Taking the DMCA in it's full wording, it seems it can be sufficiently twisted around to claim that a false DMCA takedown is in fact infringing the copyright management systems of the actual owner of the copyright who can then launch a DMCA claim against the false claimant who is using DMCA against them, especially via an automated system. This would enable the pursuit of criminal charges and the big dollar fines. So when a firm or individual makes repeated false claims thus impacting the copyright management systems of the legal owner and via that method stealing the copyright to the work, they are then criminally liable for that theft.

Here is the rub, as they continually improve batteries committing to a production line becomes harder. Getting say fifteen years of life out of a battery production line becomes impossible with batteries improving every year and your production line being way behind latest technology.

So there are certain levels in development where sufficient gain is made to commit to a production line even though the batteries will be out of date or the production line is based around a much reduced life with substantial impact on battery price. This is aided by government subsidises, making it possible to initiate a battery production line with less than optimal outcomes.

Of course producing batteries builds the infrastructure and pays for more development. It is getting pretty obvious though that full scale electric vehicles are no longer that far off as battery technology continues to develop and companies can commit to major battery production lines with a required life to pay for that production line.

The problem is at their core they fail to recognise there are two organisations, hard business under M$ and creative works under MSN. They have allowed M$ to be a continual drag upon MSN and really failed to capitalise on it's value. Doing silly stuff like lessening the brand with outlook, live and bing over advertising and lessening page view worth and crippling creativity by leaving it stuck under M$ management.

They should split the company and allow MSN to achieve it's worth whilst they milk windows and office for all they can. The cloud has been severely impacted by the shenanigans of the NSA. It looks like he global cloud is at an end, already under threat in Russia and China and likely to fragment further. Appliances are back on the table and likely to dominate as trust has been pretty much permanently destroyed. Even something as simple as a mobile phone is seeing storage capacity increase as people want to store locally and backup at home, trust is being abused at every level of business both by corporations and government agencies.

They need to focus on plug and play appliances, creating a home stack or a business stack. At home that means a big screen display, modem router with storage capacity, phone, pc, notebooks, family notice board (web, mail and internet server all built in). Business tends to be much just greater capacity, greater demands on reliability and more units in the stack. Software taking a back seat to supplying the appliance complete, ready to go and just plugging into the stack. Hard copy is also part of that stack whether 2D or 3D.

They should also not shy away from Android or Linux it just leaves them looking incomplete and less than professional. Lock in opportunities are shrinking especially as major markets will actively block it, not anything to do with M$ but all to do with the US. Many countries let is slide for surprisingly long but now they are actively legislating against it, so now adding in other OS's keeps them in those markets.

Weasels that know corporate double speak are ruining everything though. You know we don't mourn the T-rex. We talk about the dinosaurs as being really big and dumb.

They were all psychopaths!! Lizard brains.

When the cockroaches are mulling over what our existences might have been like, they will all say that the weasels died out because of our stupidity and overconfidence. They'll say we were monsters, too. Big and dumb. Lizard brains.

That's total bullshit. We've had insurance and employment coupled here in my country for almost a century now and none of these clusterfucks have happened. The thing that causes the clusterfuck is a country that can't decide whether it wants to be religious or secular.

You didn't read to the end of my post, did you?

You call that counterbalance?

What's keeping me, a rights owner of a movie that's a real stinker, from silencing everyone who dared to do a negative review of it by carpet bombing any and all media pages with takedown notices for those reviews?

Don't claim copyright on every video, this will make you guilty of perjury under the DMCA. Claim copyright on one video and then claim that every other video appears to be a derived work of that video. This is exactly the mechanism that the big studios use.

The perjury clause doesn't say what you think it says. If I own the rights on work A, to file a notice on work B, I claim that work B infringes work A. The perjury clause kicks in only if I do not own the rights to work A (or represent the person who does). If work B doesn't infringe, then that's a matter for the courts. This is quite annoying, but it does make sense. It's clear cut if works A and B are the same, but not in the case that B is a derived work of A. A court has to decide whether the use of A in B counts under fair use or not.

The counterbalance for this is that the DMCA does indemnify YouTube if they respond to a counternotice and reinstate the work. If you, the owner of work B, think it does not infringe then you send such a notice to YouTube. I then have no further recourse against YouTube and must take you to court directly.

The problem here is that it's very easy to automate sending takedown notices, but very hard to automate sending counter-notices. Mass-sending of automated takedown notices was something that the authors of the DMCA didn't foresee and the act probably needs amending to require the notice to explicitly state (under penalty of perjury) the person who has compared the works and their reason for believing that they are infringing.

The US learned that it's more profitable to wage than to win wars. At least for the elite few. It's really win-win in every aspect. You get the masses occupied with an external foe, you get the rabble off the street by dumping it into the army (and at the same time make them feel important because they're doing something important) and you can make the elite rich at the same time.

The US also has the economy to fuel the whole shit, unlike Germany in WW2. And also unlike Germany in WW2, they're not dumb enough to actually engage in a war with anyone who could actually fight back.

Really?

Fuck, the terrorists won, they're all over the US already!

Considering the price to develop something (along with the price of training the guy), I prefer a bunch of low cost religious nuts with AKs in their hands.

Hey, that's today's naming scheme. You take the meaning of a word, twist it around and create something that confuses the hell out of someone reading it.

It's called "political correctness".

The whole issue is who gets to decide if the clain is false or not.
In Belgium the comany I used to work for we received several claims from SABAM for people uploading things through e.g. napster and other sharing programs (So this dates back a while) asking first for the name and address of the people doing this.
Legal told me to caugh it up and I told them no, because of the law on privacy. They must come with a legal order, otherwise WE would be punishable as a company. That was something they did not want to do.
Next SABAM asked us to block the sharing of content, to which we said no as well (unless court order).

The idea behind all this was that I, nor anybody in the company can legaly determine if there was a copyright infrindgement or not. I culd have a legal document of being allowed to stream Metallica's music and they just don't like that I have that.

It is similar to saying "I do not like that you park in front of my driveway." and I say "But that isn't your driveway. It is illgal poured asphalt." If we can not figure it out, we go to court, but untill then, I park there.

It obviously helped that at that time I read an official letter from the court letter that as long as no money was involed. e.g. people sharing music, SABAM should not bother the legal system. The moment money would be involved (e.g. burn CDs and sell them) they would be happy to help.

The courts should decide who is right and who is wrong (not commercial entity like e.g. Judge Judy

This is dated information. If you take legal advice from me, you owe me 10 quadrillian Euro.

I didn't express any hate for the people using the illegal explosives. As a friend of mine says, on a holiday celebrating the overthrow of a government, the question of whether your fireworks are legal or not really just shouldn't come up.