1: At this time this is just a baseless accusation and there are no repercussions to the RIAA for blatant abuse. Why wouldn't they simply send a takedown for anything they don't like no matter whether it is legal or not?
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/youtubes-new-lawsuit-s...
They mostly do.
> If the DMCA takedown was actually baseless, they would be opening themselves up to damage liabilities, as specified under 17 U.S. Code § 512 under section f[1].
The basis for liability there is knowing misrepresentation of infringement. So as long as RIAA believed (and that belief need not be reasonable) the legal theory of infringement that they advanced, there's not a liability problem.
SUre, if they misrepresented their right to act on behalf of the legal owners of the works they claimed were infringed by it, or that would be an issue, but no one even suspects that they are doing that.
Courts calculate damages for fucking with an open source software project as basically zilch. For all intents and purposes, that is "no repercussions" for a pile of lawyers like the RIAA.
The damages need to be punitive.