Unjust and extraterritorial law: DMCA: Difference between revisions

(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

The DMCA is a US legal framework that ~~deprives the accused of~~ the presumption ~~of innocence by removing~~ or ~~blocking their creative work~~ immediately, without any formal investigation or judicial hearing. Once a takedown notice is filed, ~~the burden is on the user~~ to prove they are not infringing, ~~often by revealing~~ personal information and ~~accepting~~ legal ~~risk~~. The content remains offline until the conflict is resolved, regardless of the user's good faith or the legitimacy of the original claim.

The DMCA is a US legal framework that does not proceed under the presumption that people are innocent. Most often, creative works are removed or blocked immediately, without any formal investigation or judicial hearing. Once a takedown notice is filed, users are expected to prove they are not infringing, which may require them to reveal personal information and accept legal risks. The content remains offline until the conflict is resolved, regardless of the user's good faith or the legitimacy of the original claim.

At the same time, the major online platforms that control most global publication and communication are all legally based in the United States. This includes services such as YouTube, Twitch, Facebook, Instagram and others. Even when local consumer law requires these companies to maintain a presence in each country, their terms of service clearly state that '''<u>every user, whether located in Beijing, Timbuktu or Helsinki, must follow US law and appear before US courts</u>''' in case of a dispute. This effectively imposes a foreign legal system on millions of people worldwide who have never had any connection to the United States, making the DMCA one of the clearest examples of extraterritorial law applied through private corporate infrastructure.

Line 22:

Line 25:

By treating non-American users as if they were under US law, the DMCA extends far beyond its national scope. It imposes a foreign legal system on the entire internet, without legal standing or democratic legitimacy in most affected countries.

==Example: ~~Overriding national licensing and cultural sovereignty~~==

==Example 1: National licenses overridden by global enforcement==

The global reach of the DMCA does not only suppress individual rights. It also overrides national legal frameworks that are supposed to authorize the lawful use of copyrighted content.

In France, web broadcasters are required to pay licensing fees to SACEM, the official agency representing authors, composers and publishers. A small French station such as "House Station Live .com" may fully comply with SACEM licensing requirements by paying the appropriate fees, which grant the right to broadcast copyrighted music on the internet worldwide. The SACEM license is not restricted to national territory. It is designed for global web distribution, taking into account the cross-border nature of online access.

In France, web broadcasters are required to pay licensing fees to SACEM (Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers of Music), the official agency representing authors, composers and publishers. A small French station such as "House Station Live .com" may fully comply with SACEM licensing requirements by paying the appropriate fees, which grant the right to broadcast copyrighted music on the internet worldwide. The SACEM license is not restricted to national territory. It is designed for global web distribution, taking into account the cross-border nature of online access.

But this legal authorization becomes useless the moment the content is hosted on a platform based in the United States. Services such as YouTube, Twitch or SoundCloud operate under US law. They do not recognize foreign licenses like those issued by SACEM. Instead, they rely on the DMCA to manage copyright enforcement through automated systems. A perfectly legal French broadcast can be removed or muted as if it were a case of piracy.

Line 33:

Line 36:

This is not a misunderstanding between systems. It is a power grab. The DMCA functions online as if it were the only copyright law that matters. It cancels foreign authorizations automatically, without legal standing outside the US and without being challenged by any authority. The user ends up paying for a right that is ignored in most online contexts, and has no meaningful way to enforce it.

==Example: Fair use and automated retaliation==

==Example 2: Fair use and automated retaliation==

An American freelance content creator uploads a reaction video after a Formula 1 race. In his analysis, he includes a five-second clip of a key moment from the broadcast. The excerpt is used under the rules of fair use. It is not monetized directly, and it appears in a clearly transformative and critical context, which is protected by US copyright law.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The DMCA is a US legal framework that deprives the accused of the presumption of innocence by removing or blocking their creative work immediately, without any formal investigation or judicial hearing. Once a takedown notice is filed, the burden is on the user to prove they are not infringing, often by revealing personal information and accepting legal risk. The content remains offline until the conflict is resolved, regardless of the user's good faith or the legitimacy of the original claim.
+{{Incomplete}}
+{{ToneWarning}}
+The DMCA is a US legal framework that does not proceed under the presumption that people are innocent. Most often, creative works are removed or blocked immediately, without any formal investigation or judicial hearing. Once a takedown notice is filed, users are expected to prove they are not infringing, which may require them to reveal personal information and accept legal risks. The content remains offline until the conflict is resolved, regardless of the user's good faith or the legitimacy of the original claim.
 At the same time, the major online platforms that control most global publication and communication are all legally based in the United States. This includes services such as YouTube, Twitch, Facebook, Instagram and others. Even when local consumer law requires these companies to maintain a presence in each country, their terms of service clearly state that '''<u>every user, whether located in Beijing, Timbuktu or Helsinki, must follow US law and appear before US courts</u>''' in case of a dispute. This effectively imposes a foreign legal system on millions of people worldwide who have never had any connection to the United States, making the DMCA one of the clearest examples of extraterritorial law applied through private corporate infrastructure.
@@ Line 22: / Line 25: @@
 By treating non-American users as if they were under US law, the DMCA extends far beyond its national scope. It imposes a foreign legal system on the entire internet, without legal standing or democratic legitimacy in most affected countries.
-==Example: Overriding national licensing and cultural sovereignty==
+==Example 1: National licenses overridden by global enforcement==
 The global reach of the DMCA does not only suppress individual rights. It also overrides national legal frameworks that are supposed to authorize the lawful use of copyrighted content.
-In France, web broadcasters are required to pay licensing fees to SACEM, the official agency representing authors, composers and publishers. A small French station such as "House Station Live .com" may fully comply with SACEM licensing requirements by paying the appropriate fees, which grant the right to broadcast copyrighted music on the internet worldwide. The SACEM license is not restricted to national territory. It is designed for global web distribution, taking into account the cross-border nature of online access.
+In France, web broadcasters are required to pay licensing fees to SACEM (Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers of Music), the official agency representing authors, composers and publishers. A small French station such as "House Station Live .com" may fully comply with SACEM licensing requirements by paying the appropriate fees, which grant the right to broadcast copyrighted music on the internet worldwide. The SACEM license is not restricted to national territory. It is designed for global web distribution, taking into account the cross-border nature of online access.
 But this legal authorization becomes useless the moment the content is hosted on a platform based in the United States. Services such as YouTube, Twitch or SoundCloud operate under US law. They do not recognize foreign licenses like those issued by SACEM. Instead, they rely on the DMCA to manage copyright enforcement through automated systems. A perfectly legal French broadcast can be removed or muted as if it were a case of piracy.
@@ Line 33: / Line 36: @@
 This is not a misunderstanding between systems. It is a power grab. The DMCA functions online as if it were the only copyright law that matters. It cancels foreign authorizations automatically, without legal standing outside the US and without being challenged by any authority. The user ends up paying for a right that is ignored in most online contexts, and has no meaningful way to enforce it.
-==Example: Fair use and automated retaliation==
+==Example 2: Fair use and automated retaliation==
 An American freelance content creator uploads a reaction video after a Formula 1 race. In his analysis, he includes a five-second clip of a key moment from the broadcast. The excerpt is used under the rules of fair use. It is not monetized directly, and it appears in a clearly transformative and critical context, which is protected by US copyright law.