Google processes millions of DMCA notices per year, but this is always viewed as a sign of failure on the company's part.
That's because it is. The DMCA takedown process is blatantly unconstitutional, and Google has failed to stand up for the rights of the Internet users that its search service is supposed to enable and empower.
This is the point I've been making for the better part of a decade now: the entire point of DRM is extralegal enforcement of a private interpretation of copyright law, and as such it has zero legitimacy and needs to be made illegal.
In any other context, a private entity taking the enforcement of the law into their own hands, judging who is guilty and who is not and then punishing the guilty according to rules they devised themselves is considered legally and socially abhorrent. We call such people vigilantes, and there are very strict laws against doing so, particularly when the vigilante and the alleged victim are the same entity.
Why does this simple bit of common sense suddenly get turned on its head when the law being allegedly violated is copyright law?
In his State of the Union address, President Obama argued that "New trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help [small businesses] create even more jobs." Arguably, though, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement are designed to boost Big Business, rather than Small Business.
This is an important distinction to keep in mind. You often hear Big Business advocates talk about employers as "job creators," but not all employers are created equal.
Small businesses employ far more people in the USA than big businesses do--over 60%. They are the job creators and the drivers of our economy, and they have a strong tendency to strengthen the local and regional economy.
Big businesses, on the other hand, are frequently not job creators at all, but job destroyers. Wal-Mart, for example, which takes pride in proclaiming its status as America's largest private employer, destroys anywhere between 3 and 7 jobs in the community for every 1 person it hires, depending on which study you listen to. This means that, multiplied by their massive number of employees, they are an enormous job destroyer, and between this and their strong tendency to buy international products, and to send profits to distant executives and shareholders, a drag on the US economy and the local economies where they move in, rather than a pillar thereof.
Therefore, any policies that hope to actually improve the economy would do well to strengthen small businesses at the expense of big ones, as a general rule of thumb.
Back when I was in high school, there was this joke going around: if GM built cars the way Microsoft builds software, today we'd all be driving a $100 car that gets 1000 MPG, but it would crash twice a day.
And now today I drive a Ford, with Sync built in, a useful collection of electronics and car-related "apps" (GPS, phone synchronization, climate control, etc) powered by a touchscreen and developed at... Microsoft.
Wait a minute. I can understand if this was a case of the NSA actually doing something wrong--and heaven knows there are plenty to choose from--but if the evidence in this case is about this guy actually working with a terrorist group, isn't that the legitimate, intended purpose of the law? Maybe there's some nuance that I've missed, but this particular case doesn't look like any wrongdoing to me.
Think of the various Microsoft certifications as an example. These are useful for showing potential employers that you are competent in various particular skills.
This is how I know you're not a programmer.
Microsoft certifications are infamous (at least among experienced coders) for being either useless or less than useless (there are some who claim, without irony, that such a certification is a negative indicator of competence). They might show "potential employers" something they want to see, but only if they're the type of employer that a good programmer wouldn't want to work for in the first place.
You know what does show a (halfway decent) potential employer that you're a good programmer? Actual programming. Samples of code you've done before. Personal projects, open-source projects you've contributed to, etc.
Without Fair Use, Nintendo never would have had Donkey Kong.
Factually incorrect, as when the issue was taken to trial, it came out that the studio claiming copyright had actually previously acknowledged that King Kong was in the public domain, and thus not subject to copyright (and not requiring fair use to make use of) anymore in the first place.
Limited corporate liability is specifically designed to prevent that scenario, because "the investors" might well be you if your IRA manager decided that the stock of the corporation in question would be good for your portfolio.
Much better idea: Order the mansions of the executives and the board of directors handed over. Put liability where it belongs: on the actual decision-makers.
This. Too many people don't seem to understand the difference between a bad idea and a bad implementation of a good idea.
Ask any doctor, particularly an oncologist: Just because you can correctly diagnose a problem doesn't necessarily mean you know how to treat it effectively. But having a bad treatment plan, or even an utterly disastrous one, doesn't mean that the diagnosis was wrong.
Really great reasoning from them... mostly. But saying "if we had these new laws you're considering, we'd never have ended up with Justin Bieber" really isn't helping their case; that's a pretty strong argument in favor of the new laws! ;)
College football is a huge part of the problem, as is high school football. Basically, the whole game is corrupt from top to bottom. If you want to see just how bad, have a look at Pros and Cons, the result of a great deal of research into the football system's systematic coverups of criminal behavior by its athletes, to the point where over 30% of NFL players have been charged with a violent felony that fans never hear about.
Reasonable arguments can be, and have been, made that the presentation of facts can include copyrightable elements. How you present them can be a creative act.
You know what's the first thing that comes to mind when you say that? The Da Vinci Code. In the book, the author makes a bunch of historical arguments that were lifted nearly verbatim from an earlier work.
The authors sued for copyright infringement, until the court ruled that as the material in question was supposedly factual, historical research, it was not copyrightable. This left them in the unenviable position of either having no claim, or having to admit that their "research" was a work of fiction.