Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 85437 

1 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A). 

2 Id. at 1201(a)(1)(B)–(D). 

3 Id. at 1201(a)(1)(C). 

4The Office has provided detailed analyses of the 

statutory requirements in its 2017 policy study on 

section 1201 and elsewhere. See U.S. Copyright 

Office, Section 1201 of Title 17 at 105–127 (2017), 

https://www.copyright.gov/policy/1201/section1201-full-report.pdf (‘‘Section 1201 Report’’). 

5Register of Copyrights, Section 1201 

Rulemaking: Ninth Triennial Proceeding to 

Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on 

Circumvention, Recommendation of the Register of 

Copyrights (Oct. 2024), https://cdn.loc.gov/ 

copyright/1201/2024/2024_Section_1201_Registers_

Recommendation.pdf (‘‘Register’s 

Recommendation’’). 

6Section 1201 Report at 111–12. 

7 Id.; accord Register of Copyrights, Section 1201 

Rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to 

Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on 

Circumvention, Recommendation of the Register of 

Copyrights 12–13 (Oct. 2018). References to the 

Register’s recommendations in prior rulemakings 

Continued 

and/or the post-registration 

maintenance documents exhibit certain 

attributes that call into question 

whether a mark is in use in commerce 

in the ordinary course of trade. Among 

other things, these audits will focus on 

registration files in which it appears that 

a specimen accepted during 

examination or submitted with a section 

8 or 71 affidavit or declaration was 

digitally altered, consistent with the 

parameters set forth in Examination 

Guide 3–19, or comprised printouts 

from a website determined to be a 

specimen farm. Under the directed audit 

program, the initial office action may 

request proof of use for all or some of 

the goods or services covered by the 

registration, in addition to other 

information deemed relevant to the 

USPTO to determine whether the mark 

is in use in commerce in the ordinary 

course of trade or whether the elements 

of excusable nonuse apply. The 

procedures will otherwise follow those 

for random audits. 

After considering any public 

comments received in response to this 

notice, the USPTO will publish 

information about the program on its 

Post Registration Audit Program web 

page at www.uspto.gov/trademarks/ 

maintain/post-registration-auditprogram. The USPTO will likewise 

publish future changes to the postregistration audit program on its 

website. 

These changes will better position the 

audit program to address obvious issues 

with registration, thus protecting the 

integrity of the federal trademark 

registration system and improving the 

overall accuracy of the trademark 

register. 

Katherine K. Vidal, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24755 Filed 10–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. 2023–5] 

Exemption to Prohibition on 

Circumvention of Copyright Protection 

Systems for Access Control 

Technologies 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Librarian 

of Congress adopts exemptions to the 

provision of the Digital Millennium 

Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’) that prohibits 

circumvention of technological 

measures that control access to 

copyrighted works. As required under 

the statute, the Register of Copyrights, 

following a public proceeding, 

submitted a recommendation to the 

Librarian of Congress (‘‘Register’s 

Recommendation’’) regarding proposed 

exemptions. After careful consideration, 

the Librarian adopts final regulations 

based on the Register’s 

Recommendation. 

DATE: Effective October 28, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 

General Counsel, by email at meft@

copyright.gov or telephone at 202–707– 

8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Librarian of Congress, pursuant to 

section 1201(a)(1) of title 17, United 

States Code, has determined in this 

ninth triennial rulemaking proceeding 

that the prohibition against 

circumvention of technological 

measures that effectively control access 

to copyrighted works shall not apply for 

the next three years to persons who 

engage in certain noninfringing uses of 

specified classes of such works. This 

determination is based on the Register’s 

Recommendation. 

The discussion below summarizes the 

rulemaking proceeding and the 

Register’s recommendations, states the 

Librarian’s determination, and adopts 

the regulatory text specifying the 

exempted classes of works. A more 

complete discussion of the rulemaking 

process, the evidentiary record, and the 

Register’s analysis with respect to each 

proposed exemption can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at 

www.copyright.gov/1201/2024/. 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Requirements 

In 1998, as part of the Digital 

Millenium Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’), 

Congress added section 1201 to title 17 

to provide greater legal protection for 

copyright owners in the emerging digital 

environment. Section 1201 generally 

makes it unlawful to ‘‘circumvent a 

technological measure that effectively 

controls access to’’ a copyrighted work.1

Congress established a set of 

permanent exemptions to the 

prohibition on circumvention, as well a 

procedure to put in place limited 

temporary exemptions. Every three 

years, the Librarian of Congress, upon 

the recommendation of the Register of 

Copyrights, is authorized to adopt 

temporary exemptions, with respect to 

certain classes of copyrighted works, to 

remain in effect for the ensuing 

three-year period. Congress established 

this rulemaking as a ‘‘‘fail-safe’ 

mechanism’’ to ensure that the 

prohibition on circumvention would not 

adversely affect the public’s ability to 

make lawful uses of copyrighted works, 

including activities protected by the fair 

use doctrine.2

The triennial rulemaking occurs 

through a formal public process 

administered by the Register, who 

consults with the Assistant Secretary for 

Communications and Information of the 

Department of Commerce.3 Participants 

must meet specific legal and evidentiary 

requirements in order to qualify for a 

temporary exemption. The Register’s 

recommendations are based on her 

conclusions as to whether each 

proposed exemption meets those 

statutory requirements.4 As prescribed 

by the statute, she considers whether 

the prohibition on circumvention is 

having, or is likely to have, adverse 

effects on users’ ability to make 

noninfringing uses of a particular class 

of copyrighted works. Petitioners must 

provide evidence sufficient to allow the 

Register to draw such a conclusion. 

B. Rulemaking Standards 

Congress has specified the legal and 

evidentiary requirements for the section 

1201 rulemaking proceeding; these 

standards are discussed in greater detail 

in the Register’s Recommendation 5 and 

the Copyright Office’s 2017 policy study 

on section 1201.6 The Register will 

recommend granting an exemption only 

‘‘when the preponderance of the 

evidence in the record shows that the 

conditions for granting an exemption 

have been met.’’ 7 The evidence must 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
85438 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

are cited by the year of publication followed by 

‘‘Recommendation’’ (e.g., ‘‘2018 

Recommendation’’). Prior Recommendations are 

available on the Copyright Office website at https:// 

www.copyright.gov/1201/. 

8Section 1201 Report at 112. 

9 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(B). 

10 2006 Recommendation at 19. 

11Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of Access 

Controls on Copyrighted Works, 88 FR 37486, 

37487 (June 8, 2023). 

12 Id. See Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of 

Access Controls on Copyrighted Works, 82 FR 

29804, 29806 (June 30, 2017) (petitions to expand 

a current exemption are treated as petitions for new 

exemptions) (‘‘Renewal may only be sought for 

current exemptions as they are currently 

formulated, without modification. This means that 

if a proponent seeks to engage in any activities not 

currently permitted by an existing exemption, a 

petition for a new exemption must be submitted.’’). 

13 88 FR 37486, 37486; Exemptions to Permit 

Circumvention of Access Controls on Copyrighted 

Works: Notice and Request for Public Comment, 88 

FR 42891 (July 5, 2023). References to renewal 

petitions and comments in response are by party 

and class name (abbreviated where appropriate) 

followed by ‘‘Renewal Pet.,’’ ‘‘Renewal Opp’n,’’ and 

‘‘Renewal Supp.’’ References to petitions for new 

exemptions and comments in response are by party 

name and class number followed by ‘‘Pet.,’’ 

‘‘Initial,’’ ‘‘Opp’n,’’ or ‘‘Reply’’ for comments 

submitted in the first, second, or third round, as 

applicable. 

14Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of Access 

Controls on Copyrighted Works, 88 FR 72013 (Oct. 

19, 2023). 

15Comments received in this rulemaking are 

available on the Office’s website. See Ninth 

Triennial Section 1201 Proceeding, 2024 Cycle, U.S. 

Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/1201/ 

2024/ (last visited Oct. 17, 2024); see also Late Filed 

Comments, U.S. Copyright Office, https://

www.copyright.gov/1201/2024/late-filings/ (last 

visited Oct. 17, 2024). 

16 Video recordings of these hearings are available 

on the Office’s website and YouTube pages. See 

Ninth Triennial Section 1201 Rulemaking Public 

Hearings, U.S. Copyright Office, https://

www.copyright.gov/1201/2024/hearings.html (last 

visited Oct. 17, 2024); U.S. Copyright Office, 

Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/uscopyright

office/ (last visited Oct. 17, 2024). Under each 

proposed class, citations to hearing transcripts refer 

to that particular class. Hearing transcripts for each 

individual class are available on the Office’s web 

page. Transcripts of Public Hearings in the Ninth 

Triennial Section 1201 Rulemaking, U.S. Copyright 

Office, https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2024/ 

hearing-transcripts/ (last visited Oct. 17, 2024). 

17Participants’ post-hearing letter responses are 

available on the Office’s website. Post-Hearing 

Questions, U.S. Copyright Office, https://

www.copyright.gov/1201/2024/post-hearing/ (last 

visited Oct. 17, 2024). 

18Ex Parte Communications, U.S. Copyright 

Office, https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2024/exparte-communications/ (last visited Oct.17, 2024). 

The Office required participants to comply with its 

ex parte regulation, codified at 37 CFR 205.24. This 

regulation requires that parties submit a meeting 

request and summary to the Office after an ex parte 

meeting, which is substantially the same process 

employed in prior section 1201 rulemakings. 

Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of Access 

Controls on Copyrighted Works, 85 FR 65293, 

65310 (Oct. 15, 2020). 

19The letters are available on the Office’s website. 

Letters Between the U.S. Copyright Office, Other 

Agencies, and Other Government Officials, U.S. 

Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/1201/ 

2024/USCO-letters/ (last visited Oct. 17, 2024). 

20Letter from Alan Davidson, Assistant Sec’y for 

Commc’ns & Info. Adm’r, Nat’l Telecomms. & Info. 

Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, to Shira 

Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Dir., U.S. 

Copyright Office (Sept. 24, 2024) (‘‘NTIA Letter’’). 

21A renewal petition was not filed for the 

exemption permitting circumvention of video 

games in the form of computer programs for the 

purpose of allowing an individual with a physical 

disability to use alternative software or hardware 

input methods. See 37 CFR 201.40(b)(21) (2023); 88 

FR 72013, 72015 n.19. 

22See 85 FR 65293, 65295 (describing that there 

was no ‘‘meaningful opposition’’ to renewing 

exemptions when the Office had ‘‘not received 

comments actually disputing whether there [wa]s a 

continued basis for any exemptions’’); see also 

Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of Access 

Controls on Copyrighted Works, 85 FR 37399, 

show ‘‘that it is more likely than not 

that users of a copyrighted work will, in 

the succeeding three-year period, be 

adversely affected by the prohibition on 

circumvention in their ability to make 

noninfringing uses of a particular class 

of copyrighted works.’’ 8 The Register 

develops a comprehensive 

administrative record to support her 

recommendation. 

