- Web IRC
- Trending Articles
- The Current Year
- ED in the News
- Donate to ED
- Advertise on ED
- ED Bookmarklet
From Encyclopedia Dramatica
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Ostensibly it is that part of law that codifies the extension of copyright and other intellectual property laws into the realm of the internet. In reality, however, it's a largely dispensable volume of paper that is more often used as a sledgehammer of harassment rather than a sword of justice; bruising all who lay in the path of whomever wields it, mincing truth and accusation into a single, tender mass.
tl;dr Summary: It's a law foisted on an unsuspecting public by the record companies as a way of yelling "Get off My Lawn, You Whippersnappers!" at Napster. It has since been used by whiny, oversensitive losers on YouTube as viagra for tiny ePenis.
If you use it the way it's meant to be used, you are a douchebag. If you use it incorrectly, you end up looking like a drooling imbecile...who is also a douchebag....with Downs Syndrome...and a terminal douchebaggery disorder.
The only thing more tl;dr then that summary is the text of the DMCA itself. As a result, many people hold a variety of misconceptions about how copyright works on the Internet but -in short- any multimedia download outside iTunes or Amazon makes you an evil, thieving eCriminal.
Public (mis)conceptions about copyright
- Any created work is protected by copyright.
- False. While it is true that any creation will inherently have a copyright by default, it is nigh impossible to ever expect to actually seek monetary restitution in copyright cases unless your work has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office ($45 filing fee ensues). Further, you cannot copyright derivative works, they must be original and tangible (can't copyright ideas), you must file within three months of the publication of the material and the filing must be done BEFORE any infringement takes place.
- Using copyrighted materials is illegal without express permission of the copyright holder - even under the "Fair Use" doctrine.
- True. The copyright holder possesses powers of absolute veto in regard to the use of their copyrighted material.
- In the case of photographic works, the copyright is traditionally held by the photographer except in the case of pre-arranged contract.
False. The copyright is held by every person in the photo. This is because their appearance is considered a personal creative work, and the photographer is merely recording those works.
- True. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, the photographer always owns the copyright to images that he or she takes. This holds true regardless of whether the photographer pays the model, or it's a free test, or even if a model pays for the images. When a model pays a photographer, she only pays for the service of the image taking, and not for copyright ownership.
- Modification of commercial works qualifies under the "Fair Use" doctrine due to the commercial owner having already made enough money from it.
- True. Small modifications of commercial works that would normally be protected under copyright law are expressly allowed for by the DMCA in cases where the commercial work has already made lots of money. The resulting modified work subsequently has its own copyright to enable it to generate fame and fortune for the creator.
- The Clause that prevents the use and distribution of "copyright circumvention tools" (in other words, CD Ripping software) makes felt tip pens illegal.
- Believe it or not, True. When it became known that some anti-piracy technologies on CD's (like 'Cactus Data Shield' or 'Key2Audio') could be disabled by marking around the outer edge of the CD with a felt tip marker ...the humble felt tip became, according to the DMCA, an illegal tool of pirates and criminals.
How it works
- Your 'username', 'handle', or 'screen name' (depending on service)
- An attached copy of the original work to prove that you own it.
- A URL to the infringing usage.
- Your Yahoo! profile.
- A lengthy essay on how the other person is using the material in bad faith.
- A statement that you have been emotionally hurt by this usage.
After submitting this information to the site that hosts the copyright infringement, they are forced to take down the copyrighted material until such time as they file a DMCA Counter-Notification.
A Counter-Notification requires the following information and is served back to the person who gave you a Notification:
Your realname and address.
- A contact phone number.
- A short statement of why the Notifier is an idiot.
- A DoS Attack on the Notifier's ISP.
After the Counter-Notification is filed, the Infringer is free to put back up the copyrighted material until the Notifier pursues the case to court.
- And just for good measure, be sure to include a link to the United States Library of Congress' definition of "Fair Use," last revised May 2009
How it usually ends up
The Notifier virtually never pursues the case to court because DMCA Notifications are only used as bully tactics by people who can only afford e-lawyers.
How it can be used for Lolz
There comes a time when, after using the DMCA to cement your status as a multi-nozzled asshat, that some justifiably annoyed former victims make their displeasure known by using the DMCA itself on the False DMCA-user. This happened to DMCA-loving JewTube Fundie he-whore Geerup when he got some DMCA loving done unto him as he had done unto others.
Needless to say, Geerup had a profound revelation about how he had wronged others, accepted responsibility for his transgressions and asked for forgiveness.
NAAAAWWW, I'm fucking with you. He whined like a bitch and demanded to be helped out by the same people he had fucked over. Why? Because he's too humble to turn away a helping hand
For those who don't remember him....this was the same dograpist piece o' shit that was a disciple of VenomFangX and temporarily took over his channel while VFX was being disciplined by his folks.
And sometimes, it might even be legit!
Occasionally, somebody actually DOES commit copyright infringement and gets DMCA'd. Such is the case with another Fundie Fuckwit he-whore named BrockLoli aka. The Atheist Antidote. Because of his innate inability to think for himself (which is why he's fundie, amirite!?) he lifted verbatim talking points off of numerous Christard Philosophers....and one of those Philosophers, Ravi Zacharias, was all like "He dun stole my made up stories about Jebus!" and DMCA'd his sorry ass!
At first, Brock tried to make everyone feel sorry for him, by crying that he was falsely accused.
That was until people found out who was DMCA'ing him and that is was legit.
Because the 9th Commandment is for sinners and infidels.
And sometimes, its just....just...fucked up
Official theme song of the DMCA
OOPS, THIS WAS DELETED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
Gallery of DMCA'd images
DMCA is Jews
is part of a series on
Taking Down ED
|Featured article July 21, 2006|
| Preceded by|
George Bush doesn't care about black people
|DMCA|| Succeeded by|