Copyright included fair use and the courts ruled that a balance for fair use must be maintained for the monopoly rights of copyright to be enforced, but congress wrote the DMCA and said "nah"?
Yeah I'm gonna need to hear that from the courts, my assertion here is that the DMCA unfairly skirts around this provision of copyright, not that it superceded it outright.
Those fair use rights are not an optional provision of copyright, (although many opinions have stated that copyright provides the author may refuse to allow copies if they technically can, unless you have relevant case law that superseded Sony Betamax, in that case I believe it was the minority opinion), I am not aware of any decisions that say anything other than "copies for fair use may be required for there to be fair use."
But I am not a lawyer, and just because I haven't heard of the case doesn't mean it didn't happen...
Copyright included fair use and the courts ruled that a balance for fair use must be maintained for the monopoly rights of copyright to be enforced, but congress wrote the DMCA and said "nah"?
The Constitution gave Congress the power to right the laws on copyrights, not the courts. The courts don't write copyright law, they just interpret it.
Fair use, for example, is explicitly written into the copyright statutes by Congress (17 USC § 107), but with sufficient breadth and ambiguity in the language that the courts have added in uses that were not explicitly written into the law but could be reasonably read as being within the scope of the text of the law. That is indeed why the court in the Betamax case was able to characterize "time shifting" as fair use in the first place.
Yeah I'm gonna need to hear that from the courts, my assertion here is that the DMCA unfairly skirts around this provision of copyright, not that it superceded it outright.
Again, Congress gets to write copyright law... They get to change it how they want, so long as it does not violate the Constitution. (Note that the DMCA is an "act" of Congress, which is the method by which Congress actually writes and changes the laws of the US. When we refer to the DMCA, we are referring to the changes to US copyright law embodied by the DMCA.) Courts have upheld the constitutionality of the DMCA.
Those fair use rights are not an optional provision of copyright,
Yes, they are. The Constitution makes no provision for "fair use." In fact, by its bare text, it would appear that the Constitution would not support fair use because it provides for "exclusive rights" to go to creators and inventors (for the periods covered by copyright and patent). "Fair use" is entirely a legislative creation of Congress, and theoretically Congress could take it away.
unless you have relevant case law that superseded Sony Betamax
I don't know why you're hung up on Betamax. That case was based on the copyright law at the time of the case, i.e., the 1980s. Congress changed the copyright laws after that case (in the DMCA and other legislative acts), so Betamax is no longer relevant except as persuasive authority, and the underlying facts supporting the time-shifting as fair use ruling generally do not apply to digital content available on-demand.
> "Fair use" is entirely a legislative creation of Congress, and theoretically Congress could take it away.
If you have a court decision that shows a court interpreted Congress' actions as revoking fair use by the enactment of DMCA, then I'll concede the point, (but you won't have one as the DMCA does not explicitly revoke fair use.) DMCA laid out protections for copyright owners who sought to protect their copyright with eg. DRM schemes.
That doesn't revoke fair use. It just makes it practically difficult to utilize, since you might have to (illegally) circumvent a copyright protection device in order to access those fair use rights. They are still there, copyright owners just have a few more tools in their toolbox to prevent you from accessing them lawfully.
Is Youtube's "rolling cipher" such a mechanism? Debatable. Is the proper remedy a DMCA takedown of the entire youtube-dl source, or something else? That's all something for a court to decide. Only certain uses of youtube-dl are potentially foiling anti-circumvention devices like "rolling cipher", it's a utility that works on many video streaming sites, (and substantially many of the works on those sites are not protected by "rolling cipher" or similar, possibly any, DRM.)
> I don't know why you're hung up on Betamax.
Has there been a landmark ruling since, that reversed Betamax? It was decided by the Supreme Court, so unless you have one, I don't think I can agree that it is no longer relevant.
Yeah I'm gonna need to hear that from the courts, my assertion here is that the DMCA unfairly skirts around this provision of copyright, not that it superceded it outright.
Those fair use rights are not an optional provision of copyright, (although many opinions have stated that copyright provides the author may refuse to allow copies if they technically can, unless you have relevant case law that superseded Sony Betamax, in that case I believe it was the minority opinion), I am not aware of any decisions that say anything other than "copies for fair use may be required for there to be fair use."
But I am not a lawyer, and just because I haven't heard of the case doesn't mean it didn't happen...