This could not have happened where I work, or at least it would have been detected much sooner. Here's how my employer runs company emails: if you are sending an email to a non-company address, then it goes through extra layers of scrutiny (including examining attachments to the extent of even unzipping and examining archive files).
This examination is VERY strict, and if the email you're sending even looks like it might contain something sensitive, then that email is not sent. Instead, you get a warning of the problem and are told to contact the security team to get an exception put into place if needed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: little difference between major corporations and the government
True, I was speaking from the point of view of the government, which appears to be largely run by corporate interests. You can avoid doing business with many corporations, but you still can't avoid being subject to their desires as expressed through the government.
Well, first, this article is about ContentID, not the DMCA. Two different things. Ignoring that, however, I'm not following your argument at all.
"Here's why you can't have a 3-strikes policy against abusers - because their 4th complaint could be valid."
Why does that mean you can't have a 3 strikes policy against abusers? All of the actual legal remedies for copyright infringement remain untouched. The only thing that would be abridged is the privilege of using the DMCA mechanism.
"Whereas with the person who has 3 strikes against them (presumably valid) for copyright infringement, they can still produce material"
And by the same token, someone who has abused the takedown process and no longer use it still have available to them the all of the remedies the law allows. Just not the DMCA shortcut.
And it make sense during wartime. It's an evil thing to do, certainly, but when you're at war you find yourself needing to do a lot of evil things. When we're not at war (like now, despite the stupid rhetoric), it's just senseless evil.