Section 1201(a)(1) enumerates five 

factors that guide the Register’s 

Recommendation and the Librarian’s 

determination regarding proposed 

exemptions: (1) the availability for use 

of copyrighted works; (2) the availability 

for use of works for nonprofit archival, 

preservation, and educational purposes; 

(3) the impact that the prohibition on 

the circumvention of technological 

measures applied to copyrighted works 

has on criticism, comment, news 

reporting, teaching, scholarship, or 

research; (4) the effect of circumvention 

of technological measures on the market 

for or value of copyrighted works; and 

(5) such other factors as the Librarian 

considers appropriate. The statute 

mandates that any exemption to be 

defined based on ‘‘a particular class of 

works.’’ 9 Among other things, the 

determination of the appropriate scope 

of a ‘‘class of works’’ recommended for 

exemption can take into account the 

adverse effects an exemption may have 

on the market for or value of 

copyrighted works. Accordingly, ‘‘it can 

be appropriate to refine a class by 

reference to the use or user in order to 

remedy the adverse effect of the 

prohibition and to limit the adverse 

consequences of an exemption.’’ 10

II. History of the Ninth Triennial 

Proceeding 

The Copyright Office initiated the 

ninth triennial rulemaking proceeding 

by issuing a notice of inquiry (‘‘NOI’’) 

on June 8, 2023.11 The NOI requested 

petitions for renewal, comments in 

response to petitions for renewal, and 

petitions for new exemptions, including 

proposals to expand current 

exemptions.12 These public submissions 

were due between July 7, 2023 and 

August 25, 2023.13 The Office received 

thirty-eight petitions for renewal of 

existing exemptions and eleven 

petitions for new and expanded 

exemptions. It grouped the petitions for 

new and expanded exemptions into 

seven classes. 

On October 19, 2023, the Office 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NPRM’’) identifying the existing 

exemptions that the Register intended to 

recommend for renewal, and providing 

a description of the proposed classes for 

new and expanded exemptions.14

Public submissions were due between 

December 22, 2023 and March 19, 2024. 

The Office received approximately 50 

submissions in response to the NPRM.15

After analyzing the written comments 

regarding proposed new and expanded 

exemptions, the Office held three days 

of public hearings from April 16–18, 

2024, via Zoom.16 Forty-one individuals 

representing nineteen stakeholder 

groups offered their views on specific 

proposed exemptions, and an additional 

four individuals took part in an 

audience participation session. After the 

hearings, the Office issued written 

questions to participants regarding two 

of the proposed classes and received 

seven responses.17 It then held three ex 

parte meetings with participants 

concerning three proposed classes.18 In 

addition, it received three letters about 

the rulemaking from other federal 

agencies and government officials.19

The Register consulted with the 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (‘‘NTIA’’), 

in the Department of Commerce, as 

required by section 1201(a)(1). NTIA 

actively participated in the rulemaking 

process, providing input at key stages in 

meetings convened by the Office, and 

participated in the virtual public 

hearings where it engaged directly by 

asking questions. NTIA communicated 

its views on each of the proposed 

exemptions in writing to the Register on 

September 24, 2024.20 The Office 

summarizes NTIA’s views below. 

NTIA’s full recommendation is available 

at https://cdn.loc.gov/copyright/1201/ 

2024/2024_NTIA_DMCA_Letter.pdf. 

III. Summary of Register’s 

Recommendation 

A. Renewal Recommendations 

The Register received petitions to 

renew all but one of the exemptions 

adopted pursuant to the eighth triennial 

rulemaking,21 and recommends renewal 

of all exemptions for which petitions 

were filed.22 She finds that the reasons 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 85439 

37402 (June 22, 2020) (describing ‘‘meaningful 

opposition’’ standard). 

23See 37 CFR 201.40(b)(1). 

24The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.A.1. 

25The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.A.2. 

26Opposition to the Organization for 

Transformative Works’ (‘‘OTW’) requested changes 

is addressed as Class 1 below. Commenters objected 

only to OTW’s request for changes to the 

exemption, not to renewal of the exemption as-is. 

27OTW Noncom. Videos Renewal Pet. at 3. 

28The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.A.3. 

29Buster, Authors All. & Am. Ass’n of Univ. 

Professors (‘‘AAUP’’) Nonfiction Multimedia EBooks Renewal Pet. at 3. 

30The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.A.4. 

31The individuals and organizations include 

Peter Decherney, Michael Delli Carpini, Library 

Copyright Alliance (‘‘LCA’’), and the Society for 

Cinema and Media Studies (‘‘SCMS’’) (collectively, 

‘‘Joint Educators I’’). 

32 Joint Educators I AV Educ. Renewal Pet. at 3. 

33The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.A.5. 

34The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.A.6. 

for the Librarian’s prior adoption of the 

exemptions are likely to continue 

during the next three-year period. The 

existing exemptions, and the bases for 

the recommendation to renew each 

exemption in accordance with the 

streamlined renewal process, are 

summarized below. 

1. Audiovisual Works—Educational and 

Derivative Uses 

Multiple individuals and 

organizations petitioned to renew the 

exemption covering the use of short 

portions of motion pictures for various 

educational and derivative uses.23 The 

Office did not receive meaningful 

opposition to renewal. Renewal of each 

of this exemption’s subparts was 

unopposed, except for noncommercial 

videos, as discussed below. The existing 

exemption and its various subparts 

collectively serve as the baseline in 

assessing whether to recommend any 

expansion to Classes 1 and 2. 

a. Audiovisual Works—Criticism and 

Comment—Filmmaking 24

Two organizations petitioned to 

renew the exemption for motion 

pictures for uses in documentary films 

or other films where the use is in a 

parody or for the work’s biographical or 

historically significant nature. No 

oppositions to the renewal were filed. 

Petitioners stated that they personally 

know many filmmakers who have found 

it necessary to rely on this exemption 

and will continue to do so. The 

petitions summarized the continuing 

need and justification for the 

exemption. 

b. Audiovisual Works–Criticism and 

Comment–Noncommercial Videos 25

Two organizations petitioned to 

renew the exemption for motion 

pictures for uses in noncommercial 

videos. The Office did not receive 

meaningful opposition to renewal of 

this exemption.26 Petitioners stated that 

they had personal knowledge that video 

creators have relied on this exemption 

and anticipate needing to do so in the 

future. The Organization for 

Transformative Works (‘‘OTW’’) 

included an account from an academic 

who stated that footage ripped from 

DVDs and Blu-ray is preferred for 

‘‘vidders’’ (noncommercial remix artists) 

because ‘‘it is high quality enough to 

bear up under the transformations that 

vidders make to it.’’ 27 The petitioners 

demonstrated the continuing need and 

justification for the exemption. 

c. Audiovisual Works—Criticism and 

Comment—Multimedia E-books 28

Petitioners also sought renewal of the 

exemption for the use of motion picture 

excerpts in nonfiction multimedia ebooks. No oppositions were filed against 

renewal. The petition demonstrated the 

continuing need and justification for the 

exemption. In addition, the petitioners 

demonstrated personal knowledge that 

high-resolution video is not available 

without circumvention of technological 

protection measures (‘‘TPMs’’). They 

provided, as an example, Bobette 

Buster’s continued work on an e-book 

series based on her lecture series, 

‘‘Deconstructing Master Filmmakers: 

The Uses of Cinematic Enchantment.’’ 29

d. Audiovisual Works—Criticism, 

Comment, Teaching, or Scholarship— 

Universities and K–12 Educational 

Institutions 30

Multiple individuals and 

organizations petitioned to renew the 

exemption for motion pictures for 

educational purposes by college and 

university or K–12 faculty and students. 

No oppositions were filed against 

renewal. The petitions demonstrated the 

continuing need and justification for the 

exemption, indicating that educators 

and students continue to rely on 

excerpts from digital media for class 

presentations and coursework. For 

instance, a collective of individuals and 

organizations provided several 

examples of professors using DVD clips 

in the classroom. A group of individual 

educators and educational 

organizations 31 broadly suggested that 

the ‘‘entire field’’ of video essays or 

multimedia criticism ‘‘could not have 

existed in the United States without fair 

use and the 1201 educational 

exemption.’’ 32 Petitioners demonstrated 

personal knowledge and experience 

with this exemption based on their past 

participation in the section 1201 

triennial rulemaking and the experience 

of their members—thousands of digital 

and literacy educators and other 

members supporting educators and 

students. The Register finds that 

petitioners demonstrated a continuing 

need and justification for the 

exemption. 

e. Audiovisual Works—Criticism and 

Comment—Massive Open Online 

Courses (‘‘MOOCs’’) 33

A collective of individuals and 

organizations petitioned to renew the 

exemption for educational uses of 

motion pictures in Massive Open 

Online Courses (‘‘MOOCs’’). No 

oppositions were filed against renewal. 

The petitions demonstrated the 

continuing need and justification for the 

exemption, stating that instructors 

continue to rely on the exemption to 

develop, provide, and improve MOOCs, 

as well as to increase the number of 

(and therefore access to) MOOCs in the 

field of film and media studies. As 

teachers and proponents of MOOCs— 

most of whom have advocated for this 

exemption in prior rulemakings— 

petitioners demonstrated personal 

experience with and knowledge of this 

exemption. 

f. Audiovisual Works—Criticism and 

Comment—Digital and Media Literacy 

Programs 34

The Library Copyright Alliance 

(‘‘LCA’’) and Renee Hobbs petitioned to 

renew the exemption for motion 

pictures for educational uses in 

nonprofit digital and media literacy 

programs offered by libraries, museums, 

and other organizations. No oppositions 

were filed against renewal. The petition 

stated that librarians across the country 

have relied on the current exemption 

and will continue to do so for their 

digital and media literacy programs, 

thereby demonstrating the continuing 

need and justification for the 

exemption. Petitioners have personal 

experience with this exemption, as they 

engage with institutions and individuals 

offering these programs. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
85440 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

35The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.B. 

36ATSP & LCA Captioning Renewal Pet. at 3. 

37 Id. 

38The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.C. 

39LCA Preservation Renewal Pet. at 3. 

40The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.D. 

41The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.E. 

42The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.F. 

43The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.G. 

44Coalition Medical Devices Renewal Pet. at 3. 

45The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.H. 

2. Audiovisual Works—Accessibility 35

The Association of Transcribers and 

Speech-to-Text Providers (‘‘ATSP’’) and 

LCA petitioned to renew the exemption 

for motion pictures for the provision of 

captioning and/or audio description by 

disability services offices or similar 

units at educational institutions for 

students, faculty, or staff with 

disabilities. No oppositions were filed 

against renewal. The petitioners 

demonstrated the continuing need and 

justification for the exemption, and, as 

‘‘represent[atives of] disability services 

professionals and supporting entities 

collectively responsible for the regular 

provision of captioning and audio 

description services for thousands of 

students,’’ personal knowledge and 

experience with the exemption.36

Petitioners stated that the ‘‘exemption 

enables disability services offices and 

similar units to ensure that students 

with disabilities have access to the same 

advantages as their peers in the pursuit 

of education.’’ 37

3. Audiovisual works—Preservation or 

Replacement—Library, Archives, and 

Museum 38

LCA petitioned to renew the 

exemption for motion pictures for 

preservation or the creation of a 

replacement copy by an eligible library, 

archives, or museum. No oppositions 

were filed against renewal. LCA 

petitioned for the exemption’s adoption 

in the eighth triennial rulemaking and 

demonstrated the continuing need and 

justification for the exemption.39 For 

example, it asserted that institutions 

across the country have relied on the 

exemption to make preservation and 

replacement copies of movies in their 

collections, many of which are not 

available for purchase or streaming. 

