"You've got to consider what the landscape was like before the DMCA. The safe harbor exemption didn't exist, that's true. However, if a rightsholder wanted to hold a provider liable and get content removed, they actually had to sue the provider and win."
I'm not a deep expert on the copyright or DMCA law so I may be wrong, but this seems inaccurate to me. You still have to sue and prove the same stuff to "win." It's just that the DMCA safe harbor promises liability exemption to the platform so they immediately comply to make sure they take advantage of the exemption. I don't see that it makes it easier for them to be held liable for copyright infringement at all. Do you have a legitimate legal source for this contention, or are you just some random layman nym spouting off?
The DMCA takedown provisions are paired with the limited exemption the DMCA provides to vicarious copyright liability. The takedown process is just the price paid for being exempt from vicarious copyright liability. If you remove the takedown process you likely remove the exemption and then start to hobble the Internet even more than copyright already does.
"Twitter has little choice but to shut down Donktum's feed, and people blaming Twitter or Section 230 for this (or idiotically calling it "election interference") have misplaced their blame. They should, instead, be concerned about Section 512(i) of the DMCA and the series of recent cases that say it is based on accusation, and not on any adjudication of infringement. "
The reason there is concern is that (a) there is copyright liability in the first place, and (b) sometimes secondary liability. That the DMCA does an imperfect job of exempting platforms from secondary liability, doesn't mean that the DMCA is the problem here. The problem is copyright law itself. As Burke said, "the thing! the thing! The thing itself is the abuse!"
The problem here is that the entire copyright system and mentality is truly destructive at the core. All copyright should be abolished. The author however tries to do the moderate tech author thing and have it both ways--implicitly praise the "good" intentions of copyright while criticizing the "abuses."
For example, the author says "The Statute of Anne, whose anniversary of coming into force on April 10, 1710 we celebrate today,"
I know this is worded in an anodyne way but... no. Nobody "celebrates" this.
And after citicizing the censorial aspects of copyright, the author tries to shower praise on the Statute of Anne. "However, the political pressure for democratic reform eventually caught up with this system, and by 1695 it finally gave way for good. And that set the stage for the Statute of Anne to be enacted in 1710, which changed the approach to copyright entirely. While the Licensing Act of 1662 was “[a]n act for preventing the frequent abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed books and pamphlets,” the Statute of Anne was purposefully “[a]n act for the encouragement of learning.” Whereas the former was about government control over ideas, the latter was about spreading them. Instead of using royal printing licenses to administer the copy right as a means of controlling discourse, by its very design the Statute of Anne was meant to stimulate it."
"And it did. Right away newspapers proliferated, public houses exploded with popularity (as they had during earlier periods when licensing statutes had lapsed), and democratic ideals flourished as tight government control over ideas yielded. "
This implies that there is a "balance" between state control of ideas that is "too strict" (leading to censorship) and "just enough" regulation and control of speech (Statute of Anne) so as to "encourage" or "stimulate" works. What nonsense. So the Statue of Anne somewhat relaxed state censorial power, and that, plus the increasing use of the printing press, led to an explosion of publishing of ideas. This is not to the credit of copyright law! IT still led to the authors being subject to the whims of publishers, as they author admits in the next sentence, and as Prince put on his cheek with his "SLAVE" notice carved into his beard:
"But while the structure of modern copyright law today looks much as it did following the Statute of Anne, its limiting effects on discourse now seem more similar to the period that preceded it."
So what we really have is ALL state/church control of what can be said and what can be published distorts and limits free speech and freedom of the press. IT's not that "it was bad before the STatute of Anne, then good after 1710, then bad again after US copyright law got off on a wrong footing again in the 1900s." No. No. It was ALWAYS bad. The state's copyright law always restricts and distorts free speech and freedom of the press. IT did so then, before 1710; it did so after 1710; it does so now. THe ONLY solution is to totally abolish all copyright law. There is no balance. Asking for a "balance" is like saying "but if we abolish slavery who will pick the cotton? Maybe we need a balance. We'll have slaves pick the cotton for 6 months and be free for the other 6 months--we need to be reasonable, people! Abolition is too extreme!"
"These rights were of limited duration, however, and the Statute of Anne further enhanced public discourse by creating a public domain."
Praising a modern copyright law for "creating a public domain" is perverse. The DEFAULT in a free, private law system IS the public domain! The only reason there is NOT a public domain is BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT LAW. Relaxing copyright censorship controls so that less work is forced behind a paywall and a bit more ekes out into the natural public domain is not to its credit. All you need to have a public domain is to just abolish copyright law. Copyright law never "creates" public domain works. All it can do is infringe on the public domain.
I suggest people interested in the real history of this read Karl Fogel's more clear-eyed explanation here: "The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World" https://questioncopyright.org/promise
So what? The point is that if you ask someone to tell you "how many" copyrights "they have" and then go on to say that it's easy to check by searching at the LOC, this is simply incorrect and belies a misunderstanding of copyright law.
"I'm talking about your repeated requests to multiple people to continue this conversation elsewhere, to move it away from here, where everyone is calling you on the crap you're posting, to a friendlier venue under your personal control." Oh. I'm offering to tutor you people for free. And to record it and broadcast it so others, who are similarly confused or ignorant, can learn from the instructions so given. If you want to turn down my offer--your loss.
"The question is simple. Actually I can check the LOC to see how many are registered in your name "
this is just registered copyrights. Those that people bother to register. And in the US. But since the US accession to the Berne copyright convention in the 1980s formalities are abolished. there is no need to register. Copyright is now automatic. So you don't know what you are talking about.
"Well that undermines the notion that only a copyright attorney is qualified to assess copyright law."
Actually the question is not "copyright law" but normative issues: not what the law is, but what it should be. Copyright lawyers (of which I am one) are not any more qualified than laymen about the latter issue.
"It also doesn't answer the question: how many profitable copyrights do you own?"
I have already explained why this question is confused. No one knows how "many" copyrights they own. I "own" the copyrights already today in every comment I have posted here. Does this count as 10? AS for profitable--again, you don't count things as "a copyright". An author has one or more coyrights in a given work of authorship. I personally have made close to a million dollars from publishing legal treatises--outside of my work as a lawyer--but that doesn't make me think there "should be copyright".
"How many profitable copyrights does this person own?"
Copyright doens't work like this. It's impossible to count "them". I have a copyright in the comments I just posted. How many is that? What's amazing to me is that people who know little about the law, like you, insist on having public opinions about it. Amazing.
"No you don't, as your previous comment makes painfully clear. You are blinded by the poison of libertarianism, to the point where you apparently can't even recognize the existence of actual principles that conflict with your poisonous ideology, as evidenced by the way you label arguments derived from them "unprincipled.""
Sorry that you view my desire to respect your rights as "poison". Sad. In any case-- if you want me to explain any of this to you, I'd be happy to. For free. Just let me know.