
case could be made for statutory change.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 96-97.
    \25\ Id. at xvi-xvii.
    \26\ Id. at 162-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Developments in Case Law

    In the meantime, courts, too, have weighed in on a number of issues 
concerning copyright protection of software, including 
copyrightability, the application of the fair use doctrine, and 
ownership of software by consumers. In analyzing these issues, however, 
courts have not generally distinguished between software installed on 
general purpose computers and that embedded in everyday products.
    Courts have helped define the scope of copyright protection for 
software and address questions of infringement through application of 
doctrines such as the idea/expression dichotomy (codified in 17 U.S.C. 
102(b)), merger, and sc[egrave]nes [agrave] faire.\27\ The idea/
expression dichotomy, as applied to software, excludes from copyright 
protection the abstract ``methodology or processes adopted by the 
programmer'' in creating the code.\28\ In the context of software, the 
merger doctrine excludes certain otherwise creative expression from 
copyright protection when it is the only way, or one of a limited 
number of ways, to perform a given computing task.\29\ The 
sc[egrave]nes [agrave] faire doctrine has been used to limit or 
eliminate copyright protection for elements of a program that are 
dictated by external factors or by efficiency concerns, such as the 
mechanical specifications of the computer on which the program 
runs.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control 
Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522, 534-36 (6th Cir. 2004); Apple 
Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1252-53 
(3d Cir. 1983); Computer Management Assistance Co. v. DeCastro, 220 
F.3d 396, 400-02 (5th Cir. 2000).
    \28\ H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 9; see also CONTU Report at 22 
(``[C]opyright leads to the result that anyone is free to make a 
computer carry out any unpatented process, but not to misappropriate 
another's writing to do so.'').
    \29\ See CONTU Report at 20 (``[C]opyrighted language may be 
copied without infringing when there is but a limited number of ways 
to express a given idea. . . . In the computer context, this means 
that when specific instructions, even though previously copyrighted, 
are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, 
their later use by another will not amount to an infringement.'').
    \30\ See, e.g., Lexmark, 387 F.3d at 535-36 (outlining 
applicability of doctrine to computer programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fair use doctrine, codified in 17 U.S.C. 107, is also relevant 
here. Courts have applied the fair use doctrine to permit uses of 
software that ensure interoperability of software with new products and 
devices. For example, in Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., the 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that copying a video game 
console's computer program to decompile and reverse engineer the object 
code to make it interoperable with video games created by the defendant 
was a fair use.\31\ Similarly, in Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. 
Connectix Corp., the court held that reverse engineering the operating 
system of a PlayStation gaming console to develop a computer program 
allowing users to play PlayStation video games on a desktop computer, 
as well as making copies in the course of such reverse engineering, was 
a fair use.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 977 F.2d 1510, 1527-28 (9th Cir. 1992), amended by 1993 
U.S. App. LEXIS 78 (9th Cir. 1993).
    \32\ 203 F.3d 596, 602-08 (9th Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another important issue courts have tackled involves the scope of 
section 117's limitations on exclusive rights in computer programs. 
Section 117(a) allows copies or adaptations of

[[Page 77671]]

computer programs to be made either ``as an essential step in the 
utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine'' or 
for archival purposes, but this provision may only be invoked by ``the 
owner of a copy of a computer program.'' \33\ This raises difficult 
questions regarding whether a consumer owns a copy of software 
installed on a device or machine for purposes of section 117 when 
formal title is lacking or a license purports to impose restrictions on 
the use of the computer program. Courts have provided somewhat 
conflicting guidance regarding this issue, and the application of the 
law can be unclear in many contexts.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 U.S.C. 117(a).
    \34\ Compare Krause v. Titleserv, Inc., 402 F.3d 119, 124 (2d 
Cir. 2005), with Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th 
Cir. 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Recent Legislation