LCA indicated that as DVD and Blu-ray 

discs deteriorate, institutions like 

libraries and museums will continue to 

need to circumvent technological 

protections to make such copies. LCA 

also demonstrated its personal 

knowledge of the exemption. 

4. Audiovisual Works—Text and Data 

Mining—Scholarly Research and 

Teaching 40

Multiple organizations jointly 

petitioned to renew the exemption for 

text and data mining of motion pictures 

by researchers affiliated with a 

nonprofit institution of higher 

education, or at the direction of such 

researchers, for the purpose of scholarly 

research and teaching. Petitioners 

demonstrated the continuing need for 

this exemption, citing researchers who 

rely on it, such as professors using DVD 

clips in their classrooms and in their 

research. They also demonstrated their 

personal experience with this 

exemption, having advocated for its 

adoption in the eighth triennial 

rulemaking proceeding. Although two 

organizations jointly objected to renewal 

of this exemption, the comments 

seemed to have misunderstood the 

Register’s prior findings and did not 

demonstrate that the previous 

rulemaking record was no longer 

reliable. Petitioners asserted that there 

have not been any legal changes or 

market developments that would 

disturb the Office’s previous analysis or 

materially impact the record on which 

the Register had relied. This existing 

exemption serves as the baseline in 

assessing whether to recommend any 

expansions in Class 3(a). 

5. Literary Works—Text and Data 

Mining—Scholarly Research and 

Teaching 41

Multiple organizations jointly 

petitioned to renew the exemption for 

text and data mining of literary works 

that were distributed electronically, by 

researchers affiliated with a nonprofit 

institution of higher education, or at the 

direction of such researchers, for the 

purpose of scholarly research and 

teaching. No oppositions were filed 

against renewal. The petitions 

demonstrated the continuing need and 

justification for the exemption, 

highlighting various professors’ ongoing 

and developing research projects 

dependent on it. Petitioners also 

demonstrated personal knowledge of the 

exemption based on their ongoing 

relationships with researchers using it. 

This existing exemption serves as the 

baseline in assessing whether to 

recommend any expansions in Class 

3(b). 

6. Literary Works—Text and Data 

Mining—Assistive Technologies 42

Multiple organizations jointly 

petitioned to renew the exemption for 

literary works or previously published 

musical works that have been fixed in 

the form of text or notation, distributed 

electronically, and include access 

controls that interfere with assistive 

technologies. No oppositions were filed 

against renewal. The petitioners 

demonstrated the continuing need and 

justification for the exemption, stating 

that individuals who are blind, visually 

impaired, or print-disabled are 

significantly disadvantaged with respect 

to obtaining accessible e-book content 

because TPMs interfere with the use of 

assistive technologies. Additionally, 

they demonstrated personal knowledge 

and extensive experience with the 

assistive technology exemption, as they 

are all organizations that advocate for 

the blind, visually impaired, and printdisabled. 

7. Literary Works—Medical Device 

Data 43

The Coalition of Medical Device 

Patients and Researchers (‘‘the 

Coalition’’) petitioned to renew the 

exemption covering access to patient 

data on medical devices or monitoring 

systems. No oppositions were filed 

against renewal. The Coalition 

demonstrated the continuing need and 

justification for the exemption, stating 

that ‘‘the exemption is vital to patients’ 

ability to monitor the data output of 

medical devices that monitor and 

maintain their health’’ and to medical 

research.44 It also demonstrated 

personal knowledge and experience 

with this exemption, citing member 

Hugo Campos’s experiences as a patient 

who has needed access data from his 

implanted defibrillator, and its research 

regarding medical devices. 

8. Computer Programs—Unlocking 45

The Institute of Scrap Recycling 

Industries, Inc. (‘‘ISRI’’) petitioned to 

renew the exemption for computer 

programs that operate wireless devices, 

to allow connection of a new or used 

device to an alternative wireless 

network (‘‘unlocking’’). No oppositions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 85441 

46 ISRI Unlocking Renewal Pet. at 3. 

47The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.I. 

48The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.J. 

49MEMA Vehicle Repair Renewal Pet. at 3. 50 2021 Recommendation at 223. 51The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.K. 52Although Author Services filed a comment 

opposing renewal of the exemption ‘‘in its present 

form,’’ the comment only addressed devices outside 

the scope of the existing exemption. See 88 FR 

72013, 72020–21. 

53EFF Device Repair Renewal Pet. at 3. 

54The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.L. 

55Avante Health Sols., Avante Diagnostic 

Imaging, and Avante Ultrasound Medical Device 

Repair Renewal Pet. at 5. 

56 598 U.S. 508 (2023). 

57 2021 Recommendation at 229. 

were filed against renewal. The petition 

demonstrated the continuing need and 

justification for the exemption, stating 

that users ‘‘continue to purchase or 

acquire donated cell phones, tablets, 

laptops, and a variety of other wireless 

devices no longer needed by their 

original owners and try to make the best 

possible use of them through resale or 

recycling,’’ which requires unlocking 

the devices so they may be used on 

other carriers.46 ISRI demonstrated 

personal knowledge and experience 

with the exemption based on its 

involvement in previous triennial 

rulemakings and its representation of 

nearly 1,600 companies that process, 

broker, and consume scrap 

commodities. 

9. Computer Programs—Jailbreaking 47

Multiple organizations petitioned to 

renew the four exemptions for computer 

programs that enable electronic devices 

to interoperate with or to remove 

software applications (‘‘jailbreaking’’). 

These exemptions permit circumvention 

for the purpose of jailbreaking (1) 

smartphones and other portable allpurpose computing devices, (2) smart 

televisions, (3) voice assistant devices, 

and (4) routers and dedicated 

networking devices. No oppositions 

were filed against renewal. The 

petitions demonstrated the continuing 

need and justification for the exemption 

and that petitioners have personal 

knowledge and experience with regard 

to this exemption. Petitioners described 

how users of a variety products in each 

of these categories rely on this 

exemption to maintain functionality and 

security of older devices, to install 

alternative operation systems, and to 

customize software applications on 

electronic devices. Collectively, the 

petitions demonstrated that without this 

exemption, TPMs installed on the 

enumerated products would have an 

adverse effect on various noninfringing 

uses. 

10. Computer Programs—Repair of 

Motorized Land Vehicles, Marine 

Vessels, or Mechanized Agricultural 

Vehicles or Vessels 48

iFixit and MEMA, The Vehicle 

Suppliers Association (‘‘MEMA’’), 

petitioned to renew the exemption for 

computer programs that control 

motorized land vehicles, marine vessels, 

or mechanized agricultural vehicles or 

vessels for purposes of diagnosis, repair, 

or modification of a vehicle or vessel 

function. No oppositions were filed 

against renewal. The petitioners each 

represent or advise individuals and 

businesses that perform vehicle service 

and repair and have personal experience 

with this exemption through those 

activities. They demonstrated the 

continuing need and justification for the 

exemption. For example, MEMA stated 

that its membership ‘‘continues to see 

firsthand that the exemption is helping 

protect consumer choice and a 

competitive market, while mitigating 

risks to intellectual property and vehicle 

safety’’—particularly as ‘‘every year 

vehicle computer programs become 

more important and essential to today’s 

motor vehicles.’’ 49 In the 2021 

rulemaking, the Register concluded that 

the ‘‘prohibition against circumvention 

. . . [was] likely to adversely affect 

diagnosis, repair, and lawful 

modification of a vessel function for 

marine vessels,’’ as well as functions for 

land vehicles, including agricultural 

land vehicles such as tractors.50 The 

Office did not receive any evidence 

indicating that these categories of 

vehicles and vessels should be treated 

differently in this proceeding. 

11. Computer Programs—Repairs of 

Devices Designed Primarily for Use by 

Consumers 51

The Electronic Frontier Foundation 

(‘‘EFF’’) petitioned to renew the 

exemption for computer programs that 

control devices designed primarily for 

use by consumers for diagnosis, 

maintenance, or repair of the device. 

The Office did not receive meaningful 

opposition to renewal.52 The petitioners 

demonstrated the continuing need and 

justification for the exemption. For 

example, EFF asserted that 

‘‘[m]anufacturers of these devices 

continue to implement technological 

protection measures that inhibit lawful 

repairs, maintenance, and diagnostics, 

and they show no sign of changing 

course.’’ 53 EFF has personal knowledge 

of this exemption, as it has been 

involved with the section 1201 

rulemaking process since its inception 

and has specifically advocated for 

device repair exemptions. 

12. Computer Programs—Repair of 

Medical Devices and Systems 54

Multiple organizations petitioned to 

renew the exemption to access 

computer programs that are contained 

in and control the functioning of 

medical devices or systems, and related 

data files, for purposes of diagnosis, 

maintenance, or repair. The petitioners 

repair, maintain, service, or sell medical 

systems and devices and thus have 

personal experience with this 

exemption. The petitions demonstrated 

the continuing need and justification for 

the exemption, for example stating that 

‘‘the use of TPMs in medical systems 

and devices is widespread’’ and that 

manufacturers ‘‘have developed new 

systems that further restrict access to 

use of necessary software tools.’’ 55

Petitioners also emphasized that this 

exemption makes possible device repair 

and maintenance services that ensure 

continuity and efficiency of patient care. 

Three organizations submitted timely 

opposition comments. Opponents 

asserted that the exemption undermines 

the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration’s (‘‘FDA’’) maintenance 

and repair standards for the intricate 

equipment used in patient care and 

conflicts with other congressional 

policies. They also argued that the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Andy 

Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts v. 

Goldsmith 56 undermined the validity of 

the previous rulemaking’s analysis. As 

in the Register’s 2021 Recommendation, 

in this rulemaking the Register again 

emphasizes that the Office ‘‘generally 

does not consider other regulatory 

schemes as part of the . . . analysis 

because the focus of this proceeding is 

on copyright-related considerations,’’ 57

and notes that granting an exemption 

under section 1201 does not absolve any 

user from compliance with other 

relevant laws and regulations. The 

Register further concludes that the 

Warhol decision does not substantially 

change the Office’s analysis of the uses 

at issue in this exemption. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
85442 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

58The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.M. 

59The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.N. 

60SPN and LCA Abandoned Video Game 

Renewal Pet. at 3. 

61The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.O. 

62SPN & LCA Software Preservation Renewal Pet. 

at 3. 

63 Id. 

64The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.P. 

