DMCA

What the DMCA is

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, usually shortened to DMCA, is a United States federal law that updated copyright for the internet age. It became Public Law 105-304 when it was approved on October 28, 1998.¹

The law is best known for two things it added to Title 17 of the United States Code, the part of federal law that holds copyright:

• Safe harbors (section 512). These limit the liability of online services, such as hosts and search tools, for copyright infringement by their users, as long as the service meets set conditions. The best known is notice and takedown: removing material when a copyright owner sends a proper complaint.²
• Anti-circumvention rules (section 1201). These make it illegal, with some exceptions, to break or get around technology that controls access to a copyrighted work, such as encryption on a film or a program. They also ban trafficking in tools built for that purpose.³

The DMCA sits beside another law that shapes what websites host. Section 230 of the Communications Act, added in 1996, says an online service shall not be treated as the publisher of information provided by someone else. It also says it does not “limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property,” so for copyright claims about what users post, services look to the DMCA’s safe harbors instead.⁴

Why Congress passed it

The act is divided into five titles, each with its own heading:¹

The first three titles also carry short titles: the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act and the Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act.¹

Title I added the anti-circumvention rules and Title II added the safe harbors.³² Title IV includes sections on ephemeral recordings, distance education, libraries and archives, and sound recordings.¹

Title I carries out two treaties agreed at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). According to WIPO, the WIPO Copyright Treaty was concluded in 1996, entered into force in 2002, and requires the countries that are party to it to provide legal remedies against “the circumvention of technological measures” that authors use, such as encryption. It also requires remedies against removing or changing rights management information, the details that identify a work and its owner.⁵

When President Bill Clinton signed the bill on October 28, 1998, he said it put into effect the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, both negotiated by his administration in 1996. The Senate had given its consent to ratifying them on October 21, 1998.⁶

Title II answered a different question. A host or network carries and stores huge amounts of material that its users choose. Clinton described the act as limiting how far online service providers can be held liable for copyright infringement, subject to certain conditions.⁶ Section 512 sets out those conditions.²

The four safe harbors

Section 512 calls the businesses it protects service providers. For most of the section, that means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities for them.² The law describes four separate and distinct functions, each with its own harbor:²

• Transitory communications, 512(a). Carrying, routing or connecting material at someone else’s direction, as a network does when it passes traffic along.
• System caching, 512(b). Keeping temporary copies so later requests can be answered faster, the kind of cache that Nginx can run.
• Information stored at the direction of users, 512(c). Keeping material that users put on a system, which is the core of web hosting and of any site that accepts uploads or posts.
• Information location tools, 512(d). Linking or referring people to material through tools such as search engines and directories.

The hosting harbor in 512(c) has the most conditions. The provider must not know the material is infringing, must not be aware of facts that make infringement apparent, and must remove the material quickly once it does know. It must not receive a financial benefit directly tied to the infringement when it has the right and ability to control it.²

Two conditions apply to every harbor. A provider must adopt, reasonably carry out and tell users about a policy for ending the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances.” It must also accommodate standard technical measures, which the law limits to methods developed by a broad, open, multi-industry consensus.²

The law does not require a provider to monitor its service or go looking for infringement, except as part of such a standard technical measure. A provider that fails to qualify for a harbor keeps its other defenses, such as the argument that nothing it did was infringing.²

Designated agents

To use the hosting harbor, a provider must name a designated agent to receive complaints. The agent’s contact details must appear on the provider’s website and be filed with the US Copyright Office, which keeps a public directory.²

Since December 1, 2016, designations have been filed through the Copyright Office’s online system. The office gave providers with older paper filings until December 31, 2017 to file again electronically, and cut the fee from $105, plus $35 for each group of one to ten alternate names, to $6.⁷

As of October 2026, the fee to designate, amend or resubmit an agent is still $6.⁸ A designation lapses on a fixed schedule: “A service provider’s designation will expire and become invalid three years after it is registered with the Office.” Amending or resubmitting the designation starts a new three-year period.⁹

The filing must include the provider’s legal name and street address, alternate names the public might search for (such as trade names and website addresses, or URLs), and the agent’s mail address, telephone number and email address. Only one agent may be named per provider.⁹

Notice and takedown, step by step

The takedown process runs between three parties: the copyright owner, the service provider and the user who posted the material.

