To hell with the suggested three strikes nonsense. I would prefer the more draconian solution: 10k fine for every instance of bogus takedown. Money going to owner of the site in question.
Well that's an interesting idea. Now, what happens if a small-time artist that doesn't follow the same distribution philosophy as many other artists these days (for example, if he followed a "I want money for my works" perspective), files what he thinks is a legitimate take down request and turns out to be wrong? 10k fine? He's small time and can't afford that.
The law is not a fine scalpel, it's a blunt instrument; and people supporting law creation need to remember that. This goes on both sides.
Using a 10 second sequence that happens to be the same across multiple songs. Not knowing the exact details of the law, and thinking that reproductions of the song are also owned by him?
Having to listen to the full song (or, alternatively, not going after people who are just distributing ten second excerpts) and having to know the law before beating people with it don't seem unreasonable demands to me.
I'm pretty sure big media considers fair use an obscene concept, but I don't really see how is that relevant, since I didn't say ten seconds of a song should become fair use.
