Aw, shucks: I spend a few days away from this place, and you've gone and given me a front-page slot! Thanks for the honor, small though it may be. I'm glad I could contribute something of value to the comments section.
Here's the thing about using the DMCA model for anything besides copyright: it would remove all the sanity checks still contained within the DMCA.
As long as the notice-and-takedown system is confined to copyright, anyone wanting to take something down has to connect the targeted information to some specific copyrighted information. This isn't a very good sanity check, hence all the abuses of the DMCA, but it ensures that, at least some of the time, takedowns have to be justified by their connection to some very specific piece of information.
But what if you apply this to true threats? Or libel claims? Or invasions of privacy? Or the nebulous category of "hate speech"? The limit is gone. "Take down this information because it looks too much like that information" has been replaced with "take down this information because it hurts my feelings". The monster has broken free of its last chain, and is now set to devour everything. The new ContentID would have to programmed to destroy all content, just in case.
Of course, that wouldn't really happen. What would happen, after the huge initial surge of takedowns, is that the major players - the ones with money and connection - would have unchecked power to destroy anything they didn't like. Think of the recent showdown between Mother Jones and VanderSloot, but imagine Mother Jones being completely censored during the three years of litigation. Could Mother Jones even survive three years of silence? I think not.
I suspect that this is what Ann Bartow wants. And maybe Arthur Chu wants it, too.
Hardly. She didn't pick out and install Windows, did she?
Personally, I've installed three different versions of GNU/Linux on computers I own (Ubuntu, Mint, and Fedora) but I've never been able to install Windows. I did try; I removed my Linux installation, stuck in my Windows install CD, and did my best, but I failed. I've stayed with FOSS OSes ever since.
You may not search me in my house You may not search my kids or spouse You may not search me in my car You may not search me at the bar You may not search me on a train You may not search me on a plane You may not search me here or there You may not search me anywhere I do not like this searching scam I do not like it, Uncle Sam
"The decision held that authors, according to common law, had the exclusive right to the first publication for perpetuity, but the right was annulled once the work was published." From this site: http://www.copyrighthistory.com/donaldson.html
In other words, artists can choose, at their own discretion, to publish or to not publish, but once they do publish, they have no right, or at least no common-law right, to prevent others from republishing.
So we truly have a worst-of-both-worlds situation: Aereo's business model is something that only cable companies are allowed to do (because it feels so much like cable), but Aereo is not allowed to be a cable company (because it's on the internet instead of cable).
Taken together, the Aereo and ivi rulings create an environment where competition is treated as theft. This is very bad news.
A hopeful prospect... and wouldn't that be weird, to see the ruling against Aereo transformed into a mechanism for rescuing net neutrality! I'd love to see that.
But I worry about the prospect of giving the FCC more power to decide who gets to transmit. How easy is it for the FCC to not grant a license to anyone they don't like? How much pressure could legacy industries put on the FCC to deny licenses? If the incumbents can control the licenses, then they're still in charge and this has all been for nothing.
I know what the law is, Whatever. And I know that it is wrong. Just as official state religion could not coexist with freedom of religion, copyright cannot coexist with free speech. Our collective failure to acknowledge that is becoming our collective undoing.