    Issues associated with the spread of copyrighted software in 
everyday products have prompted legislative action in an attempt to 
address some of the copyright issues created by the spread of such 
works.\35\ In the context of section 1201--which, as explained, is the 
subject of a separate Copyright Office study--Congress enacted 
legislation in August 2014 to broaden the regulatory exemption 
permitting the circumvention of technological measures for the purpose 
of connecting wireless telephone handsets to wireless communication 
networks (a process commonly known as ``cellphone unlocking'').\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Bills have also been introduced addressing related issues 
outside copyright law stemming from the spread of software in 
everyday products. The Spy Car Act of 2015 would direct the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct a rulemaking and 
issue motor vehicle cybersecurity regulations protecting against 
unauthorized access to electronic systems in vehicles or driving 
data, such as information about a vehicle's location, speed or 
owner, collected by such electronic systems. SPY Car Act of 2015, S. 
1806, 114th Cong. sec. 2 (2015). A discussion draft introduced in 
the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee of the Energy & 
Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives would prohibit 
access to electronic control units or critical systems in a motor 
vehicle. A Bill to provide greater transparency, accountability, and 
safety authority to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, and for other purposes [Discussion Draft], 114th 
Cong. sec. 302 (2015), available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20151021/104070/BILLS-114pih-DiscussionDraftonVehicleandRoadwaySafety.pdf.
    \36\ See Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, 
Public Law 113-144, 128 Stat. 1751 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Unlocking Technology Act of 2015, as most pertinent to this 
study, would amend section 117 of the Copyright Act to permit the 
reproduction or adaptation of ``the software or firmware of a user-
purchased mobile communications device for the sole purpose of . . . 
connect[ing] to a wireless communications network'' if the reproduction 
or adaptation is initiated by or with the consent of the owner of the 
device, the owner is in legal possession of the device, and the owner 
has the consent of the authorized operator of the wireless 
communications network to use the network.\37\ The legislation would 
also limit the prohibition on circumvention in section 1201 of title 17 
to circumstances where circumvention is carried out in order to 
infringe or facilitate the infringement of a copyrighted work, and 
would permit the use of or trafficking in circumvention devices unless 
the intent of such use or trafficking is to infringe or facilitate 
infringement.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Unlocking Technology Act, H.R. 1587, 114th Cong. sec. 3 
(2015).
    \38\ Id. sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the You Own Devices Act (``YODA'') would amend section 
109 of the Copyright Act to allow the transfer of ownership of a copy 
of a computer program embedded on a machine or other product ``if [the] 
computer program enables any part of [that] machine or other product to 
operate,'' as well as any right to receive software updates or security 
patches from the manufacturer.\39\ This right of transfer could not be 
waived by any contractual agreement.\40\ In addition, the original 
owner of the device would be prohibited from retaining an unauthorized 
copy of the computer program after transferring the device and the 
computer program to another person.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ YODA, H.R. 862, 114th Cong. sec. 2 (2015).
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Relationship to Questions About Section 1201

    Some issues related to software embedded in everyday products have 
come to the forefront in recent years through the 1201 rulemaking 
process. As the Copyright Office has frequently noted, the 1201 
rulemaking can serve as a barometer for larger public policy questions, 
including issues that may merit or would require legislative change. 
The public should not submit concerns about section 1201 through this 
software study, but rather through the Copyright Office's forthcoming 
study on section 1201, information about which will be available 
shortly at http://www.copyright.gov/.

II. Subjects of Inquiry

    In response to the letter from Senators Grassley and Leahy, the 
Office is seeking public comment on the following five topics. A party 
choosing to respond to this Notice of Inquiry need not address every 
subject, but the Office requests that responding parties clearly 
identify and separately address each subject for which a response is 
submitted.
    1. The provisions of the copyright law that are implicated by the 
ubiquity of copyrighted software in everyday products;
    2. Whether, and to what extent, the design, distribution, and 
legitimate uses of products are being enabled and/or frustrated by the 
application of existing copyright law to software in everyday products;
    3. Whether, and to what extent, innovative services are being 
enabled and/or frustrated by the application of existing copyright law 
to software in everyday products;
    4. Whether, and to what extent, legitimate interests or business 
models for copyright owners and users could be undermined or improved 
by changes to the copyright law in this area; and
    5. Key issues in how the copyright law intersects with other areas 
of law in establishing how products that rely on software to function 
can be lawfully used.
    When addressing these topics, respondents should consider the 
following specific issues:
    1. Whether copyright law should distinguish between software 
embedded in ``everyday products'' and other types of software, and, if 
so, how such a distinction might be drawn in an administrable manner.
    a. Whether ``everyday products'' can be distinguished from other 
products that contain software, such as general purpose computers--
essentially how to define ``everyday products.''
    b. If distinguishing between software embedded in ``everyday 
products'' and other types of software is impracticable, whether there 
are alternative ways the Office can distinguish between categories of 
software.
    2. The rationale and proper scope of copyright protection for 
software embedded in everyday products, including the extent to which 
copyright infringement is a concern with respect to such software.
    3. The need to enable interoperability with software-embedded 
devices, including specific examples of ways in which the law 
frustrates or enables such interoperability.
    4. Whether current limitations on and exceptions to copyright 
protection

