Is the DMCA Still Relevant?

Over at Info/Law Tim Armstrong wonders whether or not the DMCA is still relevant. His key historical analogy is to 1992 Audio Home Recording Act whose provisions drove the DAT format into obscurity. Today, though the AHRA is still a valid law, it holds little power because DAT is dead.

Armstrong thinks that the DMCA may be heading the way of the AHRA because (1) DMCA-related cases are decreasing in frequency, (2) DRM has been (rightly) vilified and (3) DRM is being dropped by a number of industries.

I think he may be right noting that Section 1201 of the DMCA has diminished importance. After all, §1201 what written to stop users from circumventing DRM and as DRM goes to the grave, it will be of little importance.

However, I think he misses two important points: the historical significance of §1201 and the continuing significance of the rest of the DMCA.

For the past decade, content has been sold which is locked into proprietary formats by DRM. Future users will be breaking the law if they have to unlock the content to use in future machines. Just look at HD-DVD and Blu-Ray - consumers stuck with HD-DVDs and players now have soon-to-be useless pieces of plastic because they chose the losing side in the proprietary format war. If, like the AHRA, the DMCA stays on the books, freeing DRM'd material will still be illegal.

Secondly, the DMCA is much more than just §1201. For example, Section 512 forces internet service providers to remove any offending material if they are notified by copyright owners. In the past, this notice and takedown provision has been used to silence critics as reported here and fought by the EFF. Even if portions of the DMCA lapse into obscurity, it remains a potent law with chilling effects.