65Weinberg 3D Printers Renewal Pet. at 3. 

66The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.Q. 

67SFC Copyright License Investigation Renewal 

Pet. at 3. 

68 Id. 

69 Id. 

70The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at IV.R. 

71 2021 Recommendation at 315. 

13. Computer Programs—Security 

Research 58

Multiple organizations and security 

researchers petitioned to renew the 

exemption permitting circumvention for 

purposes of good-faith security research. 

No oppositions were filed against 

renewal, and one group of security and 

policy professionals submitted a 

comment in support of the petition. The 

petitioners demonstrated the continuing 

need and justification for the 

exemption, as well as personal 

knowledge of and experience with this 

exemption. They highlighted professors’ 

critical research regarding 

vulnerabilities in voting machines, 

devices underpinning the financial 

industry, smart phones, and other 

devices. They also stated that this 

exemption enables security testing that 

is vital to ensure device users’ privacy 

is protected and security issues are 

corrected. 

14. Video Games—Preservation and 

Abandoned Video Games 59

The Software Preservation Network 

(‘‘SPN’’) and LCA jointly petitioned to 

renew the exemption for individual play 

by gamers and preservation of video 

games by a library, archives, or museum 

for which outside server support has 

been discontinued, and preservation by 

a library, archives, or museum, of 

discontinued video games that never 

required server support. No oppositions 

were filed against renewal, and one 

individual filed a comment in support. 

Petitioners demonstrated that there is a 

continuing need and justification for the 

exemption. They stated that video game 

collection librarians report an ongoing 

need to preserve TPM-encumbered 

video games in their collections and that 

the ‘‘[section] 1201 exemption has 

become a crucial tool in their ongoing 

efforts to save digital game culture 

before it disappears.’’ 60 They 

demonstrated personal knowledge and 

experience through past participation in 

section 1201 rulemakings and through 

their representation of members who 

have relied on this exemption. 

This existing exemption serves as the 

baseline in assessing whether to 

recommend any expansions in Class 

6(b). 

15. Computer Programs—Preservation 61

SPN and LCA jointly petitioned to 

renew the exemption for the 

preservation of computer programs 

other than video games, and computer 

program-dependent materials, by 

libraries, archives, and museums. No 

oppositions were filed against renewal, 

and one individual filed a comment in 

support. Petitioners demonstrated that 

there is a continuing need and 

justification for this exemption. For 

example, they asserted that remotely 

accessing preserved computer programs 

‘‘fulfill[s] cultural heritage institutions’ 

missions to support research, analysis, 

and other scholarly re-use of the 

historical record (and to do so equitably 

and inclusively).’’ 62 In addition, they 

demonstrated personal knowledge and 

experience through past participation in 

section 1201 rulemakings relating to 

access controls on software and through 

representing major library associations 

with members who have relied on this 

exemption.63

This existing exemption serves as the 

baseline in assessing whether to 

recommend any expansions in Class 

6(a). 

16. Computer Programs—3D Printers 64

Michael Weinberg petitioned to renew 

the exemption for computer programs 

that operate 3D printers to allow use of 

alternative material. No oppositions 

were filed against renewal. The petition 

demonstrated the continuing need and 

justification for the exemption, and the 

petitioner demonstrated personal 

knowledge and experience. Specifically, 

Mr. Weinberg declared that he is a 

member of the 3D printing community 

and has been involved with this 

exemption’s renewal and modification 

in each section 1201 rulemaking it has 

been considered. Additionally, he stated 

that while 3D printer manufacturers 

‘‘continue to use TPMs to limit the types 

of materials used in printers,’’ since the 

last rulemaking proceeding, there has 

been ‘‘an expansion of third-party 

materials available for 3D printers’’ due 

to the current exemption, which has 

assured manufacturers and users that 

their uses would not violate section 

1201.65

17. Computer Programs—Copyright 

License Investigation 66

The Software Freedom Conservancy 

(‘‘SFC’’) petitioned to renew the 

exemption for computer programs, for 

the purpose of investigating potential 

infringement of free and open-source 

computer programs. No oppositions 

were filed against renewal. The petition 

demonstrated the continuing need and 

justification for the exemption, 

including through discussion of how 

TPMs, such as encryption, ‘‘prevent[ ] 

the investigation of computer programs’’ 

within various devices, such as laptops, 

IP-enabled doorbells, baby monitors, 

and thermostats, that use free and open 

source software (‘‘FOSS’’) to operate.67

SFC indicated that barriers to 

investigating FOSS will ‘‘continue to 

exist . . . [and would] prevent . . . 

users from obtaining access to the 

relevant copyrighted works’’ without 

the exemption.68 As a participant in the 

previous rulemaking and ‘‘the nonprofit 

home for dozens of FOSS projects 

representing well over a thousand 

volunteer contributors,’’ SFC 

demonstrated personal knowledge and 

experience regarding the exemption.69

18. Computer Programs—Videogame 

Accessibility 70

In 2021, the Register found that the 

record ‘‘support[ed] an exemption to 

enable individuals with disabilities to 

use alternate input devices to play video 

games.’’ 71 The Office previously noted 

the strong justifications for the 

exemption and recommended that 

Congress enact a permanent exemption 

to enable such accessibility. It did not, 

however, receive a petition to renew 

this exemption and, given the 

constraints of the rulemaking process, 

the Register is not able to recommend 

renewal. 

B. New or Expanded Designations of 

Classes 

Based upon the record in this 

proceeding regarding proposed 

expansions to existing exemptions or 

newly proposed exemptions, the 

Register recommends that the Librarian 

grant the following additional 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 85443 

72The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

class, including citations to the record and relevant 

legal authority, can be found in the Register’s 

Recommendation at V.C. 

73 37 CFR 201.40(b)(4)–(5). 

74Authors All., AAUP & LCA Class 3(a) Pet. at 

2; Authors All., AAUP & LCA Class 3(b) Pet. at 2. 

75Motion Picture Association (‘‘MPA’’), News 

Media Alliance, and the Recording Industry 

Association of America (‘‘RIAA’’) (collectively, 

‘‘Joint Creators III’’) Class 3(a) Opp’n at 5; see Ass’n 

of Am. Publishers (‘‘AAP’’) Class 3(b) Opp’n at 2– 

3; DVD Copy Control Ass’n (‘‘DVD CCA’’) and 

Advanced Access Content Sys. Licensing Adm’r, 

LLC (‘‘AACS LA’’) Class 3(a) Opp’n at 12–13, 19– 

20. 

76The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

class, including citations to the record and relevant 

legal authority, can be found in the Register’s 

Recommendation at V.E. 

77The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

class, including citations to the record and relevant 

legal authority, can be found in the Register’s 

Recommendation at V.G. 

exemptions from the prohibition against 

circumvention of technological 

measures set forth in section 1201(a)(1): 

1. Proposed Classes 3(a) and 3(b): 

Audiovisual Works and Literary 

Works—Text and Data Mining 72

Authors Alliance, the American 

Association of University Professors 

(‘‘AAUP’’), and LCA petitioned to 

expand the existing exemptions that 

permit circumvention of technological 

protection measures on copies of 

copyrighted audiovisual and literary 

works that were lawfully acquired, to 

enable researchers to perform text and 

data mining for the purpose of scholarly 

research and teaching. The current 

exemptions permit access to the corpora 

to outside researchers ‘‘solely for 

purposes of collaboration or replication 

of the research.’’ 73 Petitioners stated 

that additional research based on text 

and data mining techniques is stymied 

by uncertainty surrounding whether and 

when the corpora at issue may be used 

by researchers at outside institutions. 

Proposed Classes 3(a) and 3(b) would 

provide an exemption to allow 

academic researchers to share copies of 

corpora with researchers affiliated with 

other nonprofit institutions of higher 

education ‘‘for purposes of conducting 

independent text [and] data mining 

research and teaching, where those 

researchers are in compliance with the 

exemption.’’ 74

Association of American Publishers 

(‘‘AAP’’); Motion Picture Association 

(‘‘MPA’’), News Media Alliance, and the 

Recording Industry Association of 

America (‘‘RIAA’’) (collectively, ‘‘Joint 

Creators III’’); DVD Copy Control 

Association (‘‘DVD CCA’’) and the 

Advanced Access Content System 

Licensing Administrator, LLC (‘‘AACS 

LA’’); and the International Association 

of Scientific, Technical and Medical 

Publishers opposed the proposed 

expansions for classes 3(a) and 3(b). 

They argued that the ‘‘proposed new 

language would dramatically enlarge the 

scope of the exemptions adopted in 

2021’’ and could lead to ‘‘a wide range 

of potentially infringing uses’’ of 

copyrighted works.75 They also raised 

issues with the existing exemptions’ 

security measures and viewing 

provisions. 

As discussed in the Register’s 

Recommendation, absent modifications 

to the current exemptions for text and 

data mining, researchers at other 

academic institutions will face adverse 

effects in their ability to make 

noninfringing use of copyrighted 

audiovisual and literary works. The 

Register recommends that the current 

exemptions be modified to permit 

researchers affiliated with other 

nonprofit institutions of higher 

education to access corpora solely for 

the purposes of text and data mining 

research or teaching. ‘‘Access’’ in this 

context means that an institution may 

provide outside researchers with 

credentials for security and 

authentication to use a corpus that is 

hosted on its servers; it does not mean 

that an institution or a researcher may 

disseminate a copy of a corpus (or 

copyrighted works included therein) to 

outside researchers or give outside 

researchers the ability to download, 

make copies of, or distribute any 

copyrighted works. 

The Register also recommends 

amending the existing exemptions to 

clarify the security measures provisions 

and the viewing provisions to bring the 

regulatory text in line with the fair use 

analysis in the 2021 Recommendation. 

These amendments do not require a new 

fair use analysis. Specifically, she 

recommends amending the security 

measures provisions to: (1) include 

reasonable requests from trade 

associations; (2) permit inquiries into 

security measures regardless of whether 

they are based on individual agreements 

or the institution’s own standards; and 

(3) allow those inquiries when the 

copyright owners reasonably believe 

that their works are in the corpus. The 

Register also recommends amending the 

viewing provision to permit researchers 

to view the contents of copyrighted 

works as part of their research, provided 

that viewing takes place in furtherance 

of research objectives (e.g., processing or 

annotating works to prepare them for 

analysis) and not for the works’ 

expressive value. 

2. Proposed Class 5: Computer 

Programs—Repair of Commercial 

Industrial Equipment 76

Public Knowledge and iFixit jointly 

petitioned for an expanded repair 

exemption that would permit 

circumvention for the purposes of 

diagnosis, maintenance, and repair of 

commercial and industrial equipment. 

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust 

Division and the Federal Trade 

Commission filed comments in support 

of the petition. Proponents asserted that 

that there were sufficient commonalities 

to support a broad class by providing 

four representative examples, including 

commercial food preparation 

equipment. Opponents ACT √ The App 

Association; Associated Equipment 

Distributors; Entertainment Software 

Association (‘‘ESA’’), MPA, and RIAA 

(‘‘collectively, ‘‘Joint Creators I’’); 

Philips North America, LLC; and the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers primarily argued that the 

scope of the class was overly broad and 

unsupported by the record. NTIA 

supported the proposed exemption. 