[[Page 77672]]

adequately address issues concerning software embedded in everyday 
products, or whether amendments or clarifications would be useful. 
Specific areas of interest include:
    a. The idea/expression dichotomy (codified in 17 U.S.C. 102(b))
    b. The merger doctrine
    c. The sc[egrave]nes [agrave] faire doctrine
    d. Fair use (codified in 17 U.S.C. 107)
    e. The first-sale doctrine (codified in 17 U.S.C. 109)
    f. Statutory limitations on exclusive rights in computer programs 
(codified in 17 U.S.C. 117)
    5. The state of contract law vis-[agrave]-vis software embedded in 
everyday products, and how contracts such as end user license 
agreements impact investment in and the dissemination and use of 
everyday products, including whether any legislative action in this 
area is needed.
    6. Any additional relevant issues not raised above.

    Dated: December 9, 2015.
Maria A. Pallante,
Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-31411 Filed 12-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
77668 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 240 / Tuesday, December 15, 2015 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written offenders accountable for their crimes of law with respect to software-enabled
comments and suggestions from the violence against women. OVW consumer products. The topics of public
public and affected agencies concerning administers the STOP Formula Grants inquiry include whether the application
the proposed collection of information Program. The grant funds must be of copyright law to software in everyday
are encouraged. Your comments should distributed by STOP state products enables or frustrates
address one or more of the following administrators to subgrantees according innovation and creativity in the design,
four points: to a statutory formula (as amended). distribution and legitimate uses of new
—Evaluate whether the proposed (5) An estimate of the total number of products and innovative services. The
collection of information is necessary respondents and the amount of time Office also is seeking information as to
for the proper performance of the estimated for an average respondent to whether legitimate interests or business
functions of the agency, including respond/reply: It is estimated that it will models for copyright owners and users
whether the information will have take the 56 respondents (STOP could be improved or undermined by
practical utility; administrators) approximately one hour changes to the copyright law in this
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s to complete an annual progress report. area. This is a highly specific study not
estimate of the burden of the It is estimated that it will take intended to examine or address more
proposed collection of information, approximately one hour for roughly general questions about software and
including the validity of the 2500 subgrantees 1 to complete the copyright protection.
methodology and assumptions used; relevant portion of the annual progress DATES: Written comments must be
—Enhance the quality, utility, and report. The Annual Progress Report for received no later than February 16, 2016
clarity of the information to be the STOP Formula Grants Program is at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Written
collected; and divided into sections that pertain to the reply comments must be received no
—Minimize the burden of the collection different types of activities that later than March 18, 2016 at 11:59 p.m.
of information on those who are to subgrantees may engage in and the Eastern Time. The Office will be
respond, including through the use of different types of subgrantees that announcing one or more public
appropriate automated, electronic, receive funds, i.e. law enforcement meetings, to take place after written
mechanical, or other technological agencies, prosecutors’ offices, courts, comments are received, by separate
collection techniques or other forms victim services agencies, etc. notice in the future.
of information technology, e.g., (6) An estimate of the total public ADDRESSES: All comments must be
permitting electronic submission of burden (in hours) associated with the submitted electronically. Specific
responses. collection: The total annual hour burden instructions for submitting comments
Overview of This Information to complete the annual progress report will be posted on the Copyright Office
Collection is 2,556 hours. Web site at http://www.copyright.gov/
If additional information is required policy/software on or before February 1,
(1) Type of Information Collection: contact: Jerri Murray, Department 2016. To meet accessibility standards,
Revision to Currently Approved Clearance Officer, United States all comments must be provided in a
Collection. Department of Justice, Justice
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: single file not to exceed six megabytes
Management Division, Policy and (MB) in one of the following formats:
Annual Progress Report for STOP Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Violence Against Women Formula Grant Portable Document File (PDF) format
Square, 145 N Street NE., Room containing searchable, accessible text
Program. 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and (not an image); Microsoft Word;
the applicable component of the Dated: December 9, 2015. WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or
Department of Justice sponsoring the Jerri Murray, ASCII text file format (not a scanned
collection: Form Number: 1122–0003. Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. document). Both the web form and face
U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Department of Justice. of the uploaded comments must include
Violence Against Women. [FR Doc. 2015–31468 Filed 12–14–15; 8:45 am] the name of the submitter and any
(4) Affected public who will be asked BILLING CODE 4410–FX–P
organization the submitter represents.
or required to respond, as well as a brief The Office will post all comments
abstract: The affected public includes publicly in the form that they are
the 56 STOP state administrators (from received. If electronic submission of
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
50 states, the District of Columbia and comments is not feasible, please contact
five territories and commonwealths U.S. Copyright Office the Office using the contact information
(Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, below for special instructions.
[Docket No. 2015–6] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana
Islands)) and their subgrantees. The Software-Enabled Consumer Products Sarang V. Damle, Deputy General
STOP Violence Against Women Study: Notice and Request for Public Counsel, sdam@loc.gov; Catherine
Formula Grants Program was authorized Comment Rowland, Senior Advisor to the Register
through the Violence Against Women of Copyrights, crowland@loc.gov; or Erik
Act of 1994 (VAWA) and reauthorized AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library Bertin, Deputy Director of Registration
and amended in 2000, 2005, and 2013. of Congress. Policy and Practice, ebertin@loc.gov.
Its purpose is to promote a coordinated, ACTION: Notice of inquiry. Each can be reached by telephone at
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

