DMCA has withstood a lot of 1A tests in court, even some very specific and narrow fair-use claims. The suggestion that the entire law is infringing is simply u

DMCA has withstood a lot of 1A tests in court, even some very specific and narrow fair-use claims. The suggestion that the entire law is infringing is simply unfounded. There are many limitations that the court allows on speech under the 1A, and most of those aren't even listed as exceptions in the Constitution, as copyright is in section 8. As unpopular as it may be, the constitutionality is pretty solid. > Repealing DMCA Be careful what you wish for. Repealing DMCA would mean repealing Safe Harbor provisions, which would just make it just about impossible to run websites with user-submitted content. DMCA might have some problems, but do you really want website owners to be held liable for everything a user posts on their site? > Since section 8 exists DMCA is nearly entirely redundant. Absolutely not. There is zero overlap between the two. Section 8 doesn't establish any copyright law at all. It merely establishes Congress's right to regulate it. > Repealing DMCA would do nothing to strip copyright owners of their rights. That's a pretty loaded statement to make. There are obviously things that rights owners couldn't do if the DMCA was repealed. I think what you're really arguing that those things don't matter? That could be a valid opinion, but it's still irrelevant. If Congress has the power to regulate something, they also have the power to regulate it ineffectively.