In 2015, a debate unfolded over who should be allowed to access vehicular software for the purposes of repair, maintenance, and modification. Conducted as part of the triennial anticircumvention exemptions proceedings of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, this debate surfaced tensions that had long been brewing about copyright’s applicability to computer software, with the added complication that rather than personal computers, the devices being discussed were cars, trucks, and tractors. At stake was whether copyright was the appropriate tool for striking the balance between economic incentivization and individual autonomy—and whether that was really the balance in question. I argue, rather, that while copyright law has been written and interpreted with these two conflicting goals in mind, a third goal is possible: the public good served through communal and sustainable commitments. By re-prioritizing this goal, we could rewrite copyright to could lead us to a more equitable future.
American Automobile Association (AAA) (2015) Short Comment Regarding a Proposed Exemption Under 17 U.S.C. 1201, 1May. Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
4.
ArewaOB (2006) TRIPS and traditional knowledge: local communities, local knowledge, and global intellectual property frameworks. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review10: 155–180.
5.
Association of Global Automakers (2015) Comment of Association of Global Automakers, Inc. Regarding Exemption for Proposed Class 21 from Liability Under 17 U.S.C. 1201, 27March. Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
6.
AufderheidePJasziP (2018) Reclaiming Fair Use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
AufderheidePSinnreichAGrafJ (2018) The limits of the limits of the law: how useable are DMCA anticircumvention exceptions?International Journal of Communication12: 4353–4372.
8.
Auto Alliance (2015) Long Comment Regarding a Proposed Exemption Under 17 U.S.C. 1201. 27March.
9.
Auto Care Association and Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association (2015) Short Comment of the Auto Care Association and the Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association in Neither Support Nor Opposition to Proposed Exemption Under 17 U.S.C. 1201, 1May.
10.
BelloBAufderheideP (2021) The DMCA, database protection, and right to repair: the long tail of public interest activism in the first digital copyright decade. Information & Culture56. DOI: 10.7560/IC56103.
11.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
BreyerS (1970) The uneasy case for copyright: a study of copyright in books, photocopies, and computer programs. Harvard Law Review84: 281–351.
13.
CohenJ (2012) Configuring the Networked Self. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
ColemanEG (2012) Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
CuellarM-F (2005) Rethinking regulatory democracy. Administrative Law Review57: 411.
16.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (2015a) In the Matter of Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies Under 17 U.S.C. 1201. 2014-07, 6February. Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
17.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (2015b) In the Matter of Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies Under 17 U.S.C. 1201, 1May. Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
FairfieldJAT (2017) Owned: Property, Privacy, and the New Digital Serfdom. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
General Motors LLC (2015) Comments of General Motors LLC, 27March. Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
21.
GillespieT (2009) Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
HavensDHartG (2015) John Deere Letter to Dealers.
23.
HermanBDGandyOHJ (2006) Catch 1201: a legislative history and content analysis of the DMCA exemption proceedings. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal24: 121.
24.
iFixit (2015) Short Comment Regarding a Proposed Exemption Under 17 U.S.C. 1201, 6February. Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
John Deere (2015) Long Comment Regarding a Proposed Exemption Under 17 U.S.C. 1201, 27March. Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
27.
Krause v. Titleserve Inc III (2005) 03-9303.
28.
LemleyMA (2012) The myth of the sole inventor. Michigan Law Review110(5): 709–760.
29.
LessigL (2006) Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0. 0002-rev. ed. New York: Basic Books.
30.
LitmanJ (2001) Digital Copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
31.
Memorandum of Understanding: R2R Agreement (2014) 5January.
32.
MendelsonNA (2011) Rulemaking, democracy, and torrents of e-mail. George Washington Law Review79: 101.
33.
National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (1978) Final Report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, 31July. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
34.
PerzanowskiA (2007) Evolving standards & the future of DMCA anticircumvention rulemaking. Journal of Internet Law; New York10(10): 112–122.
35.
PerzanowskiASchultzJ (2016) The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy. Information Society Series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
PetersenJ (2015) Is code speech? Law and the expressivity of machine language. New Media & Society17(3): 415–431.
37.
Register of Copyrights (2012) Section 1201 Rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention—Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 12October. Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office.
38.
Register of Copyrights (2015) Section 1201 Rulemaking: Sixth Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention: Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, 8October. Washington, DC: The Register of Copyrights.
39.
SamuelsonP (1984) CONTU revisited: the case against copyright protection for computer programs in machine-readable form. Duke Law Journal33(4): 663–769.
40.
SamuelsonP (2010) The uneasy case for software copyrights revisited celebrating the fourteenth anniversary of justice Breyer’s article: the uneasy case for copyright: copyright and specific industries. George Washington Law Review79: 1746–1782.
41.
SeltzerW (2010) The imperfect is the enemy of the good: anticircumvention versus open user innovation. Berkeley Technology Law Journal25(2): 909–972.
42.
SinnreichA (2010) Mashed Up. Science/Technology/Culture. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
43.
SinnreichA (2019) The Essential Guide to Intellectual Property. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
SunderM (2012) From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
US Copyright Office (2014) Notice of inquiry and request for petitions: exemption to prohibition on circumvention of copyright protection systems for access control technologies. Federal Register79(180): 55687–55694.
46.
USC Intellectual Property & Technology Law Clinic (2015) In the Matter of: Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 6February. Washington, DC: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
47.
VaidhyanathanS (2003) Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity. New York: NYU Press.