The Register recommends adopting a 

new exemption covering diagnosis, 

maintenance, and repair of retail-level 

commercial food preparation equipment 

because proponents sufficiently 

showed, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, adverse effects on the 

proposed noninfringing uses of such 

equipment. However, she declines to 

recommend an exemption for a broader 

class of software-enabled commercial 

and industrial devices in the absence of 

a sufficient showing of adverse effects 

on the record presented in this 

rulemaking. 

3. Proposed Class 7: Computer 

Programs—Vehicle Operational Data 77

Class 7 proponents sought a new 

exemption to permit lawful owners and 

lessees, or those acting on their behalf, 

to access, store, and share vehicle 

operational and telematics data 

generated by motorized land vehicles 

and marine vessels. They argued that 

the proposed exemption would allow 

vehicle owners and lessees to make 

productive, noninfringing uses of that 

data, such as monitoring vehicle use 

and streamlining the vehicle repair 

process. In subsequent comments and at 

the public hearing, proponents agreed 

that any exemption should include 

limitations, such as the continued 

applicability of other laws. 

Alliance for Automotive Innovation, 

Association of Equipment 

Manufacturers, National Association of 

Manufacturers, and the Joint Creators I 

opposed the exemption. They argued 

that consumers already have sufficient 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
85444 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

78The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

subpart, including citations to the record and 

relevant legal authority, can be found in the 

Register’s Recommendation at V.A. 

79OTW submitted a petition for renewal, which 

the Office construed as a request for expansion 

since petitioner requested alterations to the existing 

exemption. 

80The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

class, including citations to the record and relevant 

legal authority, can be found in the 

Recommendation at V.B. 

81Peter Decherney, Sarah Banet-Weiser, Shiv 

Gaglani & SCMS (collectively, ‘‘Joint Educators II’’) 

Class 2 Reply at 2–3. 

82The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

class, including citations to the record and relevant 

legal authority, can be found in the 

Recommendation at V.D. 

access under current laws and market 

practices, particularly the existing 

vehicle repair exemption found in 

section 37 CFR 201.40(b)(13) (‘‘Repair 

Exemption’’). They further contended 

that the proposed exemption was 

overbroad and would raise issues 

related to safety, privacy, and trade 

secrets. 

NTIA supported the proposed 

exemption and recommended that it 

operate as a ‘‘standalone’’ exemption, 

separate from the Repair Exemption. In 

addition, NTIA recommended including 

the term ‘‘analyze’’ within the proposed 

regulatory language, as furthering the 

intended goals of the exemption. 

For the reasons detailed in the 

Register’s Recommendation, the Register 

concludes that the prohibition on 

circumvention adversely affects the 

ability of lawful owners and lessees, or 

those acting on their behalf, to access, 

store, and share operational and 

telematics data, which are likely to be 

noninfringing. She further finds that 

such uses would not adversely affect the 

market for or value of computer 

programs integrated into vehicles and 

vessels and that the purported 

alternatives do not sufficiently mitigate 

any adverse effects. She also 

recommends adopting regulatory 

provisions mirroring those within the 

Repair Exemption regarding the 

applicability of the exemption to other 

laws, separate subscription services, and 

unauthorized access to other 

copyrighted works. 

C. Classes Considered but Not 

Recommended 

Based upon the record in this 

proceeding, the Register recommends 

that the Librarian determine that the 

following classes of works shall not be 

exempt during the next three-year 

period from the prohibition against 

circumvention of technological 

measures set forth in section 1201(a)(1): 

1. Proposed Class 1: Audiovisual 

Works—Noncommercial Videos 78

Proposed Class 1 proponents sought 

to expand the existing exemption that 

permits circumvention of access 

controls protecting excerpts of motion 

pictures on DVDs, Blu-ray discs, and 

digitally transmitted video for the 

purposes of criticism and comment, 

including for educational purposes by 

certain users. The Office received one 

petition from OTW seeking an 

amendment to the language of the 

existing exemption.79 Specifically, OTW 

proposed rewriting the text of the 

current exemption related to 

noncommercial videos, which is being 

renewed, by reverting to language used 

in the 2010 rulemaking, when the 

exemption was initially adopted. OTW 

maintained that its proposed changes 

would not substantively alter the 

exemption but would render it more 

understandable to users. It made 

essentially the same request in the 2021 

proceeding, which the Register did not 

recommend adopting. 

The Office received no comments in 

support of the proposal, no requests 

from OTW or other parties to participate 

in the public hearings, and no other 

evidence in support of the proposal. 

Two groups, however, filed opposition 

comments. These groups opposed the 

language changes that OTW proposed, 

but did not oppose renewal of the 

exemption as currently written. 

Opponents highlighted the Register’s 

previous findings in the 2021 

rulemaking that OTW’s proposed 

changes were not warranted, as well as 

OTW’s failure in this proceeding to 

submit any evidence supporting its 

petition. NTIA acknowledged that 

petitioner did not submit its request in 

a procedurally proper manner, but 

supported petitioner’s proposed 

modifications to the class and structural 

alterations to the way exemptions are 

written in general. The Register does not 

recommend the expansion proposed as 

Class 1, which does not include 

substantive changes. 

2. Proposed Class 2: Audiovisual 

Works—Online Learning 80

Proposed Class 2 would expand the 

existing exemption for circumvention of 

access controls protecting motion 

pictures on DVDs, Blu-ray discs, and 

digitally transmitted video for 

educational purposes in massive open 

online courses (‘‘MOOCs’’) by faculty 

and employees acting at the direction of 

faculty of accredited nonprofit 

educational institutions. Petitioner 

sought to expand the scope of the 

exemption for ‘‘educators . . . and 

preparers of online learning materials 

acting at the direction of educators’’ of 

‘‘qualified online educational entities,’’ 

including for-profit entities and 

unaccredited educational institutions, to 

use short portions of motion pictures 

‘‘for the purpose of teaching registered 

learners . . . in courses requiring close 

analysis of film and media excerpts 

when the transformative fair use of the 

excerpts contributes significantly to 

learning, for the purpose of criticism, 

comment, illustration, or 

explanation.’’ 81 Proponents argued that 

these entities should have free and 

efficient ways of accessing high-quality 

motion picture excerpts to educate 

nontraditional learners. Opponents 

argued against the proposed expansion, 

contending that proponents failed to 

meet their evidentiary burden, 

including that the conduct at issue 

would be noninfringing. Finally, AACS 

LA argued that screen capture 

technology has improved and remains 

an adequate alternative in some 

circumstances. 

NTIA supported the proposed 

exemption with some modifications to 

address opponents’ concerns. 

The Register finds that the record 

lacks support to expand the existing 

exemption to for-profit and/or 

unaccredited educational entities. She 

therefore does not recommend adopting 

the proposed exemption. 

3. Proposed Class 4: Computer 

Programs—Generative AI Research 82

Class 4 proponents sought an 

exemption for the purpose of 

conducting ‘‘trustworthiness’’ research 

on AI systems. Specifically, they sought 

to conduct research on harmful or 

undesirable outputs from generative AI 

systems, including content that is 

biased, is sexually explicit, or infringes 

copyrights. They asserted that section 

1201 inhibits this research by 

prohibiting the circumvention of 

various safeguards on online platforms, 

including account authentication 

systems. 

Opponents asserted that the proposed 

language was overbroad, arguing that a 

broad exemption could damage all 

software markets and sweep in a variety 

of systems and products, such as Bluray disc players. They also contended 

that proponents failed to provide 

sufficient information about the TPMs at 

issue and whether they would be 

circumvented for the proposed research. 

Finally, they argued that an exemption 

would be premature, and that the 

rulemaking was not the appropriate 

venue to establish new law, given the 

nascent technology involved and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 85445 

83 37 CFR 201.40(b)(16) (2023). The current 

security research exemption is being renewed 

during this rulemaking proceeding. 

84The Register’s analysis and conclusions for this 

class, including citations to the record and relevant 

legal authority, can be found in the 

Recommendation at V.F. 

ongoing legislative and policy work on 

generative AI. 

NTIA supported an exemption 

modeled after the current security 

research exemption,83 but without the 

requirement that research be conducted 

on lawfully acquired devices, or with 

the authorization of the system owner or 

operator. Although NTIA concluded 

that section 1201 would not apply to 

most of the activities identified by 

proponents, it believed that the use of 

certain prompts could implicate the 

prohibition on circumvention. NTIA 

also found sufficient evidence of 

adverse effects, crediting statements 

from academic researchers describing 

the ‘‘chilling effect’’ of section 1201 on 

their work. 

The Register recommends denying the 

proposed exemption. She acknowledges 

the importance of AI trustworthiness 

research as a policy matter and notes 

that Congress and other agencies may be 

best positioned to act on this emerging 

issue. She narrowed the proposed class 

to generative AI systems made available 

via software as a service based on the 

rulemaking record. She finds, however, 

that the adverse effects identified by 

proponents arise from third-party 

control of online platforms rather than 

the operation of section 1201, so that an 

exemption would not ameliorate their 

concerns. 

4. Proposed Classes 6(a) and 6(b): 

Computer Programs and Video Games— 

Preservation 84

Proposed Classes 6(a) and 6(b) would 

amend the existing exemptions 

permitting libraries, archives, and 

museums to circumvent TPMs on 

computer programs and video games, 

respectively, for the purpose of 

preservation activities. The proposed 

amendment to Class 6(a) would remove 

the limitation that a preserved computer 

program must be accessible to only one 

user at a time (the ‘‘single-user 

limitation’’). Petitioners sought 

clarification of the single-user 

limitation, arguing that it is currently 

open to two different interpretations. 

The existing exemption, they 

contended, could be read to allow 

multiple users to access circumvented 

copies at once, so long as the number of 

users does not exceed the number of 

copies the institution owns; or to mean 

that only one user at a time may access 

a copy of the circumvented work 

regardless of how many copies the 

institution owns. Proposed Class 6(b) 

would also remove the current 

exemption’s limitation that a video 

game must not be distributed or made 

available outside of the physical 

premises of the institution (the 

‘‘premises limitation’’). 

Proponents argued that researchers 

could make noninfringing uses of the 

exemption even if the single-user 

limitation and the premises limitation 

were removed. This position was based 

in part on their view that proposed uses 

would be transformative, and would not 

affect the potential market for or value 

of the copyrighted works because only 

works that are no longer reasonably 

available in the commercial marketplace 

would be subject to the exemption. 

DVD CCA and AACS LA and Joint 

Creators I opposed removing the singleuser limitation. They argued if a 

preservation institution were to allow 

multiple simultaneous uses of a 

preserved program, users’ conduct 

would not be fair use and would cause 

market harm. 

