Isn't the DMCA only for pirated or infringing content?

Legally, yes, but the DMCA tends to cause collateral damage, in the form of takedowns of legitimate files. In the widely publicized 2007 case Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., Stephanie Lenz uploaded to YouTube a home video of her baby dancing with the Prince song “Let’s Go Crazy” playing in the background of her house. Universal, the owner of the copyright, sent a DMCA takedown notice, and Lenz appealed the claim under the fair use doctrine. After the claim was resolved, Lenz sued Universal Music Corp. for violating the DMCA. The court ruled in favor of Lenz, and criticized the DMCA’s takedown process for “encouraging a ‘shoot first, think later’ mentality that allows copyright holders to issue broad takedown requests to censor any speech they may not like, without considering whether any infringement actually took place.” While it is true that the DMCA mandates individual copyright requests for each instance of infringement, it also does not define what exactly constitutes infringement. This shortcoming allows videos like Lenz’s to be taken down.

​

Aren't these takedowns harmless?

Unfortunately, these takedowns have the potential to be used maliciously. Lenz v. Universal set the precedent that DMCA claims must evaluate fair use before a takedown. However, this precedent has the opposite effect from the intended one, as the plaintiff must provide evidence that the copyright owner did not consider fair use. It is almost impossible for the plaintiff to “try to prove a subjective belief...to divine whether the copyright owner was being honest.” This precedent makes it almost impossible to combat a false DMCA claim in court, giving the law power to take down nearly anything. For instance, Google has reported that “more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors.” In this way, DMCA takedowns can be used as a malicious tool. Perhaps more frightening than corporate struggles was when “at the height of the 2008 Presidential campaign, the John McCain campaign…complained that several of its ads had been taken down…due to improper copyright claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” Campaign ads being taken down may have had a significant impact on the results of the election. Even though the ads were later restored, they lost their kairotic appeal, or contextual appeal relevance based on the time they were released, since the ads were not seen until after the election had already been decided. Because of this quality, DMCA copyright claims can be used to temporarily silence opposing speech, and by the time the speech is restored, it has become irrelevant, turning the DMCA into a powerful political and social weapon.