A federal court in Massachusetts just handed copyright holders a powerful new weapon to silence online speech, and it’s worse than it sounds.

The ruling, which the Electronic Frontier Foundation plans to appeal, says copyright holders can issue DMCA takedown notices based on nothing more than a “subjective belief” of infringement. Even if that belief is unreasonable. Even if it’s self-serving. Even if it’s obviously pretextual.

The case involves Channel 781 News, a citizen journalism group run by independent volunteers. Someone didn’t like what they were publishing and filed copyright takedown notices that temporarily killed their entire YouTube channel. Not just individual videos. The whole channel.

The EFF, representing Channel 781, argued that this was an abuse of the DMCA takedown system. Copyright law is supposed to protect creative works, not give people a veto button for speech they don’t like. But the court disagreed, setting what EFF calls a bar that’s “far too low” for copyright takedowns.

What this actually means

The DMCA already has a notorious reputation for enabling censorship. File a takedown notice, and platforms like YouTube typically yank content immediately, no questions asked. The burden then falls on the person who posted it to file a counter-notice and wait for the content to be restored.

This system was supposed to have guardrails. The law requires takedown notices to be filed in good faith, based on a reasonable belief that infringement occurred. Courts have generally required copyright holders to at least consider fair use before firing off takedowns.

This Massachusetts court just threw out those guardrails. Under its reasoning, a copyright holder can claim infringement based on any subjective belief, no matter how flimsy. They don’t need to seriously analyze whether the use might be fair. They don’t need to be reasonable. They just need to say they believed it.

That’s a recipe for abuse, and everyone knows it.

Who this hurts

Citizen journalists, obviously. If you’re covering local government corruption or corporate malfeasance and you include a clip of a public meeting or a company video, the subjects of your reporting can now try to silence you with a takedown notice. Under this ruling, they just need to claim they “believed” it was infringement.

Critics and commentators are also vulnerable. Video essays, news analysis, documentary filmmaking—anything that quotes or shows copyrighted material to comment on it—can now be taken down based on a copyright holder’s say-so.

Even when the use is obviously fair, you’re still offline while you fight it. For small creators and volunteer news organizations like Channel 781, that can be devastating. YouTube’s algorithm doesn’t forgive gaps in posting. Audiences move on. Revenue disappears.

The fair use problem

Fair use is supposed to protect exactly this kind of speech. You can quote a book in a review. You can show a clip in a news report. You can include footage in a documentary. These aren’t infringement—they’re core First Amendment activities that copyright law explicitly protects.

But fair use is a defense, not a shield. You can only assert it after you’ve been accused. And if platforms pull your content immediately based on nothing more than an accuser’s “subjective belief,” fair use doesn’t help you much.

The DMCA was written with this tension in mind. Congress tried to balance copyright enforcement with free speech by requiring good faith and reasonable belief. Courts have interpreted that to mean copyright holders need to actually think about fair use before sending takedowns.

This Massachusetts court just decided that’s too much to ask.

What happens next

The EFF is appealing, which is the right call. This decision conflicts with how other courts have interpreted the DMCA’s good-faith requirement. If it stands, it’ll create a roadmap for anyone who wants to use copyright claims as a censorship tool.

The case will likely go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. If the circuit court upholds the decision, we could see a split with other circuits, which would increase the odds of Supreme Court review.

In the meantime, expect more abuse. This ruling just told copyright holders they can shoot first and ask questions never. For platforms like YouTube, it’s an invitation to be even more aggressive about yanking content—why risk liability when the law says any “subjective belief” is good enough?

Channel 781 News is still fighting. They shouldn’t have to, but they are. If you care about being able to criticize powerful people without getting your platform deleted, you should hope they win.