With all due respect, I think it's redundant. Copyright infringement involving more than ten copies and a value of $2500 dollars is a felony in the U.S. (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01847.htm)

Under the DMCA, the host is required to act to remove the violating material from a site, or THEY are also liable. If you're not getting results from the ISP, take it higher.

Also, no offense intended, but the capitalization, spelling, and grammar laws don't make this look very professional.

IMHO, every time the U.S. government gets involved in copyright, they screw it up more. The duration of term is too long (I'm sorry, anyone who thinks 75 to 150 years is a 'limited time' is suffering mental problems), the scope is too vague, and the loopholes too many. Instead of adding more to wade through, the government should simplify the copyright code so it's clear to the layman what is and isn't allowed. (Don't tell me it is. Not even lawyers and judges understand it fully. Is fair use a right or a defense? No one knows. Just one of many examples. Your chances of winning a case depend highly on the individual judging the case.) As it is now, it's disturbingly similar to the U.S. tax code: a convoluted mess made by and for wealthy individual entities, filled with loopholes that can be exploited with the money to find them.