Our sprightly hero (Thom Tillis) has proposed legislation to rescue creatives from a maze of dead ends and aggressive-root-like red tape involved in trying to take down user-generated copyright infringement, and also
Kudos and thanks (if that is not tautologous) for the heads-up to legal blogger David Oxenford of Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP
What the EFF wants:
EFF manages to sound reasonable and persuasive, but their view of the whack-a-mole problem seems to be that it does not exist, as if take-down-and-stay-down is the current situation. "Excise" is a terminological inexactitude.
"In a nutshell, Section 512 shields intermediaries from copyright liability for content their users upload, as long as they promptly take down infringing material that is brought to their attention. In exchange, content holders got a powerful tool to police infringement, known as “notice and takedown”: by sending an email or filling out a form, they can excise infringing content."
Also, "excise" in the surgical sense is not apt. In surgery, the cut out growth is not put back in its original state if someone files a counter notice, nor is an identical growth copied and pasted back onto the host within hours.