I'd just like to try and add some clarification here. Here's the legal document relating to this:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-26308.pdf
The relevant section is Section IV. B., Under the title of "IV. Classes Considered But Not Recommended"
A few choice quotes:
Proponents sought an exemption from Section 1201(a)(1) to permit such jailbreaking of video game consoles. Because the class they proposed would enable interoperability only with “lawfully obtained software programs,” proponents asserted that the exemption would not authorize or foster infringing activities.
EFF explained that a “large community” of console jailbreakers currently exists for all three major video game consoles but noted that such jailbreakers face potential liability under Section 1201(a)(1).
The Register therefore concluded that proponents had failed to establish that the prohibition on circumvention, as applied to video game console code, is causing substantial adverse effects.
But the Register concluded that in the case of gaming platforms [...] Console access controls protect not only the integrity of the console code, but the copyrighted works that run on the consoles. In so doing, they provide important incentives to create video games and other content for consoles, and thus play a critical role in the development and dissemination of highly innovative copyrighted works.
Because the Register determined that the evidentiary record failed to support a finding that the inability to circumvent access controls on video game consoles has, or over the course of the next three years likely would have, a substantial adverse impact on the ability to make noninfringing uses, the Register declined to recommend the proposed class.
Although NTIA did not support the exemption as requested by proponents, it did support a limited exemption to allow videogame console owners to repair or replace hardware components, or to “obtain unlicensed repairs when the console is out of warranty or when the console and authorized replacement parts are no longer on the market.” As explained above, however, the Register found that the record lacked any factual basis upon which to recommend the designation of even such a limited class.
To summarise, the EFF sought an
exemption to an
existing law, under which homebrew is illegal [in the US]. The Register (of Copyrights) did not recommend this exemption be granted. By my understanding, the Librarian of Congress then decides the ruling based on these recommendations. In this case, the recommendation of the Register was accepted, and no exemption was granted.
So nothing actually changed. (It is interesting to note that NTIA, another government body involved in the process did feel it was acceptable to perform modifications where necessary to repair a console, but the Register disregarded that due to lack of evidence).
For a bit of background on the law in question:
Section 1201(a)(1)(A) provides, in part, that “[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected” by the Copyright Act. In order to ensure that the public will have the continued ability to engage in noninfringing uses of copyrighted works, however, subparagraph (B) limits this prohibition.
As I understand it, the proposal was to amend subparagraph (B) so as to add additional limitations to subparagraph (A) i.e. exemptions.
Now obviously I'm not a lawyer, so I can't guarantee I am getting this all right, but I think it is quite plainly clear that nothing has actually changed in legal terms. The law has not changed with regards to homebrew. By my understanding, DMCA prohibits it, but that has been discussed to death many times with no universally accepted conclusion. The point is, this ruling makes no difference, because it doesn't change anything.
