Unjust and extraterritorial law: DMCA: Difference between revisions

(3 intermediate revisions by one other user 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.

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 46:

Line 49:

<blockquote>'''Section 512(c)(1)(C) of the DMCA''': "Upon notification of claimed infringement [...] the service provider shall respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity."</blockquote>This clause requires platforms to take down content quickly when they receive a complaint. However, it does not require them to restore the content after a dispute is filed. The law protects platforms only if they remove the content, which gives them a strong incentive to delete first and ask questions later. This one-sided structure undermines the presumption of innocence and forces users to prove their legitimacy after the damage is already done.

It is worth noting that '''<u>when this provision was written in 1998, most US lawmakers likely did not even have home internet access. The internet was not yet a global platform for mass publication and individual expression</u>'''. The DMCA was conceived to regulate the distribution of pirated software and physical media, not to moderate billions of user-generated posts on real-time content-sharing platforms. Its current application represents a distortion of the original intent, repurposed to control a digital ecosystem that did not exist when the law was passed. What is wrong with this ~~law~~ is its outdated nature.

It is worth noting that '''<u>when this provision was written in 1998, most US lawmakers likely did not even have home internet access. The internet was not yet a global platform for mass publication and individual expression</u>'''. The DMCA was conceived to regulate the distribution of pirated software and physical media, not to moderate billions of user-generated posts on real-time content-sharing platforms. Its current application represents a distortion of the original intent, repurposed to control a digital ecosystem that did not exist when the law was passed. What is wrong with this framework is its outdated nature.

==References==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Incomplete}}
+{{ToneWarning}}
 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.
@@ 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 46: / Line 49: @@
 <blockquote>'''Section 512(c)(1)(C) of the DMCA''':  "Upon notification of claimed infringement [...] the service provider shall respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity."</blockquote>This clause requires platforms to take down content quickly when they receive a complaint. However, it does not require them to restore the content after a dispute is filed. The law protects platforms only if they remove the content, which gives them a strong incentive to delete first and ask questions later. This one-sided structure undermines the presumption of innocence and forces users to prove their legitimacy after the damage is already done.
-It is worth noting that '''<u>when this provision was written in 1998, most US lawmakers likely did not even have home internet access. The internet was not yet a global platform for mass publication and individual expression</u>'''. The DMCA was conceived to regulate the distribution of pirated software and physical media, not to moderate billions of user-generated posts on real-time content-sharing platforms. Its current application represents a distortion of the original intent, repurposed to control a digital ecosystem that did not exist when the law was passed. What is wrong with this law is its outdated nature.
+It is worth noting that '''<u>when this provision was written in 1998, most US lawmakers likely did not even have home internet access. The internet was not yet a global platform for mass publication and individual expression</u>'''. The DMCA was conceived to regulate the distribution of pirated software and physical media, not to moderate billions of user-generated posts on real-time content-sharing platforms. Its current application represents a distortion of the original intent, repurposed to control a digital ecosystem that did not exist when the law was passed. What is wrong with this framework is its outdated nature.
 ==References==