multi-disciplinary approach to (202) 707–8350.
improving the criminal justice system’s SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
response to violence against women. undertaking a study at the request of Copyrighted software can be found in a
The STOP Formula Grants Program Congress to review the role of copyright wide range of everyday consumer
envisions a partnership among law 1 Each year the number of STOP subgrantees
products—from cars, to refrigerators, to
enforcement, prosecution, courts, and changes. The number 2,500 is based on the number
cellphones, to thermostats, and more.
victim advocacy organizations to of reports that OVW has received in the past from Consumers have benefited greatly from
enhance victim safety and hold STOP subgrantees. this development: Software brings new

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Dec 14, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 240 / Tuesday, December 15, 2015 / Notices 77669

qualities to ordinary products, making general purpose computers or under certain conditions.10 Congress
them safer, more efficient, and easier to embedded in everyday consumer adopted CONTU’s legislative
use. At the same time, software’s products, since the enactment of the recommendations in 1980.11
ubiquity raises significant policy issues 1976 Copyright Act (‘‘1976 Act’’). While CONTU did not specifically
across a broad range of subjects, Though the 1976 Act did not expressly anticipate that software would become
including privacy, cybersecurity, and list computer programs as copyrightable embedded in everyday products,
intellectual property rights. These subject matter, the Act’s legislative CONTU did recognize some general
include questions about the impact of history makes it evident that Congress issues resulting from the fact that
existing copyright law on innovation intended for them to be protected by computer programs need a machine to
and consumer uses of everyday copyright law as literary works.5 At the operate. Specifically, CONTU
products and innovative services that same time, in the 1976 Act, Congress recognized that the process by which a
rely on such products. In light of these recognized that ‘‘the area of computer machine operates a computer program
concerns, Senators Charles E. Grassley uses of copyrighted works’’ was a necessitates the making of a copy of the
and Patrick Leahy (the Chairman and ‘‘major area [where] the problems are program and that adaptations are
Ranking Member, respectively, of the not sufficiently developed for a sometimes necessary to make a program
Senate Committee on the Judiciary) definitive legislative solution.’’ 6 interoperable with the machine.12
have asked the U.S. Copyright Office to Accordingly, as originally enacted, 17 CONTU preliminarily addressed these
‘‘undertake a comprehensive review of U.S.C. 117 ‘‘preserve[d] the status quo’’ issues by including in its recommended
the role of copyright in the complex set as it existed in 1976 with respect to revisions to section 117 a provision
of relationships at the heart’’ of the computer uses,7 by providing that permitting the reproduction or
issues raised by the spread of software copyright owners had no ‘‘greater and adaptation of a computer program when
in everyday products.1 The Senators lesser rights with respect to the use of created as an essential step in using the
called on the Office to seek public input the work in conjunction with automatic program in conjunction with a machine,
from ‘‘interested industry stakeholders, systems capable of storing, processing, finding that ‘‘[b]ecause the placement of
consumer advocacy groups, and retrieving, or transferring information, a work into a computer is the
relevant federal agencies,’’ and make or in conjunction with any similar preparation of a copy, the law should
appropriate recommendations for device, machine, or process, than those provide that persons in rightful
legislative or other changes.2 The report afforded to works under the law’’ as it possession of copies of programs be able
must be completed no later than existed prior to the effective date of the to use them freely without fear of
December 15, 2016.3 1976 Act.8 exposure to copyright liability.’’ 13
This study is not the proper forum for CONTU’s recommendations for the new
Since the 1976 Act’s enactment, the section 117 also included a provision
issues arising under section 1201 of the
scope of copyright protection for permitting the making of copies and
Copyright Act, which addresses the
computer programs has continued to be adaptations for archival purposes.14
circumvention of technological
refined by Congress through legislation At the same time, CONTU foresaw
protection measures on copyrighted
and by the courts through litigation. At that the issues surrounding copyright
works. Earlier this year, the Register of
least some of that attention has focused protection for software would have to be
Copyrights testified that certain aspects
on the precise problem presented here: examined again by Congress and the
of the section 1201 anticircumvention
The presence of software in everyday Copyright Office:
provisions of the Digital Millennium
products.
Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’) were [T]he Commission recognizes that the
unanticipated when enacted almost A. CONTU Report dynamics of computer science promise
twenty years ago, and would benefit changes in the creation and use of authors’
from further review. These issues In the mid-1970s, Congress created writings that cannot be predicted with any
include, for example, the application of the National Commission on New certainty. The effects of these changes should
Technological Uses of Copyrighted have the attention of Congress and its
anticircumvention rules to everyday appropriate agencies to ensure that those
products, as well as their impact on Works (‘‘CONTU’’) to study and report
who are the responsible policy makers
encryption research and security testing. on the complex issues raised by
maintain an awareness of the changing
If you wish to submit comments about extending copyright protection to impact of computer technology on both the
section 1201, please do so through the computer programs.9 In its 1978 Report, needs of authors and the role of authors in
forthcoming section 1201 study, CONTU recommended that Congress the information age. To that end, the
information on which will be available continue to protect computer programs Commission recommends that Congress,
shortly at www.copyright.gov. under copyright law, specifically by through the appropriate committees, and the
amending section 101 of the 1976 Act to Copyright Office, in the course of its
I. Background include a definition of computer administration of copyright registrations and
other activities, continuously monitor the
Copyright law has expressly protected programs and by replacing section 117 impact of computer applications on the
computer programs,4 whether used in as enacted in the 1976 Act with a new creation of works of authorship.15
provision providing express limitations
1 Letter from Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, on the exclusive rights of reproduction B. Computer Software Rental
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and Sen. Patrick and adaptation of computer programs Amendments Act of 1990
Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, to Maria A. Pallante, Register of A decade later, in response to
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

5 See H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 55 (1976); see also
Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office, at 1 (Oct. 22, concerns that commercial rental of
2015), available at http://www.copyright.gov/ National Commission on New Technological Uses
policy/software. of Copyrighted Works, Final Report of the National
10 Id. at 12.
2 Id. at 2. Commission on New Technological Uses of
3 Id. Copyrighted Works 16 (1978) (‘‘CONTU Report’’). 11 See Act of Dec. 12, 1980, Public Law 96–517,
4 Although the Copyright Act uses the term
6 H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 55. sec. 10, 94 Stat. 3015, 3028–29.
7 Id. 12 See CONTU Report at 12–14.
‘‘computer program,’’ see 17 U.S.C. 101 (definition
8 Public Law 94–553, sec. 117, 90 Stat. 2541, 2565 13 Id. at 12–13.
of ‘‘computer program’’), the terms ‘‘software’’ and
‘‘computer program’’ are used interchangeably in (1976). 14 Id.

