> "an activity using the material"

You cut off a few words that probably carry real meaning:

> "does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;"

So there's a (somewhat ambiguous) restriction that the only activities this clause is concerned with are those happening on the system or network operated by the service provider that wants safe harbor protection against liability for their users' infringement.

And to determine what activities can qualify as copyright infringement, you have to look in section 501 and the other sections it references; section 512 does not alter the definition of copyright infringement, it just adds nuance to who can be held liable for infringement.

> Good.

I don't get your comment. Are you happy that the law is being enforced, or happy that the law is like that?

Both.

I know enough people in creative industries to know that digital distribution just isn't viable without DRM -- and that creatives want an environment with strongly enforced copyright. As a society we value the livelihood of artists over the convenience of their audience, and that's why we pass laws like the DMCA. The Napster era has totally destroyed interesting music scenes because the musicians couldn't put food on the table making music. DRM enforces copyright in an environment where infringement would otherwise be rampant because of how easy it is -- computers being, like VCRs, general purpose copyright infringement machines. Geez, even the concept of hypertext, as elucidated by Ted Nelson, had DRM built in because other people's IP rights become a fact of life you have to reckon with the minute you deal with readable material!

Of course, DRM schemes fail, and that's where the law comes in. Section 1201 delegitimizes markets for DRM exploits that would otherwise return us to a situation where infringement is rampant, easy, and undetectable. It drives circumvention activity underground, adding friction to the process and making it more difficult than simply buying the material.

There's a real simple principle that geeks don't seem to get: If you want access to digital content without being sued or jailed, just buy it legitimately and don't fucking break the DRM. Abide by the terms the author or publisher has set, or don't buy the content at all. The droit d'auteur, as a moral principle, means that said author or publisher has a moral right to determine how their work is to be exhibited or viewed.

> If you want access to digital content without being sued or jailed, just buy it legitimately and don't fucking break the DRM.

I'm not going to go off on how the rest of your reply feels extremely wrong to me, but I will respond to this. What if I bought content legitimately but the DRM prevents me from viewing/using it as I wish? If I buy a book, I can read it in any way I want, I can use glasses or photocopy it so the letters get big enough to read it without discomfort. I can also tear it apart, replace the order of the pages, or even make a collage with the words if I so wish.

I can't do any of the above with DRM'd content.

Why would you want to live in a reality in which the author of a work can dictate how a copy of their content can be watched or consumed even after the consumer has bought it? Even the reason for copyright itself as stated in the Copyright Act is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

It's supposed to be an incentive for artists to make more works as they have a government-guaranteed monopoly over their creations. That monopoly is intended to incentivize potential artists, not to be a moral guide for what rights they should indefinitely have.

Apple Music didn't have DRM and was viable. GOG didn't have DRM and was viable.