DVD CCA and AACS LA, Joint 

Creators I, and ESA opposed removing 

the premises limitation. They contended 

that there would be a significant risk 

that preserved video games would be 

used for recreational purposes. They 

further argued that the expanded 

exemption would give preservation 

institutions too much discretion 

regarding how they provide remote 

users access to preserved works; and 

that it did not contain appropriately 

tailored restrictions to ensure that uses 

would be limited to teaching, research, 

or scholarship uses. They believe that 

removing the premises limitation would 

also adversely affect the existing market 

for older video games. 

NTIA supported the removal of each 

limitation. 

The Register concludes that 

proponents did not show that removing 

the single-user limitation for preserved 

computer programs or permitting offpremises access to video games are 

likely to be noninfringing. She also 

notes the greater risk of market harm 

with removing the video game 

exemption’s premises limitation, given 

the market for legacy video games. She 

recommends clarifying the single copy 

restriction language to reflect that 

preservation institutions can allow a 

copy of a computer program to be 

accessed by as many individuals as 

there are circumvented copies legally 

owned. This clarifying text will address 

the perceived ambiguity in the current 

exemption, while maintaining the 

single-user limitation’s intended 

purpose to minimize the risk of 

substitutional uses of preserved 

computer programs. 

D. Conclusion 

Having considered the evidence in the 

record, the comments of proponents and 

opponents of the exemptions, and the 

objectives of section 1201, the Register 

recommends that the Librarian of 

Congress exempt for the next three years 

certain classes of works, as described 

above, from the prohibition against 

circumvention of technological 

measures that effectively control access 

to copyrighted works. 

Dated: October 18, 2024. 

Shira Perlmutter, 

Register of Copyrights and Director of the 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

Determination of the Librarian of 

Congress 

Having duly considered the 

recommendation of the Register of 

Copyrights as summarized above, which 

recommendation is hereby incorporated 

by reference, the Librarian of Congress 

accepts that recommendation with 

respect to all the classes of works under 

consideration. The Librarian, exercising 

her authority pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 

1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), hereby publishes 

as a new rule the classes of copyrighted 

works that shall for a three-year period 

be subject to the exemption found in 17 

U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(B) from the 

prohibition against circumvention of 

technological measures that effectively 

control access to copyrighted works set 

forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A). 

The Librarian is aware that the 

Register and her legal staff have 

invested a great deal of time over the 

past two years in analyzing the many 

issues underlying the 1201 process and 

proposed exemptions. 

Through this work, the Register has 

come to believe that the issue of 

research on artificial intelligence 

security and trustworthiness warrants 

more general Congressional and 

regulatory attention. The Librarian 

agrees with the Register in this 

assessment. As a regulatory process 

focused on technological protection 

measures for copyrighted content, 

section 1201 is ill-suited to address 

fundamental policy issues with new 

technologies. 

The Librarian is further aware of the 

policy and legal issues involving a 

generalized ‘‘right to repair’’ equipment 

with embedded software. These issues 

have now occupied the White House, 

Congress, state legislatures, federal 

agencies, the Copyright Office, and the 

general public through multiple rounds 

of 1201 rulemaking. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
85446 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Copyright is but one piece in a 

national framework for ensuring the 

security, trustworthiness, and reliability 

of embedded software, and other 

copyright-protected technology that 

affects our daily lives. Issues such as 

these extend beyond the reach of 1201 

and may require a broader solution, as 

noted by the NTIA. 

The Librarian fully supports the 

Register in her examination of these 

issues and urges Congress to work with 

the Copyright Office and other federal 

agencies to consider these issues beyond 

the contours of this 1201 rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright, Exemptions to prohibition 

against circumvention. 

Final Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 37 CFR part 201 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 201 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 

■ 2. Section 201.40 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 201.40 Exemption to prohibition against 

circumvention. 

* * * * * 

(b) Classes of copyrighted works. 

Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 

U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon 

the recommendation of the Register of 

Copyrights, the Librarian has 

determined that the prohibition against 

circumvention of technological 

measures that effectively control access 

to copyrighted works set forth in 17 

U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to 

persons who engage in noninfringing 

uses of the following classes of 

copyrighted works: 

(1) Motion pictures (including 

television shows and videos), as defined 

in 17 U.S.C. 101, where the motion 

picture is lawfully made and acquired 

on a DVD protected by the Content 

Scramble System, on a Blu-ray disc 

protected by the Advanced Access 

Content System, or via a digital 

transmission protected by a 

technological measure, and the person 

engaging in circumvention under 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii)(A) and 

(B) of this section reasonably believes 

that non-circumventing alternatives are 

unable to produce the required level of 

high-quality content, or the 

circumvention is undertaken using 

screen-capture technology that appears 

to be offered to the public as enabling 

the reproduction of motion pictures 

after content has been lawfully acquired 

and decrypted, where circumvention is 

undertaken solely in order to make use 

of short portions of the motion pictures 

in the following instances: 

(i) For the purpose of criticism or 

comment: 

(A) For use in documentary 

filmmaking, or other films where the 

motion picture clip is used in parody or 

for its biographical or historically 

significant nature; 

(B) For use in noncommercial videos 

(including videos produced for a paid 

commission if the commissioning 

entity’s use is noncommercial); or 

(C) For use in nonfiction multimedia 

e-books. 

(ii) For educational purposes: 

(A) By college and university faculty 

and students or kindergarten through 

twelfth-grade (K–12) educators and 

students (where the K–12 student is 

circumventing under the direct 

supervision of an educator), or 

employees acting at the direction of 

faculty of such educational institutions 

for the purpose of teaching a course, 

including of accredited general 

educational development (GED) 

programs, for the purpose of criticism, 

comment, teaching, or scholarship; 

(B) By faculty of accredited nonprofit 

educational institutions and employees 

acting at the direction of faculty 

members of those institutions, for 

purposes of offering massive open 

online courses (MOOCs) to officially 

enrolled students through online 

platforms (which platforms themselves 

may be operated for profit), in film 

studies or other courses requiring close 

analysis of film and media excerpts, for 

the purpose of criticism or comment, 

where the MOOC provider through the 

online platform limits transmissions to 

the extent technologically feasible to 

such officially enrolled students, 

institutes copyright policies and 

provides copyright informational 

materials to faculty, students, and 

relevant staff members, and applies 

technological measures that reasonably 

prevent unauthorized further 

dissemination of a work in accessible 

form to others or retention of the work 

for longer than the course session by 

recipients of a transmission through the 

platform, as contemplated by 17 U.S.C. 

110(2); or 

(C) By educators and participants in 

nonprofit digital and media literacy 

programs offered by libraries, museums, 

and other nonprofit entities with an 

educational mission, in the course of 

face-to-face instructional activities, for 

the purpose of criticism or comment, 

except that such users may only 

circumvent using screen-capture 

technology that appears to be offered to 

the public as enabling the reproduction 

of motion pictures after content has 

been lawfully acquired and decrypted. 

(2)(i) Motion pictures (including 

television shows and videos), as defined 

in 17 U.S.C. 101, where the motion 

picture is lawfully acquired on a DVD 

protected by the Content Scramble 

System, on a Blu-ray disc protected by 

the Advanced Access Content System, 

or via a digital transmission protected 

by a technological measure, where: 

(A) Circumvention is undertaken by a 

disability services office or other unit of 

a kindergarten through twelfth-grade 

educational institution, college, or 

university engaged in and/or 

responsible for the provision of 

accessibility services for the purpose of 

adding captions and/or audio 

description to a motion picture to create 

an accessible version for students, 

faculty, or staff with disabilities; 

(B) The educational institution unit in 

paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this section has 

a reasonable belief that the motion 

picture will be used for a specific future 

activity of the institution and, after a 

reasonable effort, has determined that 

an accessible version of sufficient 

quality cannot be obtained at a fair 

market price or in a timely manner, 

including where a copyright holder has 

not provided an accessible version of a 

motion picture that was included with 

a textbook; and 

(C) The accessible versions are 

provided to students or educators and 

stored by the educational institution in 

a manner intended to reasonably 

prevent unauthorized further 

dissemination of a work. 

(ii) For purposes of this paragraph 

(b)(2): 

(A) ‘‘Audio description’’ means an 

oral narration that provides an accurate 

rendering of the motion picture; 

(B) ‘‘Accessible version of sufficient 

quality’’ means a version that in the 

reasonable judgment of the educational 

institution unit has captions and/or 

audio description that are sufficient to 

meet the accessibility needs of students, 

faculty, or staff with disabilities and are 

substantially free of errors that would 

materially interfere with those needs; 

and 

(C) Accessible materials created 

pursuant to this exemption and stored 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of this 

section may be reused by the 

educational institution unit to meet the 

accessibility needs of students, faculty, 

or staff with disabilities pursuant to 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this 

section. 

(3)(i) Motion pictures (including 

television shows and videos), as defined 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 85447 

in 17 U.S.C. 101, where the motion 

picture is lawfully acquired on a DVD 

protected by the Content Scramble 

System, or on a Blu-ray disc protected 

by the Advanced Access Content 

System, solely for the purpose of lawful 

preservation or the creation of a 

replacement copy of the motion picture, 

by an eligible library, archives, or 

museum, where: 

(A) Such activity is carried out 

without any purpose of direct or 

indirect commercial advantage; 

(B) The DVD or Blu-ray disc is 

damaged or deteriorating; 

(C) The eligible institution, after a 

reasonable effort, has determined that 

an unused and undamaged replacement 

copy cannot be obtained at a fair price 

and that no streaming service, download 

service, or on-demand cable and 

satellite service makes the motion 

picture available to libraries, archives, 

and museums at a fair price; and 

(D) The preservation or replacement 

copies are not distributed or made 

available outside of the physical 

premises of the eligible library, archives, 

or museum. 

(ii) For purposes of paragraph (b)(3)(i) 

of this section, a library, archives, or 

museum is considered ‘‘eligible’’ if— 

(A) The collections of the library, 

archives, or museum are open to the 

public and/or are routinely made 

available to researchers who are not 

affiliated with the library, archives, or 

museum; 

(B) The library, archives, or museum 

has a public service mission; 

(C) The library, archives, or museum’s 

trained staff or volunteers provide 

professional services normally 

associated with libraries, archives, or 

museums; 

(D) The collections of the library, 

archives, or museum are composed of 

lawfully acquired and/or licensed 

materials; and 

(E) The library, archives, or museum 

implements reasonable digital security 

measures as appropriate for the 

activities permitted by paragraph 

(b)(3)(i) of this section. 

