Just to add a couple of points:
The two relevant proposals for the designation of classes of works to be exempt from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works appear to be 10A and 10B, described as follows:
"10A. Motion pictures on lawfully
made and lawfully acquired DVDs that
are protected by the Content Scrambling
System when circumvention is
accomplished solely in order to
accomplish the noncommercial space
shifting of the contained motion picture.
Proponent: Public Knowledge.
10B. Legally acquired digital media
(motion pictures, sound recordings, and
e-books) for personal use and for the
purposes of making back-up copies,
format shifting, access, and transfer.
Proponents: Cassiopaea Tambolini,
Susan Fuhs, Kellie Heistand, Andy
Kossowsky, and Curt Wiederhoeft (filing
Comments on the proposed classes are due on or before 5:00 PM E.S.T., February 10, 2012. The comments are then supposed to be posted on the Registrar's webiste, and then "Reply comments addressing points made in
the initial comments are due by 5 p.m. E.S.T. on March 2, 2012."
It should be interesting to see the inevitable industry comments opposing classes 10A and 10B.
If you intend to submit comments, you may wish to consider the instructions published by the Registrar last September 29:
" For each particular class of works that a commenter proposes for
exemption, the commenter should first identify that class, followed by
a summary of the argument in favor of exempting that proposed class.
The commenter should then specify the facts and evidence providing a
basis for this exemption. This factual information should ideally
include the technological measure that controls access and the manner
in which this technological measure operates to control access to a
copyrighted work. Finally, the commenter should state any legal
arguments in support of the exemption, including the activity that is
claimed to be noninfringing, the legal basis for this claim, and why
this noninfringing activity cannot be accomplished in other ways. The
legal argument should include an analysis of the factors set forth in
17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C), discussed above. This format of class/summary/
facts/argument should be sequentially followed for each class of work
proposed as necessary.
As discussed above, the best evidence in support of an exemption
would consist of concrete examples or specific instances in which the
prohibition on circumvention of technological measures protecting
access has had or is likely to have an adverse effect on noninfringing
uses. It would also be useful for the commenter to quantify the adverse
effects in order to explain the scope of the present or likely problem.
As noted above, demonstrating only As noted above, demonstrating only
isolated instances of relatively minimal adverse effects is not likely
to meet the proponent's burden.
Comments subsequently submitted in response to exemptions proposed
in the first round of comments should provide factual information and
legal argument addressing whether or not a proposed exemption should be
adopted. Since the comments in this second round are intended to be
responsive to the initial comments, commenters must identify which
proposal(s) they are responding to, whether in opposition, support,
amplification or correction. As with initial comments, these responsive
comments should first identify the proposed class or classes to which
the comment is responsive, provide a summary of the argument, and then
provide the factual and/or legal support for their argument. This
format of class/summary/facts and/or legal argument should be repeated
for each comment responsive to a particular proposed class of work.
All comments must, at a minimum, contain the legal name of the
submitter and the entity, if any, on whose behalf the comment was
submitted. If persons do not wish to have their address, telephone
number, or email address publicly displayed on the Office's website,
comments should not include such information on the document itself but
should only include the legal name of the commenter. The Office
strongly prefers that all comments be submitted in electronic form and
the electronic form will provide a place to provide the required
information separately from the attached comment submission. However,
anyone who cannot submit comments electronically may contact the
Copyright Office at 202-707-8380 for special instructions. Electronic
comments successfully submitted through the Office's website will
generate a confirmation receipt to the submitter."