this notice. 9 See CONTU Report at 3–4. 15 Id. at 46.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Dec 14, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1
77670 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 240 / Tuesday, December 15, 2015 / Notices

computer programs would encourage emergent technology and the operation à faire.27 The idea/expression
illegal copying of such programs, of sections 109 and 117.’’ 22 The Office dichotomy, as applied to software,
Congress passed the Computer Software subsequently published a report excludes from copyright protection the
Rental Amendments Act of 1990 detailing its findings and abstract ‘‘methodology or processes
(‘‘Computer Software Rental Act’’), recommendations in August 2001 adopted by the programmer’’ in creating
which amended section 109 of the (‘‘Section 104 Report’’).23 the code.28 In the context of software,
Copyright Act to prohibit the rental, The Section 104 Report discussed a the merger doctrine excludes certain
lease or lending of a computer program number of issues relevant to the otherwise creative expression from
for direct or indirect commercial gain discussion of software in everyday copyright protection when it is the only
unless authorized by the copyright products. For instance, it addressed way, or one of a limited number of
owner of the program.16 Notably, proposals to add a ‘‘digital first sale’’ ways, to perform a given computing
Congress also expressly provided an right to section 109 of the Copyright Act task.29 The scènes à faire doctrine has
exception to this prohibition for ‘‘a to explicitly grant consumers the been used to limit or eliminate
computer program which is embodied authority to resell works in digital copyright protection for elements of a
in a machine or product and which format. Although the Office concluded program that are dictated by external
cannot be copied during the ordinary that no legislative changes to section factors or by efficiency concerns, such
operation or use of the machine or 109 were necessary at the time, it as the mechanical specifications of the
product.’’ 17 In doing so, Congress recognized that ‘‘[t]he time may come computer on which the program runs.30
recognized that computer programs can when Congress may wish to consider The fair use doctrine, codified in 17
be embedded in machines or products further how to address these U.S.C. 107, is also relevant here. Courts
and tailored the rental legislation to concerns.’’ 24 In particular, the Office have applied the fair use doctrine to
avoid interference with the ordinary use anticipated some of the issues presented permit uses of software that ensure
of such products.18 here when it highlighted ‘‘the operation interoperability of software with new
of the first sale doctrine in the context products and devices. For example, in
C. DMCA Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,
of works tethered to a particular
Congress revisited the issues the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
device’’—an example of which would
surrounding software and copyright law Circuit held that copying a video game
be software embedded in everyday
with the DMCA.19 As particularly console’s computer program to
products—as an issue worthy of
relevant here, the DMCA amended decompile and reverse engineer the
continued monitoring.25 Additionally,
section 117 of the Copyright Act to object code to make it interoperable
the Office noted the concern that
permit the reproduction of computer with video games created by the
unilateral contractual provisions could
programs for the purposes of machine defendant was a fair use.31 Similarly, in
be used to limit consumers’ ability to
maintenance or repair following a court Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v.
invoke exceptions and limitations in
of appeals decision 20 that cast doubt on Connectix Corp., the court held that
copyright law. Although the Office
the ability of independent service reverse engineering the operating
concluded that those issues were
organizations to repair computer system of a PlayStation gaming console
outside the scope of the study, and that
hardware.21 This provision foreshadows to develop a computer program allowing
‘‘market forces may well prevent right
the more general concerns raised by the users to play PlayStation video games
holders from unreasonably limiting
spread of software in everyday on a desktop computer, as well as
consumer privileges,’’ it also recognized
products—namely, that maintaining or making copies in the course of such
that ‘‘it is possible that at some point in
repairing a software-enabled product reverse engineering, was a fair use.32
the future a case could be made for
often will require copying of the Another important issue courts have
statutory change.’’ 26
software. Section 104 of the DMCA also tackled involves the scope of section
directed the Office to study the effects D. Developments in Case Law 117’s limitations on exclusive rights in
of the DMCA amendments and the computer programs. Section 117(a)
development of electronic commerce In the meantime, courts, too, have allows copies or adaptations of
and associated technology on the weighed in on a number of issues
operation of sections 109 and 117 of the concerning copyright protection of 27 See, e.g., Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static

Copyright Act, as well as ‘‘the software, including copyrightability, the Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522, 534–36
application of the fair use doctrine, and (6th Cir. 2004); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin
relationship between existing and Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1252–53 (3d Cir.
ownership of software by consumers. In
1983); Computer Management Assistance Co. v.
16 See Public Law 101–650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5134– analyzing these issues, however, courts DeCastro, 220 F.3d 396, 400–02 (5th Cir. 2000).
35 (1990); 17 U.S.C. 109(b)(1)(A). have not generally distinguished 28 H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 9; see also CONTU
17 17 U.S.C. 109(b)(1)(B)(i).
between software installed on general Report at 22 (‘‘[C]opyright leads to the result that
18 See Computer Software Rental Amendments
purpose computers and that embedded anyone is free to make a computer carry out any
Act (H.R. 2740, H.R. 5297, and S. 198): Hearing unpatented process, but not to misappropriate
in everyday products. another’s writing to do so.’’).
Before the Subcomm. on Courts, Intellectual Prop.,
and the Admin. of Justice of the H. Comm. on the Courts have helped define the scope 29 See CONTU Report at 20 (‘‘[C]opyrighted

