I like it, but the exception for conference papers (Sec. 4 (d)(1)) should be struck. While they may not be on par with "journals", conference papers are published research reports that contain relevant information just like journals. Much research that is published in conference proceedings never even makes it into journals, so this exception means a ton of useful information will be excluded from public view.
ACM does not have such a policy. In fact, it's the opposite. From their copyright assignment form for authors:
"Each of the Employer/Author(s) retains the following rights:
4. The right to post author-prepared versions of the Work covered by the ACM copyright in a personal collection on their own home page, on a publicly accessible server of their employer and in a repository legally mandated by the agency funding the research on which the Work is based."
And since when has the "Sweet Valley High" series or Henry Potter been the equal to "All's Quite on the Western Front" or "Great Expectations"?
Your view of quality is misplaced. Content of books is far less important -- in terms of a child's development -- than correct grammar. Reading works that are grammatically-correct leads to the ability to write works that are grammatically-correct. Whether the book's content is Sweet Valley High or Great Expectations makes little difference in that respect.
As the subject says, the takedown may very well be valid here. There are actually two separate fair use questions here:
Using the clip for classroom purposes. Distribution is limited to the students in the course. This is unquestionably protected by fair use.
Posting it to YouTube. The use here goes beyond academic study and morphs into wide-scale distribution. It is less clear that fair use would apply here.
With respect to number 2, she may have an argument that the posting was for purposes of criticism -- in the context of this page -- but from the standpoint of YouTube, who is hosting it without the critical context, it would very likely be infringement.
Perhaps if Wendy hosted the clip herself this would have been less of an issue.
Noel, you need to be clear what you mean by "patented specifications." If you mean the "implementation of a machine/process/etc as published in the patent application" then imitation and copying are effectively the same thing and constitute infringement.
If you mean the "function of the machine/process/etc (i.e., the effects caused on the outside world)" then yes, imitation and copying are different things. But under that definition imitation does not infringe a patent since it cannot be patented. Functionality is not patentable, only the details of the machines/processes/etc that implement the functionality is patentable.
Don't forget that in many places, landline providers are required to provide a 911-only service for free to anyone who wants it. So the "paying $30/month for emergency insurance" argument just fell by the wayside.