I don't believe that "A Content Creator" is in fact A Content Creator at all. The only people who are that cavalier about permissions in my experience are (a) contractors who are paid by the hour to produce things for other people who are the ones who have to defend any copyright, and (b) scripters, because they know that their products are all purely server-side and thus immune to ripping at the moment. I have argued against many of these people in the past; they would be up in arms if their source code was publicly revealed.

Compared to other bodies that I have dealt with recently (e.g. Yahoo, who have actually given up their safe harbour provisions by non-compliance with the DMCA, though they know I haven't the money to sue them) LL are the models of probity when it comes to the DMCA.

But it isn't that which is the problem, it is in-world governance and enforcement. The demand is that LL actually take action against people seen to be redistributing content without permission, never mind the DMCA or anything else. Meaning proper hardware bans of all alts, confiscation of inworld assets (yes, problematic) and investigation beyond the minimum.

Really, DMCA compliance means nothing apart from "this company doesn't want to get sued". It does nothing to prevent or punish copyright breach. That sort of enforcement must actually be performed by the company concerned, and the question is how far LL is prepared to go, when the alternative may be losing the content creators who have made SL what it is.