1. The notice. The copyright owner, or someone acting for it, sends the designated agent a written notice. It must carry a physical or electronic signature, identify the work and the material said to infringe it, give enough information to find that material, list contact details, state a good-faith belief that the use is not authorized by the owner, its agent or the law, and state under penalty of perjury that the sender is authorized to act.²
2. Removal. The provider removes or disables access to the material quickly. A provider that does this in good faith is generally not liable to the user, even if the material later turns out not to infringe.²
3. Telling the user. The provider takes reasonable steps to tell the user promptly that the material was removed.²
4. The counter notice. The user may answer with a counter notice. It must carry a signature, identify the removed material and where it was, state under penalty of perjury a good-faith belief that it was removed by mistake or misidentification, and give the user’s name, address and telephone number with consent to the jurisdiction of a federal district court.²
5. Restoration. The provider promptly sends a copy of the counter notice to the person who complained. It puts the material back no sooner than 10 and no later than 14 business days after receiving the counter notice, unless that person tells it a court action has been filed.²

Abuse carries a cost. Anyone who “knowingly materially misrepresents” that material infringes, or that it was removed by mistake, is liable for the damages caused, including costs and attorneys’ fees.²

Section 512(h) adds a separate tool. A copyright owner can ask the clerk of a federal district court to issue a subpoena ordering a provider to disclose information identifying an alleged infringer. The request must include a copy of the notice and a sworn statement that the information will be used only to protect copyright.²

The anti-circumvention rules

Section 1201 deals with technological measures, the digital locks on works such as encrypted films, e-books and software. Its core rule says no person shall circumvent a measure that “effectively controls access” to a protected work. To circumvent means to descramble, decrypt, avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the measure without the copyright owner’s authority.³

The ban on the act of circumvention took effect at the end of the two-year period that began when the law was enacted.³¹ Separate trafficking rules ban making, importing, offering or providing tools that are primarily designed to get around access controls or copy controls, have only limited other commercial use, or are marketed for that purpose.³

The statute itself carves out several exceptions. They cover nonprofit libraries deciding whether to buy a work, reverse engineering so that independent programs can work together, good-faith encryption research, disabling a measure that secretly collects personal information, and authorized security testing.³

Breaking the rules can be costly. As of October 2026, in a civil case a court may award statutory damages of $200 to $2,500 per act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer or performance of service, and up to triple that for a repeat violation within three years of an earlier judgment.¹⁰ Willful violations for commercial advantage or private financial gain are crimes, punishable, as of October 2026, by a fine of up to $500,000, up to 5 years in prison, or both for a first offense, and up to $1,000,000, 10 years, or both for later offenses. Nonprofit libraries, archives, educational institutions and public broadcasters are exempt from the criminal penalties.¹¹

The triennial rulemaking

Every three years the Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, decides whether people using particular classes of works are, or are likely to be, held back by the ban from making noninfringing uses. Exemptions run in three-year periods, so each proceeding decides whether earlier ones continue.³¹²

The ninth proceeding ended with a final rule published on October 28, 2024. The Register recommended granting proposed exemptions, in whole or in part, in three of seven classes, and renewing every existing exemption for which a renewal petition was filed. The Librarian adopted the recommendation in full.¹³

The tenth proceeding began with a notice of inquiry announced on June 9, 2026. Petitions to renew exemptions and to propose new ones were due on August 24, 2026, and comments on renewals on September 28, 2026. Renewed exemptions would run from October 2027 to October 2030.¹² As of October 2026, the proceeding’s page lists no proposed rule or hearing dates yet.¹⁴

Court cases and the Copyright Office review

Courts have filled in much of what the safe harbor conditions mean in practice. Four cases show the main lines.

Viacom v. YouTube (2012)

Viacom and other plaintiffs sued YouTube over about 79,000 video clips posted between 2005 and 2008. On April 5, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that both actual knowledge and red flag awareness under 512(c) refer to specific instances of infringement, not a general sense that infringement is happening.¹⁵

The court still sent the case back, because a jury could find from internal emails that YouTube knew of specific clips. It said willful blindness, deliberately avoiding knowledge, can count as knowledge, and that the right and ability to control infringement needs something more than the power to remove or block material.¹⁵

Lenz v. Universal (2015)

In February 2007 Stephanie Lenz posted a 29-second home video of her young children dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy.” Universal had it removed with a takedown notice, and YouTube restored it in mid-July 2007 after Lenz sent counter notices. She then sued under 512(f).¹⁶

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on September 14, 2015, and amended its opinion on March 17, 2016. It held that a copyright holder must consider fair use before sending a takedown notice, because fair use is a use authorized by law. The sender’s good faith is judged by what it actually believed, and even nominal damages can be recovered.¹⁶

BMG v. Cox (2018)

Cox Communications, an internet access provider, claimed the 512(a) harbor in a suit brought by BMG Rights Management. On February 1, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Cox did not qualify, because it had not reasonably carried out its repeat infringer policy.¹⁷

The court found that Cox routinely reactivated subscribers it had terminated, and that terminations fell from about 15.5 a month to fewer than one a month after September 2012. It also held that repeat infringers are people who infringe more than once, not only people a court has found liable. It ordered a new trial on other grounds.¹⁷

Cox v. Sony (2026)

In a separate case, a jury awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other music companies $1 billion in statutory damages against Cox. The Fourth Circuit ruled on February 20, 2024, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear Cox’s appeal on June 30, 2025, heard argument on December 1, 2025, and decided it on March 25, 2026.¹⁸¹⁹

