exemption, with the exemption to be in effect until Oct. 27, 2006.^775 The classes, which were
only four in number and even more specifically defined than the first set of classes,^776 were as
follows:
- Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially
marketed filtering software applications that are intended to prevent access to domains, websites
or portions of websites, but not including lists of Internet locations blocked by software
applications that operate exclusively to protect against damage to a computer or computer
network or lists of Internet locations blocked by software applications that operate exclusively to
prevent receipt of email.^777 The Librarian defined “Internet locations” to “include domains,
uniform resource locators (URLs), numeric IP addresses or any combination thereof.^778 This
class is similar to the first class of exemptions in the Librarian’s first determination, but was
narrowed so as to exclude the ability to circumvent blocked lists associated with firewalls, anti-
virus software and anti-spam software.^779 - Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or
damage and which are obsolete. This class is similar to the second class of exemptions in the
Librarian’s first determination, but was narrowed to cover only the case of obsolete dongles
because the Librarian found that this was the only class for which adequate factual support of
potential harm had been submitted in the second rulemaking proceeding.^780 The Librarian
defined “obsolete” as “no longer manufactured or reasonably available in the commercial
marketplace.”^781 - Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete
and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be
considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in
that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial
(^775) 68 Fed. Reg. 62011 (Oct. 31, 2003).
(^776) A statement accompanying the Librarian’s decision with respect to the exempted classes partially explained the
narrowness of the classes: “It is important to understand the purposes of this rulemaking, as stated in the law,
and the role I have in it. The rulemaking is not a broad evaluation of the successes or failures of the DMCA.
The purpose of the proceeding is to determine whether current technologies that control access to copyrighted
works are diminishing the ability of individuals to use works in lawful, noninfringing ways. The DMCA does
not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls, and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about
technologies that control copying. Some of the people who participated in the rulemaking did not understand
that and made proposals based on their dissatisfaction with copy controls. Other participants sought exemptions
that would permit them to circumvent access controls on all works when they are engaging in particular
noninfringing uses of those works. The law does not give me that power.” Statement of the Librarian of
Congress Relating to Section 1201 Rulemaking, available as of Oct. 30, 2003 at
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/librarian_statement_01.html.
(^777) 68 Fed. Reg. at 62013.
(^778) Id.
(^779) Id.
(^780) Id. at 62013-14.
(^781) Id. at 62018.