(4)(i) Motion pictures, as defined in 

17 U.S.C. 101, where the motion picture 

is on a DVD protected by the Content 

Scramble System, on a Blu-ray disc 

protected by the Advanced Access 

Content System, or made available for 

digital download where: 

(A) The circumvention is undertaken 

by a researcher affiliated with a 

nonprofit institution of higher 

education, or by a student or 

information technology staff member of 

the institution at the direction of such 

researcher, solely to deploy text and 

data mining techniques on a corpus of 

motion pictures for the purpose of 

scholarly research and teaching; 

(B) The copy of each motion picture 

is lawfully acquired and owned by the 

institution, or licensed to the institution 

without a time limitation on access; 

(C) The person undertaking the 

circumvention or conducting research 

or teaching under this exemption views 

or listens to the contents of the motion 

pictures in the corpus solely to conduct 

text and data mining research or 

teaching; 

(D) The institution uses effective 

security measures to prevent 

dissemination or downloading of 

motion pictures in the corpus, and upon 

a reasonable request from a copyright 

owner who reasonably believes that 

their work is contained in the corpus, or 

a trade association representing such 

author, provide information to that 

copyright owner or trade association 

regarding the nature of such measures; 

and 

(E) The institution limits access to the 

corpus to only the persons identified in 

paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) of this section or 

to researchers affiliated with other 

nonprofit institutions of higher 

education, with all access provided only 

through secure connections and on the 

condition of authenticated credentials, 

solely for purposes of text and data 

mining research or teaching. 

(ii) For purposes of paragraph (b)(4)(i) 

of this section: 

(A) An institution of higher education 

is defined as one that: 

(1) Admits regular students who have 

a certificate of graduation from a 

secondary school or the equivalent of 

such a certificate; 

(2) Is legally authorized to provide a 

postsecondary education program; 

(3) Awards a bachelor’s degree or 

provides not less than a two-year 

program acceptable towards such a 

degree; 

(4) Is a public or other nonprofit 

institution; and 

(5) Is accredited by a nationally 

recognized accrediting agency or 

association. 

(B) The term ‘‘effective security 

measures’’ is defined as: 

(1) Security measures that have been 

agreed to by all interested copyright 

owners of motion pictures and 

institutions of higher education; or 

(2) Security measures that the 

institution uses to keep its own highly 

confidential information secure. 

(5)(i) Literary works, excluding 

computer programs and compilations 

that were compiled specifically for text 

and data mining purposes, distributed 

electronically where: 

(A) The circumvention is undertaken 

by a researcher affiliated with a 

nonprofit institution of higher 

education, or by a student or 

information technology staff member of 

the institution at the direction of such 

researcher, solely to deploy text and 

data mining techniques on a corpus of 

literary works for the purpose of 

scholarly research and teaching; 

(B) The copy of each literary work is 

lawfully acquired and owned by the 

institution, or licensed to the institution 

without a time limitation on access; 

(C) The person undertaking the 

circumvention or conducting research 

or teaching under this exemption views 

the contents of the literary works in the 

corpus solely to conduct text and data 

mining research or teaching; 

(D) The institution uses effective 

security measures to prevent 

dissemination or downloading of 

literary works in the corpus, and upon 

a reasonable request from a copyright 

owner who reasonably believes that 

their work is contained in the corpus, or 

a trade association representing such 

author, provide information to that 

copyright owner or trade association 

regarding the nature of such measures; 

and 

(E) The institution limits access to the 

corpus to only the persons identified in 

paragraph (b)(5)(i)(A) of this section or 

to researchers affiliated with other 

nonprofit institutions of higher 

education, with all access provided only 

through secure connections and on the 

condition of authenticated credentials, 

solely for purposes of text and data 

mining research or teaching. 

(ii) For purposes of paragraph (b)(5)(i) 

of this section: 

(A) An institution of higher education 

is defined as one that: 

(1) Admits regular students who have 

a certificate of graduation from a 

secondary school or the equivalent of 

such a certificate; 

(2) Is legally authorized to provide a 

post secondary education program; 

(3) Awards a bachelor’s degree or 

provides not less than a two-year 

program acceptable towards such a 

degree; 

(4) Is a public or other nonprofit 

institution; and 

(5) Is accredited by a nationally 

recognized accrediting agency or 

association. 

(B) The term ‘‘effective security 

measures’’ is defined as: 

(1) Security measures that have been 

agreed to by all interested copyright 

owners of literary works and 

institutions of higher education; or 

(2) Security measures that the 

institution uses to keep its own highly 

confidential information secure. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
85448 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(6)(i) Literary works or previously 

published musical works that have been 

fixed in the form of text or notation, 

distributed electronically, that are 

protected by technological measures 

that either prevent the enabling of readaloud functionality or interfere with 

screen readers or other applications or 

assistive technologies: 

(A) When a copy or phonorecord of 

such a work is lawfully obtained by an 

eligible person, as such a person is 

defined in 17 U.S.C. 121; provided, 

however, that the rights owner is 

remunerated, as appropriate, for the 

market price of an inaccessible copy of 

the work as made available to the 

general public through customary 

channels; or 

(B) When such a work is lawfully 

obtained and used by an authorized 

entity pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 121. 

(ii) For the purposes of paragraph 

(b)(6)(i) of this section, a ‘‘phonorecord 

of such a work’’ does not include a 

sound recording of a performance of a 

musical work unless and only to the 

extent the recording is included as part 

of an audiobook or e-book. 

(7) Literary works consisting of 

compilations of data generated by 

medical devices or by their personal 

corresponding monitoring systems, 

where such circumvention is 

undertaken by or on behalf of a patient 

for the sole purpose of lawfully 

accessing data generated by a patient’s 

own medical device or monitoring 

system. Eligibility for this exemption is 

not a safe harbor from, or defense to, 

liability under other applicable laws, 

including without limitation the Health 

Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996, the 

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 

or regulations of the Food and Drug 

Administration. 

(8) Computer programs that enable 

wireless devices to connect to a wireless 

telecommunications network, when 

circumvention is undertaken solely in 

order to connect to a wireless 

telecommunications network and such 

connection is authorized by the operator 

of such network. 

(9) Computer programs that enable 

smartphones and portable all-purpose 

mobile computing devices to execute 

lawfully obtained software applications, 

where circumvention is accomplished 

for the sole purpose of enabling 

interoperability of such applications 

with computer programs on the 

smartphone or device, or to permit 

removal of software from the 

smartphone or device. For purposes of 

this paragraph (b)(9), a ‘‘portable allpurpose mobile computing device’’ is a 

device that is primarily designed to run 

a wide variety of programs rather than 

for consumption of a particular type of 

media content, is equipped with an 

operating system primarily designed for 

mobile use, and is intended to be 

carried or worn by an individual. 

(10) Computer programs that enable 

smart televisions to execute lawfully 

obtained software applications, where 

circumvention is accomplished for the 

sole purpose of enabling interoperability 

of such applications with computer 

programs on the smart television, and is 

not accomplished for the purpose of 

gaining unauthorized access to other 

copyrighted works. For purposes of this 

paragraph (b)(10), ‘‘smart televisions’’ 

includes both internet-enabled 

televisions, as well as devices that are 

physically separate from a television 

and whose primary purpose is to run 

software applications that stream 

authorized video from the internet for 

display on a screen. 

(11) Computer programs that enable 

voice assistant devices to execute 

lawfully obtained software applications, 

where circumvention is accomplished 

for the sole purpose of enabling 

interoperability of such applications 

with computer programs on the device, 

or to permit removal of software from 

the device, and is not accomplished for 

the purpose of gaining unauthorized 

access to other copyrighted works. For 

purposes of this paragraph (b)(11), a 

‘‘voice assistant device’’ is a device that 

is primarily designed to run a wide 

variety of programs rather than for 

consumption of a particular type of 

media content, is designed to take user 

input primarily by voice, and is 

designed to be installed in a home or 

office. 

(12) Computer programs that enable 

routers and dedicated network devices 

to execute lawfully obtained software 

applications, where circumvention is 

accomplished for the sole purpose of 

enabling interoperability of such 

applications with computer programs 

on the router or dedicated network 

device, and is not accomplished for the 

purpose of gaining unauthorized access 

to other copyrighted works. For the 

purposes of this paragraph (b)(12), 

‘‘dedicated network device’’ includes 

switches, hubs, bridges, gateways, 

modems, repeaters, and access points, 

and excludes devices that are not 

lawfully owned. 

(13) Computer programs that are 

contained in and control the functioning 

of a lawfully acquired motorized land 

vehicle or marine vessel such as a 

personal automobile or boat, 

commercial vehicle or vessel, or 

mechanized agricultural vehicle or 

vessel, except for programs accessed 

through a separate subscription service, 

when circumvention is a necessary step 

to allow the diagnosis, repair, or lawful 

modification of a vehicle or vessel 

function, where such circumvention is 

not accomplished for the purpose of 

gaining unauthorized access to other 

copyrighted works. Eligibility for this 

exemption is not a safe harbor from, or 

defense to, liability under other 

applicable laws, including without 

limitation regulations promulgated by 

the Department of Transportation or the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(14) Computer programs that are 

contained in and control the functioning 

of a lawfully acquired motorized land 

vehicle or marine vessel such as a 

personal automobile or boat, 

commercial vehicle or vessel, or 

mechanized agricultural vehicle or 

vessel, except for programs accessed 

through a separate subscription service, 

to allow vehicle or vessel owners and 

lessees, or those acting on their behalf, 

to access, store, and share operational 

data, including diagnostic and 

telematics data, where such 

circumvention is not accomplished for 

the purpose of gaining unauthorized 

access to other copyrighted works. 

Eligibility for this exemption is not a 

safe harbor from, or defense to, liability 

under other applicable laws, including 

without limitation regulations 

promulgated by the Department of 

Transportation or the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(15) Computer programs that are 

contained in and control the functioning 

of a lawfully acquired device that is 

primarily designed for use by 

consumers, when circumvention is a 

necessary step to allow the diagnosis, 

maintenance, or repair of such a device, 

and is not accomplished for the purpose 

of gaining access to other copyrighted 

works. For purposes of this paragraph 

(b)(15): 

(i) The ‘‘maintenance’’ of a device is 

the servicing of the device in order to 

make it work in accordance with its 

original specifications and any changes 

to those specifications authorized for 

that device; and 

(ii) The ‘‘repair’’ of a device is the 

restoring of the device to the state of 

working in accordance with its original 

specifications and any changes to those 

specifications authorized for that 

device. For video game consoles, 

‘‘repair’’ is limited to repair or 

replacement of a console’s optical drive 

and requires restoring any technological 

protection measures that were 

circumvented or disabled. 

(16) Computer programs that are 

contained in and control the functioning 

of lawfully acquired equipment that is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 85449 

primarily designed for use in retail-level 

commercial food preparation when 

circumvention is a necessary step to 

allow the diagnosis, maintenance, or 

repair of such a device, and is not 

accomplished for the purpose of gaining 

access to other copyrighted works. For 

purposes of this paragraph (b)(16): 

(i) The ‘‘maintenance’’ of a device is 

the servicing of the device in order to 

make it work in accordance with its 

original specifications and any changes 

to those specifications authorized for 

that device; and 

(ii) The ‘‘repair’’ of a device is the 

restoring of the device to the state of 

working in accordance with its original 

specifications and any changes to those 

specifications authorized for that 

device. 

