History MediaNotes / DigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct

# 17 USC 1201, which makes it illegal to circumvent [[UsefulNotes/DigitalRightsManagement access-control technology]], even for otherwise legal purposes. Playing UsefulNotes/{{DVD}}s and many formats of internet videos on Linux is illegal; playing the movie is legal in itself, but you have to break access control in order to play it on Linux. Likewise, it's illegal to play an import video game if you need to get around an access control, even though playing the game is legal in itself. The ostensible reason for this is to stop piracy; but even if you had no intention of ''copying'' the DVD or game, you can't play it on anything that works around the copy-protection scheme instead of through it. This also makes legally archiving video games in formats that are no longer used that were made by companies that no longer exist almost impossible.

# 17 USC 1201, which makes it illegal to circumvent [[UsefulNotes/DigitalRightsManagement access-control technology]], even for otherwise legal purposes. Playing UsefulNotes/{{DVD}}s and many formats of internet videos on Linux is illegal; playing the movie is legal in itself, but you have to break access control in order to play it on Linux. Likewise, it's illegal to play an import video game if you need to get around an access control, even though playing the game is legal in itself. The ostensible reason for this is to stop piracy; but even if you had no intention of ''copying'' the DVD or game, you can't play it on anything that works around the copy-protection scheme instead of through it. This also makes legally archiving videogames in formats that are no longer used that were made by companies that no longer exist almost impossible.

Because the law gives providers an incentive to always believe the presumed copyright owner and gives the customer little defense against false accusations, it's often abused by corporations and other organizations to force the takedown of material that doesn't violate copyright; the worst cases (on occasion) take down public domain items or copylefted material. It's theoretically an offence to file a false takedown notice, but to date, only one person has ever sued for such "misrepresentation," and the copyright owner has been fighting tooth and nail--see [[http://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal her lawyers' take]] for more. The [[PathOfInspiration Church of Scientology]] recently filed takedown notices for anti-Scientology videos on Website/YouTube in the name of a ''nonexistent law company,'' confident that there would be no consequences. Fake [=DMCAs=] are increasingly common on [=YouTube=] as people try to censor those with other opinions, as the mechanics of the law means [=YouTube=] must act first and ask questions later, and often surrender the target's personal information on request. One infamous example [[KickTheDog involved a guy [=DMCAing=] a person he didn't like, making up fake rumours about grooming children, and then posting his details before closing his account to escape the backlash]]. Probably #2 is Kent Hovind's Creation Science Ministry, who filed takedown notices against videos [[WhatAnIdiot it itself released into the public domain]].

Because the law gives providers an incentive to always believe the presumed copyright owner and gives the customer little defense against false accusations, it's often abused by corporations and other organizations to force the takedown of material that doesn't violate copyright; the worst cases (on occasion) take down public domain items or copylefted material. It's theoretically an offence to file a false takedown notice, but to date, only one person has ever sued for such "misrepresentation," and the copyright owner has been fighting tooth and nail--see [[http://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal her lawyers' take]] for more. The [[PathOfInspiration Church of Scientology]] recently filed takedown notices for anti-Scientology videos on Website/YouTube in the name of a ''nonexistent law company,'' confident that there would be no consequences. Fake [=DMCAs=] are increasingly common on Website/YouTube as people try to censor those with other opinions, as the mechanics of the law means Website/YouTube must act first and ask questions later, and often surrender the target's personal information on request. One infamous example [[KickTheDog involved a guy DMCAing a person he didn't like, making up fake rumours about grooming children, and then posting his details before closing his account to escape the backlash]]. Probably #2 is Kent Hovind's Creation Science Ministry, who filed takedown notices against videos [[WhatAnIdiot it itself released into the public domain]].

On the bright side, at least a notice has to be filed by ''someone'' before anything gets taken down. DMCA claims are part of the so-called "safe harbor" provisions that allow sites that store user-provided information to be safe from being sued for copyright infringement due to users uploading copyrighted materials. Without the "safe harbor" provision, any such sites would be infringing on copyrights by distributing copyrighted materials. Therefore, it's pretty much the only thing keeping sites like YouTube freely available.

# 17 USC 1201, which makes it illegal to circumvent [[{{DRM}} access-control technology]], even for otherwise legal purposes. Playing UsefulNotes/{{DVD}}s and many formats of internet videos on Linux is illegal; playing the movie is legal in itself, but you have to break access control in order to play it on Linux. Likewise, it's illegal to play an import video game if you need to get around an access control, even though playing the game is legal in itself. The ostensible reason for this is to stop piracy; but even if you had no intention of ''copying'' the DVD or game, you can't play it on anything that works around the copy-protection scheme instead of through it. This also makes legally archiving videogames in formats that are no longer used that were made by companies that no longer exist almost impossible.

# 17 USC 1201, which makes it illegal to circumvent [[{{DRM}} access-control technology]], even for otherwise legal purposes. Playing {{DVD}}s and many formats of internet videos on Linux is illegal; playing the movie is legal in itself, but you have to break access control in order to play it on Linux. Likewise, it's illegal to play an import video game if you need to get around an access control, even though playing the game is legal in itself. The ostensible reason for this is to stop piracy; but even if you had no intention of ''copying'' the DVD or game, you can't play it on anything that works around the copy-protection scheme instead of through it. This also makes legally archiving videogames in formats that are no longer used that were made by companies that no longer exist almost impossible.

On the bright side, at least a notice has to be filed by ''someone'' before anything gets taken down. DMCA claims are part of the so-called "safe harbor" provisions that allow sites that store user-provided information to be safe from being sued for copyright infringement due to users uploading copyrighted materials. Without the "safe harbor" provision, any such sites would be infringing on copyrights by distributing copyrighted materials.

This is what allows FanFic and other unauthorized DerivativeWorks to exist on the internet with any permanence. If the [=ISPs=] or web hosts could get sued for FanFic their users post, there wouldn't be any FanFic on most of them. (This is why some varieties of RealPersonFic are hard to find. RealPersonFic risks not copyright infringement but libel, and the DMCA doesn't override the libel laws.)

** [[http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2010/07/court-breaking-drm-for-a-fair-use-is-legal.ars As of July 2010]], removing the DRM for personal usage is now fair use--if you're in an area subject to the Fifth Circuit court, anyway.