Judiciary, 101st Cong. 15–16 (1990) (statement of of copyright protection for software and language may be copied without infringing when
Rep. Mike Synar) (‘‘Some parties have interpreted there is but a limited number of ways to express a
the [Computer Software Rental Act] as potentially
address questions of infringement given idea. . . . In the computer context, this means
affecting computer programs which may be through application of doctrines such as that when specific instructions, even though
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

contained as a component of another machine, such the idea/expression dichotomy (codified previously copyrighted, are the only and essential
as a program which drives a mechanized robot or in 17 U.S.C. 102(b)), merger, and scènes means of accomplishing a given task, their later use
runs a microwave or a household kitchen utensil. by another will not amount to an infringement.’’).
Such a result was not intended and will be 30 See, e.g., Lexmark, 387 F.3d at 535–36
22 DMCA, sec. 104, 112 Stat. 2860, 2876 (1998).
addressed in this legislation.’’). (outlining applicability of doctrine to computer
19 Public Law 105–304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998). 23 See generally U.S. Copyright Office, DMCA programs).
20 MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, 991 F.2d 511 Section 104 Report (2001). 31 977 F.2d 1510, 1527–28 (9th Cir. 1992),
24 Id. at 96–97.
(9th Cir. 1993). amended by 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 78 (9th Cir.
21 See DMCA, sec. 302, 112 Stat. 2860, 2887 25 Id. at xvi–xvii. 1993).
(1998); S. Rep. No. 105–190, at 21–22 (1998). 26 Id. at 162–64. 32 203 F.3d 596, 602–08 (9th Cir. 2000).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Dec 14, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 240 / Tuesday, December 15, 2015 / Notices 77671