(17) Computer programs that are 

contained in and control the functioning 

of a lawfully acquired medical device or 

system, and related data files, when 

circumvention is a necessary step to 

allow the diagnosis, maintenance, or 

repair of such a device or system. For 

purposes of this paragraph (b)(17): 

(i) The ‘‘maintenance’’ of a device or 

system is the servicing of the device or 

system in order to make it work in 

accordance with its original 

specifications and any changes to those 

specifications authorized for that device 

or system; and 

(ii) The ‘‘repair’’ of a device or system 

is the restoring of the device or system 

to the state of working in accordance 

with its original specifications and any 

changes to those specifications 

authorized for that device or system. 

(18)(i) Computer programs, where the 

circumvention is undertaken on a 

lawfully acquired device or machine on 

which the computer program operates, 

or is undertaken on a computer, 

computer system, or computer network 

on which the computer program 

operates with the authorization of the 

owner or operator of such computer, 

computer system, or computer network, 

solely for the purpose of good-faith 

security research. 

(ii) For purposes of paragraph 

(b)(18)(i) of this section, ‘‘good-faith 

security research’’ means accessing a 

computer program solely for purposes of 

good-faith testing, investigation, and/or 

correction of a security flaw or 

vulnerability, where such activity is 

carried out in an environment designed 

to avoid any harm to individuals or the 

public, and where the information 

derived from the activity is used 

primarily to promote the security or 

safety of the class of devices or 

machines on which the computer 

program operates, or those who use 

such devices or machines, and is not 

used or maintained in a manner that 

facilitates copyright infringement. 

(iii) Good-faith security research that 

qualifies for the exemption under 

paragraph (b)(18)(i) of this section may 

nevertheless incur liability under other 

applicable laws, including without 

limitation the Computer Fraud and 

Abuse Act of 1986, as amended and 

codified in title 18, United States Code, 

and eligibility for that exemption is not 

a safe harbor from, or defense to, 

liability under other applicable laws. 

(19)(i) Video games in the form of 

computer programs embodied in 

physical or downloaded formats that 

have been lawfully acquired as 

complete games, when the copyright 

owner or its authorized representative 

has ceased to provide access to an 

external computer server necessary to 

facilitate an authentication process to 

enable gameplay, solely for the purpose 

of: 

(A) Permitting access to the video 

game to allow copying and modification 

of the computer program to restore 

access to the game for personal, local 

gameplay on a personal computer or 

video game console; or 

(B) Permitting access to the video 

game to allow copying and modification 

of the computer program to restore 

access to the game on a personal 

computer or video game console when 

necessary to allow preservation of the 

game in a playable form by an eligible 

library, archives, or museum, where 

such activities are carried out without 

any purpose of direct or indirect 

commercial advantage and the video 

game is not distributed or made 

available outside of the physical 

premises of the eligible library, archives, 

or museum. 

(ii) Video games in the form of 

computer programs embodied in 

physical or downloaded formats that 

have been lawfully acquired as 

complete games, that do not require 

access to an external computer server 

for gameplay, and that are no longer 

reasonably available in the commercial 

marketplace, solely for the purpose of 

preservation of the game in a playable 

form by an eligible library, archives, or 

museum, where such activities are 

carried out without any purpose of 

direct or indirect commercial advantage 

and the video game is not distributed or 

made available outside of the physical 

premises of the eligible library, archives, 

or museum. 

(iii) Computer programs used to 

operate video game consoles solely to 

the extent necessary for an eligible 

library, archives, or museum to engage 

in the preservation activities described 

in paragraph (b)(19)(i)(B) or (b)(19)(ii) of 

this section. 

(iv) For purposes of this paragraph 

(b)(19), the following definitions shall 

apply: 

(A) For purposes of paragraphs 

(b)(19)(i)(A) and (b)(19)(ii) of this 

section, ‘‘complete games’’ means video 

games that can be played by users 

without accessing or reproducing 

copyrightable content stored or 

previously stored on an external 

computer server. 

(B) For purposes of paragraph 

(b)(19)(i)(B) of this section, ‘‘complete 

games’’ means video games that meet 

the definition in paragraph (b)(19)(iv)(A) 

of this section, or that consist of both a 

copy of a game intended for a personal 

computer or video game console and a 

copy of the game’s code that was stored 

or previously stored on an external 

computer server. 

(C) ‘‘Ceased to provide access’’ means 

that the copyright owner or its 

authorized representative has either 

issued an affirmative statement 

indicating that external server support 

for the video game has ended and such 

support is in fact no longer available or, 

alternatively, server support has been 

discontinued for a period of at least six 

months; provided, however, that server 

support has not since been restored. 

(D) ‘‘Local gameplay’’ means 

gameplay conducted on a personal 

computer or video game console, or 

locally connected personal computers or 

consoles, and not through an online 

service or facility. 

(E) A library, archives, or museum is 

considered ‘‘eligible’’ if— 

(1) The collections of the library, 

archives, or museum are open to the 

public and/or are routinely made 

available to researchers who are not 

affiliated with the library, archives, or 

museum; 

(2) The library, archives, or museum 

has a public service mission; 

(3) The library, archives, or museum’s 

trained staff or volunteers provide 

professional services normally 

associated with libraries, archives, or 

museums; 

(4) The collections of the library, 

archives, or museum are composed of 

lawfully acquired and/or licensed 

materials; and 

(5) The library, archives, or museum 

implements reasonable digital security 

measures as appropriate for the 

activities permitted by this paragraph 

(b)(19). 

(20)(i) Computer programs, except 

video games, that have been lawfully 

acquired and that are no longer 

reasonably available in the commercial 

marketplace, solely for the purpose of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
85450 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

lawful preservation of a computer 

program, or of digital materials 

dependent upon a computer program as 

a condition of access, by an eligible 

library, archives, or museum, where 

such activities are carried out without 

any purpose of direct or indirect 

commercial advantage. Any electronic 

distribution, display, or performance 

made outside of the physical premises 

of an eligible library, archives, or 

museum of works preserved under this 

paragraph may be made to only one user 

at a time, for a limited time, and only 

where the library, archives, or museum 

has no notice that the copy would be 

used for any purpose other than private 

study, scholarship, or research. 

(ii) For purposes of the exemption in 

paragraph (b)(20)(i) of this section, a 

library, archives, or museum is 

considered ‘‘eligible’’ if— 

(A) The collections of the library, 

archives, or museum are open to the 

public and/or are routinely made 

available to researchers who are not 

affiliated with the library, archives, or 

museum; 

(B) The library, archives, or museum 

has a public service mission; 

(C) The library, archives, or museum’s 

trained staff or volunteers provide 

professional services normally 

associated with libraries, archives, or 

museums; 

(D) The collections of the library, 

archives, or museum are composed of 

lawfully acquired and/or licensed 

materials; and 

(E) The library, archives, or museum 

implements reasonable digital security 

measures as appropriate for the 

activities permitted by this paragraph 

(b)(20). 

(iii) For purposes of paragraph (b)(20) 

of this section, the phrase ‘‘one user at 

a time’’ means that for each copy of a 

work lawfully owned by an eligible 

library, archives, or museum and 

preserved under paragraph (b)(20)(i) of 

this section, such library, archives, or 

museum may make an electronic 

distribution, display, or performance of 

that work outside of its physical 

premises. An eligible library, archives, 

or museum may make each copy of such 

lawfully owned and preserved work 

available to different users 

simultaneously. This provision does not 

permit an eligible library, archives, or 

museum to make multiple, 

simultaneous copies of the same copy of 

a work for the purposes of providing 

users access to the work. 

(21) Computer programs that operate 

3D printers that employ technological 

measures to limit the use of material, 

when circumvention is accomplished 

solely for the purpose of using 

alternative material and not for the 

purpose of accessing design software, 

design files, or proprietary data. 

(22) Computer programs, solely for 

the purpose of investigating a potential 

infringement of free and open source 

computer programs where: 

(i) The circumvention is undertaken 

on a lawfully acquired device or 

machine other than a video game 

console, on which the computer 

program operates; 

(ii) The circumvention is performed 

by, or at the direction of, a party that has 

a good-faith, reasonable belief in the 

need for the investigation and has 

standing to bring a breach of license or 

copyright infringement claim; 

(iii) Such circumvention does not 

constitute a violation of applicable law; 

and 

(iv) The copy of the computer 

program, or the device or machine on 

which it operates, is not used or 

maintained in a manner that facilitates 

copyright infringement. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 18, 2024. 

Carla D. Hayden, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24563 Filed 10–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 225 

[Docket No. FRA–2024–0034] 

RIN 2130–AC98 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Accident/Incident Investigation Policy 

for Gathering Information and 

Consulting With Stakeholders; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On October 1, 2024, FRA 

published a final rule amending its 

Accident/Incident Regulations 

governing reporting, classification, and 

investigations to codify FRA’s policy for 

gathering information from, and 

consulting with, stakeholders during an 

accident/incident investigation. The 

published final rule contains errors in 

the preamble text. FRA is correcting 

those errors so that the final rule 

conforms to FRA’s intent. 

DATES: Effective on November 15, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Senya Waas, Senior Attorney, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, FRA, telephone: 202– 

875–4158 or email: senyaann.waas@

dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR 

document 2024–22326 beginning on 

page 79767 in the Federal Register of 

October 1, 2024, make the following 

corrections: 

1. On page 79767, in the first and 

second columns, correct the DATES

section to read: 

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is 

effective on November 15, 2024, unless 

FRA receives adverse, substantive 

comment by October 31, 2024. If no 

adverse, substantive comments are 

received, FRA will publish a notice in 

the Federal Register indicating that no 

adverse comment was received and 

confirming that the rule will become 

effective on November 15, 2024. 

2. On page 79768, in the first column, 

correct the first paragraph to read: 

FRA is publishing this rule without a 

prior proposed rule under FRA’s direct 

final rulemaking procedures in 49 CFR 

211.33 because it views this as a 

noncontroversial action that generally 

codifies FRA’s current process for 

accident/incident investigations. Under 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), an agency may waive the normal 

notice and comment procedures if the 

action is a rule of agency organization, 

procedure, or practice. 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(A). Additionally, under the 

APA, an agency may waive notice and 

comment procedures when the agency 

for good cause finds that notice and 

public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). As noted 

above, this rule would codify FRA’s 

procedures for accident/incident 

investigations and FRA has already 

worked with stakeholders (both labor 

and the rail organizations) to develop 

the Policy Document which is posted on 

FRA’s website. Accordingly, FRA finds 

that notice and comment are 

unnecessary and anticipates no adverse, 

substantive comment on any of the 

provisions of the rule. If FRA receives 

an adverse, substantive comment on any 

of the provisions, it will publish in the 

Federal Register a timely withdrawal, 

informing the public that the direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

3. In the Section-by-Section Analysis, 

on page 79769, in the 2nd column, 

correct the fourth paragraph to read: 

Previous paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), 

and (f) remain substantively unchanged 

but are being redesignated as paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (6). 

4. Under Regulatory Impact and 

Notices, on page 79770, correct table 1 

to read as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1