I agree in principle, but you missed the context and a bit on completeness on the lawyer -> attorney edit.

It was actually "Corporate Lawyer" -> "Attorney", which has a different feel to it.

Except the DMCA is *NOT* written like that.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

The relevant portion:

(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Notice the wording of section VI: A Statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE COMPLAINING PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO ACT...

The only part of any of that in a DMCA takedown is a statement under penalty of perjury that you are actually authorized to send DMCA by the owner of the material you are saying this infringes against. There is no perjury on any other portion of it, including the good faith, or accuracy notification.

This law was written specifically this way to protect any agent of copyright holders from mistakes and/or malice.

s/used/stolen/

Good for you for kicking those users while they were down.

I am sorry I'm responding late to this, but your list is incorrect with some of the placement of things in the requirements.

Here is the Law:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/P...

The relevant portion:

(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Notice the wording of section VI: A Statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE COMPLAINING PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO ACT...

The only part of any of that in a DMCA takedown is a statement under penalty of perjury that you are actually authorized to send DMCA by the owner of the material in question. There is no perjury on any other portion of it, including the good faith, or accuracy notification.

This law was written specifically this way to protect any agent of copyright holders from mistakes and/or malice.

I've had a lot of luck recently with World of Tanks and World of Warplanes. They're not RPG's, but they are MMO. Not much investment needed for a playing either.

I recently played Neverwinter. I can't recommend it though. The leveling up is very fast (Which isn't necessarily bad on it's own) and when you hit end game there is almost nothing to do. The free to play formula is extremely expensive addons ($20 for a bag) that frankly make it not worth your time.

Other than that, there are literally dozens of free to play MMO's out there right now. Costs nothing to try them, but the time to check them out. I enjoyed RIFT when I played, but stopped before the first expansion, so I have no clue what it is like now.

I have my girls watching all the TV shows and movies I watched as a kid. They're 8 and 10.

The Princess Bride
Animaniacs
Duck Tails
Darkwing Duck
Inspector Gadget
Willow
Star Wars
Star Trek TNG

I'm also having fun watching this generation's classics. (Pixar Movies, My Little Pony, Phineas and Ferb)

If you're having a hard time getting your kids (of any age) to watch the stuff you enjoyed as a kid I would suggest not telling them when it was made and watching it.