computer programs to be made either purchased mobile communications II. Subjects of Inquiry
‘‘as an essential step in the utilization of device for the sole purpose of . . . In response to the letter from Senators
the computer program in conjunction connect[ing] to a wireless Grassley and Leahy, the Office is
with a machine’’ or for archival communications network’’ if the seeking public comment on the
purposes, but this provision may only reproduction or adaptation is initiated following five topics. A party choosing
be invoked by ‘‘the owner of a copy of by or with the consent of the owner of to respond to this Notice of Inquiry need
a computer program.’’ 33 This raises the device, the owner is in legal not address every subject, but the Office
difficult questions regarding whether a possession of the device, and the owner requests that responding parties clearly
consumer owns a copy of software has the consent of the authorized identify and separately address each
installed on a device or machine for operator of the wireless subject for which a response is
purposes of section 117 when formal communications network to use the submitted.
title is lacking or a license purports to network.37 The legislation would also 1. The provisions of the copyright law
impose restrictions on the use of the limit the prohibition on circumvention that are implicated by the ubiquity of
computer program. Courts have in section 1201 of title 17 to copyrighted software in everyday
provided somewhat conflicting circumstances where circumvention is products;
guidance regarding this issue, and the carried out in order to infringe or 2. Whether, and to what extent, the
application of the law can be unclear in design, distribution, and legitimate uses
facilitate the infringement of a
many contexts.34 of products are being enabled and/or
copyrighted work, and would permit the
E. Recent Legislation use of or trafficking in circumvention frustrated by the application of existing
devices unless the intent of such use or copyright law to software in everyday
Issues associated with the spread of products;
copyrighted software in everyday trafficking is to infringe or facilitate
3. Whether, and to what extent,
products have prompted legislative infringement.38
innovative services are being enabled
action in an attempt to address some of In addition, the You Own Devices Act and/or frustrated by the application of
the copyright issues created by the (‘‘YODA’’) would amend section 109 of existing copyright law to software in
spread of such works.35 In the context the Copyright Act to allow the transfer everyday products;
of section 1201—which, as explained, is of ownership of a copy of a computer 4. Whether, and to what extent,
the subject of a separate Copyright program embedded on a machine or legitimate interests or business models
Office study—Congress enacted other product ‘‘if [the] computer for copyright owners and users could be
legislation in August 2014 to broaden program enables any part of [that] undermined or improved by changes to
the regulatory exemption permitting the machine or other product to operate,’’ as the copyright law in this area; and
circumvention of technological well as any right to receive software 5. Key issues in how the copyright
measures for the purpose of connecting updates or security patches from the law intersects with other areas of law in
wireless telephone handsets to wireless manufacturer.39 This right of transfer establishing how products that rely on
communication networks (a process software to function can be lawfully
could not be waived by any contractual
commonly known as ‘‘cellphone used.
agreement.40 In addition, the original
unlocking’’).36 When addressing these topics,
The Unlocking Technology Act of owner of the device would be
prohibited from retaining an respondents should consider the
2015, as most pertinent to this study, following specific issues:
would amend section 117 of the unauthorized copy of the computer
1. Whether copyright law should
Copyright Act to permit the program after transferring the device
distinguish between software embedded
reproduction or adaptation of ‘‘the and the computer program to another
in ‘‘everyday products’’ and other types
software or firmware of a user- person.41
of software, and, if so, how such a
F. Relationship to Questions About distinction might be drawn in an
