If you aren’t and you are truly having that much of a problem, use Chrome. It works fine with Mega.

The one person I saw on another forum saying the same thing you did, he was using Opera to try to get to Mega. It does not work well with Opera, for some reason.

If my car is photographed going over the speed limit, I’ll have to show it wasn’t me driving it.

Oh well..

“The point is that the sheer volume of infractions

You’ll find that the sheer volume of something isn’t a justification for higher failure rates on anything.

A mass production line won’t put out worse quality product because of that. A mass lawsuit won’t lower the law standards because of of the number of people involved and so the sheer volume of DMCA’s to be sent should not affect the accuracy of them either.

Worse even:
“That occasionally (and the Google numbers bear it out) a DMCA is completely invalid. I don’t think that “occasionally” is the world you’re looking for since the industry itself admits to 10 to 15% failure ratios, according to the number of DMCA’s to google (which is much much lower than the total number od DMCA’s) it’s a total of 1.500.000 mistakes! Read that out loud, one million and a half.

And again we’ll have to consider the other side of the coin. With so many deterrents, content being (supposedly) harder to pirate and so many anti-piracy measures people still keep pirating and posting copyright material. This is a strong indicator that the majority of population doesn’t care and is indifferent to the law and copyright. This means that the law must be changed because the people certainly don’t see anything wrong with their acts.

And, like it’s always been, people shape the laws not the other way around..

“You try to think of a better way. The law is written to take this
into account, it considers good faith and not 100% accuracy.

A better way is to let go of non-profit copyright . You’ll find you’ll have a lot less issues to worry about. As for good faith, it implies that the complaint was made knowing exactly what it was about. When you use an automated system you aren’t applying good faith because you don’t know exactly what you’re complaining about as it doesn’t even check the content of a file.

Also penalty of prejudice is never applied for wrong take downs which is the second biggest flaw of the DMCA.

“It should be noted that good faith applies the other way as well. It
means that instead of a copyright lawsuit, the host (or the poster) can
remove the work IN GOOD FAITH and not face a massive lawsuit.

Completely wrong, stop bending reality. Removing something or facing a lawsuit isn’t a matter of removing because of good faith, it’s called blackmail. And removing it because of that isn’t good faith, no matter how you call it, it’s fear.

It goes essentially like this: “Our automated tool flagged your file for copyright infringement. We don’t really care what it is, since it’s flagged remove it or face the legal consequences.”

The DMCA works one way, Copyright holder -> person. Always. That’s it’s design and that’s it’s flaw.

” In most places in the US, I could shoot the trespasser without warning as well”

Another nice example of something that although it’s law, it’s a terribly bad idea leading to even accidental kills of people shooting their kids or neighbours and unfortunately it’s not even a rare event.

Still regarding the property analogy it’s a good example but there’s a catch. You’re seeing with your own eyes that there’s a trespass. Such clarity doesn’t happen with automated tools that fire but don’t aim.

If a 100% legit DMCA notice is sent and it’s used in a non-destructive way (meaning it doesn’t target competitors or works built upon the original) I’m ok with it. I don’t agree totally with it, since I support the current format DMCA/Copyright laws have but at least it’s not doing more harm than good.

Still, volume doesn’t justify lower standards, ever. Can’t stress this enough.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean a free ride until the courts
get around to checking things out. Things just don’t work that way.

Innocent until proven guilty means whatever the flagged content is should be kept available until there’s no doubt it is infringing. The current state of the law means the host has to go out of his way to prove innocence in order to get his content back. That’s guilty until proven innocent. No “free ride” is involved, just fair, due process.

“No, what I am saying is that, if the copyright holder acts generally in
good faith, and doesn’t specifically and knowingly target things that
are legal, licensed, or does not belong to them, then they have passed
the limit. It’s about good faith, not absolute certainty.”

Nope, you’re indeed confirming what I said. Because trusting the judgement of an automated system that has a very high fail-ratio shows no intention of good faith. Being oblivious to the issue doesn’t warrant good faith either. So, being oblivious to the process and just sending the DMCA’s is indeed enough to meet the standards. That, as I said, is too low of a standard and is wrong

You may want to take some time to understand how “good faith”
I would say you might want to revise your concept of good faith.

And again, none of the laws you mentioned is unknown to the general public, the issue with them is their clear mistakes and erroneous design.