What Congress and the courts ultimately decide may determine how such activity continues both online and in the court of public opinion. While current federal law provides a variety of legal and government tools to combat online violations, such as civil lawsuits and enforcement actions by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice, they are time-consuming, costly and, in many cases, useless. Even after this same satellite provider was permanently banned from broadcasting distant signals anywhere in the country as a result of its deliberate and repeated violation of the law by rebroadcasting stations in Los Angeles and New York to thousands of ineligible subscribers, Congress waived the court order. and restored its mandatory license in exchange for a promise to advance a congressional policy objective by expanding its local-to-local service to markets across the country.
Its obsolescence is compounded by the many court decisions that interpret the law in a way that has reduced it to little more than a notice-and-withdraw statute that provides immunity for compliance with a formality and regardless of knowledge and intention. It was discovered that a satellite provider had repeatedly flaunted the law's prohibition on rebroadcasting remote market stations to subscribers who would otherwise be able to receive signals from local broadcasting stations, facing repeated court orders requiring it to interrupt the service to ineligible subscribers. Reducing online violations will require a combination of effective laws, strong enforcement and private sector cooperation. Critical groups often discuss the philosophical, economic, or social reasons for such laws and the implementations of laws, the benefits of which they claim do not justify the costs of politics to society.
Therefore, this law was against people who used their devices or digital platforms to infringe on other people. Third, it may also be appropriate to consider legislative reform to update the statute and give effect to its original intention, such as ensuring that the law does not protect those who knowingly benefit from the violation and that “tearing down means “staying down”. Neither law serves the purpose of ensuring that incentives and protections remain strong so that creativity and innovation can flourish. The ability of legislators to draft, debate and enact sensible bills has been tested by technology, which has evolved more rapidly than they could have imagined.
Problems with the outdated provisions of the DMCA have been manifested in court decisions, which while perhaps true to the letter of the law, have deviated from the original intent of the DMCA and, in turn, have facilitated abuse by unwanted beneficiaries. It would seem that many people have difficulty understanding why large corporations, aided by financial incentives to maintain the law, control the law so much. Obviously, the DMCA was never intended as a free pass for such illicit sites and services, but current law enforcement routinely fails to distinguish between such pirates and the originally intended bona fide, true ISP passive conduits. In this era of rapid innovation and change in the way movies, music, books, journalism, software and other cultural and innovative works are created and consumed, it is important to have general-purpose, transparent and market-based laws that allow people now and in the future the freedom to decide and negotiate new uses of creative works.