The Supreme Court reversed and sent the case back to the lower court. Writing for seven justices, Justice Clarence Thomas held that a provider is contributorily liable for its users’ infringement only if it intended its service to be used that way: by actively encouraging infringement, or by offering a service with no substantial noninfringing use. Knowing that some users infringe is not enough. The opinion described the DMCA as one that “merely creates new defenses from liability for such providers.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed only with the result.¹⁹

The Section 512 report (2020)

On May 21, 2020, the Copyright Office released a report on section 512. It found that the system Congress built had become unbalanced, but it did not recommend wholesale changes. It listed areas Congress might revisit, including repeat infringer policies, knowledge standards, how specific takedown notices must be, subpoenas and injunctions.²⁰

Timeline

1. June 9, 2026The Copyright Office opens the tenth triennial section 1201 rulemaking¹²
2. March 25, 2026Supreme Court rules in Cox v. Sony that knowing of user infringement is not enough for contributory liability¹⁹
3. October 28, 2024Final rule of the ninth triennial section 1201 rulemaking is published¹³
4. February 20, 2024Fourth Circuit rules in the Sony case against Cox¹⁸
5. May 21, 2020Copyright Office releases its report on section 512²⁰
6. February 1, 2018Fourth Circuit holds in BMG v. Cox that Cox lost the safe harbor over its repeat infringer policy¹⁷
7. December 31, 2017Deadline for providers to refile older paper agent designations online⁷
8. December 1, 2016Copyright Office launches its online designated agent system, with a $6 fee⁷
9. March 17, 2016Ninth Circuit issues its amended opinion in Lenz v. Universal¹⁶
10. September 14, 2015Ninth Circuit holds in Lenz that senders must consider fair use before a takedown notice¹⁶
11. April 5, 2012Second Circuit rules in Viacom v. YouTube on knowledge of specific infringements¹⁵
12. 2002The WIPO Copyright Treaty enters into force⁵
13. October 28, 1998President Clinton signs the DMCA, Public Law 105-304¹
14. October 21, 1998The Senate consents to ratification of the two 1996 WIPO treaties⁶
15. 1996The WIPO Copyright Treaty is concluded⁵

What it means for your website

See also

• Section 230
• Web hosting
• WordPress
• Website builder
• Who owns your website
• Website legal requirements for US small businesses (2026)

References

1. Public Law 105-304: Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 105th Congress, via GovInfo, US Government Publishing Office. 1998-10-28. accessed October 22, 2026.
2. 17 U.S. Code § 512: Limitations on liability relating to material online. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. accessed October 22, 2026.
3. 17 U.S. Code § 1201: Circumvention of copyright protection systems. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. accessed October 22, 2026.
4. 47 U.S. Code § 230: Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. accessed October 22, 2026.
5. Summary of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) (1996). World Intellectual Property Organization. accessed October 22, 2026.
6. Statement on Signing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. William J. Clinton, The American Presidency Project, UC Santa Barbara. 1998-10-28. accessed October 22, 2026.
7. Copyright Office Announces Electronic System for Designating Agents under DMCA (NewsNet Issue 640). US Copyright Office. 2016-10-31. accessed October 22, 2026.
8. 37 CFR 201.3: Fees for registration, recordation, and related services, special services, and services performed by the Licensing Section. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR). 2026-10-19. accessed October 22, 2026.
9. 37 CFR 201.38: Designation of agent to receive notification of claimed infringement. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR). 2026-10-19. accessed October 22, 2026.
10. 17 U.S. Code § 1203: Civil remedies. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. accessed October 22, 2026.
11. 17 U.S. Code § 1204: Criminal offenses and penalties. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. accessed October 22, 2026.
12. U.S. Copyright Office Announces Start of Tenth Triennial Rulemaking Proceeding Under Section 1201 (NewsNet Issue 1088). US Copyright Office. 2026-06-09. accessed October 22, 2026.
13. Final Rule Published in Ninth Triennial Section 1201 Proceeding (NewsNet Issue 1057). US Copyright Office. 2024-10-25. accessed October 22, 2026.
14. Tenth Triennial Section 1201 Proceeding, 2027 Cycle. US Copyright Office. accessed October 22, 2026.
15. Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., Nos. 10-3270-cv and 10-3342-cv (2d Cir.). US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, opinion copy hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2012-04-05. accessed October 22, 2026.
16. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., Nos. 13-16106 and 13-16107, amended opinion. US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 2016-03-17. accessed October 22, 2026.
17. BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc., No. 16-1972. US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 2018-02-01. accessed October 22, 2026.
18. Docket No. 24-171: Cox Communications, Inc., et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al.. Supreme Court of the United States. accessed October 22, 2026.
19. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 24-171, slip opinion. Supreme Court of the United States. 2026-03-25. accessed October 22, 2026.
20. Copyright Office Releases Report on Section 512 (NewsNet Issue 824). US Copyright Office. 2020-05-21. accessed October 22, 2026.

Web Building Encyclopedia. First published October 22, 2026. Last reviewed October 22, 2026. Every fact on this page is linked to a source we opened. Spotted an error? Write to [email protected].