DMCA Takedown Requests on Reddit
Background
- Beginning in late 2024, Ethan Klein, through his attorney, had multiple posts from a snark subreddit removed using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown system.
- The DMCA is part of U.S. copyright law that established a takedown system, providing a copyright holder the ability to have infringing material removed by reporting it to the online service provider.[1]
Claim
Ethan is abusing the DMCA takedown system to silence criticism. Critics claim that the removed posts were protected as fair use or that Ethan had granted permission to use the content.
Truth
- Ethan's Explanation: In a March 2025 video, Ethan explicitly stated that dozens of posts were removed for having "no commentary" or where the "purpose was to steal views."[2]
- Permission Was Conditional: On January 25, 2023, Ethan announced he would allow other creators to clip his content for the purpose of creating highlights but clarified that wholesale reuploads would not be allowed.[3] On January 24, 2024, he reiterated that full reuploads of membership content would be removed with DMCA notices.[4]
- Reddit's Response: According to Ethan, Reddit either issued counter-notifications or refused some of the takedown requests.[5] Critics have incorrectly assumed Reddit's refusal means the posts were definitively fair use.
- Fair Use is a Legal Defense: Fair use is a legal doctrine that permits unlicensed use of copyrighted works in certain circumstances, but it is determined on a case-by-case basis by a judge, not by a platform's content moderation system.[6]
Conclusion
The DMCA takedown notices, prepared by an attorney, were aimed specifically at posts that were deemed to be infringing—specifically wholesale reuploads that violated Ethan's conditional permission for clipping. Ethan has consistently maintained that wholesale reuploads are not allowed while granting permission to create transformative clips. Thousands of other posts on the snark subreddit that are critical remain untouched, demonstrating the targeting was based on copyright infringement, not criticism.