I disagree. DMCA explicitly states that fair use must be taken into account. The **AA's essentially don't believe in fair use, so they don't ever take it into account. More importantly, an automated system has no way of determining if something is fair use.
Also, a BIG problem with the notice/counter-notice system is that it HEAVILY favors the alleged rights holder. It has been used in the past to muzzle speech.
It's apples and penguins. A hosting company is not required BY LAW to actively monitor its site for infringement. And would you trust YOUR data to any company that actively monitors your uploads? I sure as hell wouldn't, and neither would any reasonable business person.
A copyright holder, BY LAW is required to take fair use into account as they are making a legal claim, under penalty of perjury, that: 1) they are the legal copyright holder and 2)the content is actually infringing.
Or to put it differently, the burden IS on the MPAA (or RIAA, or whomever) to show that the content IS infringing before taking it down. That's what the law says. It's not 'unwarranted' it's the LAW.
If we take that argument to a logical extreme, prosecutors wouldn't have jobs, because actually proving someone committed a crime would cause an 'unwarranted burden' to law enforcement.
"The reason for patents is without them cos will not invest in R&D..."
You do realize that the R&D for the VAST majority of drugs is actually funded and performed by universities, not the pharma companies?
You also realize that marketing is far and away the largest budget item for big pharma companies?
The knowledge of how to create a Strad is lost because he chose NOT to share it with anybody, not because there weren't patents at the time. The idea that patents would have spread that knowledge is ludicrous.
As much as I hate to say this, he's at least somewhat correct. For the most part, the Constitution protects you from government intrusion, not other parties (including businesses). There are, however other laws to protect employees.