3 ms·

I found out the answer to this just yesterday in a different context. Here's how it was explained to me: When those who opposed the impending passage of the DM

I found out the answer to this just yesterday in a different context. Here's how it was explained to me: When those who opposed the impending passage of the DMCA realized they couldn't defeat it, they (mainly EFF at that point) decided to salvage what they could, which is to stick in a clause to allow the Librarian to decide exemptions. The *AA didn't try to shut that clause down because they thought it was basically a joke and would never amount to anything. But in reality the Librarian has indeed exercised some power, so it's considered a minor win for consumer advocates.

Finster 14y ago
Until you realize that the LoC is basically deciding these things by executive fiat. Seriously, what has changed in the last few years that suddenly makes phone unlocking a threat to digital security when before it was just fine? Nothing has changed except who's getting the money.
- saurik 14y ago
  You are not looking at it in the same way the LoC is; instead, the question they pose is "has the situation changed sufficiently to no longer warrant maintaining an explicit exemption of a law--one that was instated by Congress and which we thereby must upheld and abide--for what we agreed six years ago was a dire and necessary reason?", and they felt the answer was "yes, while when we first put this exemption in place six years ago it was nearly impossible to purchase unlocked phones, it is now the case that numerous handset lines either come unlocked by default or have an option to purchase them unlocked, carriers have better policies with regards to unlocking them, and generally this is just no longer considered as much of a serious problem by users; we thereby no longer see the extreme necessity required in maintaining this explicit exemption: removing it will not cause the original problem to reappear".

Finster 14y ago

Until you realize that the LoC is basically deciding these things by executive fiat. Seriously, what has changed in the last few years that suddenly makes phone unlocking a threat to digital security when before it was just fine? Nothing has changed except who's getting the money.

saurik 14y ago
You are not looking at it in the same way the LoC is; instead, the question they pose is "has the situation changed sufficiently to no longer warrant maintaining an explicit exemption of a law--one that was instated by Congress and which we thereby must upheld and abide--for what we agreed six years ago was a dire and necessary reason?", and they felt the answer was "yes, while when we first put this exemption in place six years ago it was nearly impossible to purchase unlocked phones, it is now the case that numerous handset lines either come unlocked by default or have an option to purchase them unlocked, carriers have better policies with regards to unlocking them, and generally this is just no longer considered as much of a serious problem by users; we thereby no longer see the extreme necessity required in maintaining this explicit exemption: removing it will not cause the original problem to reappear".