33 17 U.S.C. 117(a).
34 Compare
Section 1201 administrable manner.
Krause v. Titleserv, Inc., 402 F.3d
119, 124 (2d Cir. 2005), with Vernor v. Autodesk,
a. Whether ‘‘everyday products’’ can
Inc., 621 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). Some issues related to software be distinguished from other products
35 Bills have also been introduced addressing embedded in everyday products have that contain software, such as general
related issues outside copyright law stemming from come to the forefront in recent years purpose computers—essentially how to
the spread of software in everyday products. The through the 1201 rulemaking process.
Spy Car Act of 2015 would direct the National
define ‘‘everyday products.’’
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct As the Copyright Office has frequently b. If distinguishing between software
a rulemaking and issue motor vehicle cybersecurity noted, the 1201 rulemaking can serve as embedded in ‘‘everyday products’’ and
regulations protecting against unauthorized access a barometer for larger public policy other types of software is impracticable,
to electronic systems in vehicles or driving data,
such as information about a vehicle’s location, questions, including issues that may whether there are alternative ways the
speed or owner, collected by such electronic merit or would require legislative Office can distinguish between
systems. SPY Car Act of 2015, S. 1806, 114th Cong. change. The public should not submit categories of software.
sec. 2 (2015). A discussion draft introduced in the
concerns about section 1201 through 2. The rationale and proper scope of
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade copyright protection for software
Subcommittee of the Energy & Commerce this software study, but rather through
Committee of the House of Representatives would the Copyright Office’s forthcoming embedded in everyday products,
prohibit access to electronic control units or critical study on section 1201, information including the extent to which copyright
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

systems in a motor vehicle. A Bill to provide greater infringement is a concern with respect
transparency, accountability, and safety authority to about which will be available shortly at
the National Highway Traffic Safety http://www.copyright.gov/. to such software.
Administration, and for other purposes [Discussion 3. The need to enable interoperability
Draft], 114th Cong. sec. 302 (2015), available at 37 Unlocking Technology Act, H.R. 1587, 114th
with software-embedded devices,
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20151021/
Cong. sec. 3 (2015). including specific examples of ways in
104070/BILLS-114pih- which the law frustrates or enables such
38 Id. sec. 2.
DiscussionDraftonVehicleandRoadwaySafety.pdf.
36 See Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless 39 YODA, H.R. 862, 114th Cong. sec. 2 (2015). interoperability.
Competition Act, Public Law 113–144, 128 Stat. 40 Id. 4. Whether current limitations on and
1751 (2014). 41 Id. exceptions to copyright protection

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Dec 14, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM 15DEN1
Document Created: 2018-03-02 09:15:36
Document Modified: 2018-03-02 09:15:36
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice of inquiry.
Dates		Written comments must be received no later than February 16, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Written reply comments must be received no later than March 18, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. The Office will be announcing one or more public meetings, to take place after written comments are received, by separate notice in the future.
Contact		Sarang V. Damle, Deputy General Counsel, [email protected]; Catherine Rowland, Senior Advisor to the Register of Copyrights, [email protected]; or Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of Registration Policy and Practice, [email protected] Each can be reached by telephone at (202) 707-8350.
FR Citation		80 FR 77668
80 FR 77668 - Software-Enabled Consumer Products Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment

LIBRARY OF CONGRESSU.S. Copyright Office

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 240 (December 15, 2015)

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office
