Wonder if this could be used maliciously for stuff closer to Google's chest, eg. blacklisting youtube.com/premium or store.google.com/product/pixel_6_pro (of course, this would be illegal, however IIRC there haven't been any cases involving punishment for issuing false DMCAs)
The DMCA safe harbor provisions require claims to be taken as true by default, and then if the victim responds with “this is false” the original claimant has two weeks (iirc) to respond, during which the recipient is meant to keep the content unavailable.
Because the person who made the original claim has like two weeks to respond and the content can’t be returned until they respond or two weeks is up
This is another way of saying if you don't follow the DMCA you become liable for the infringing content (if the content owner sues and is successful, of course), which is indeed what the DMCA says :)
https://www.copyright.gov/512/
there's a fair amount of ambiguity because they're talking about the ability to qualify for safe harbors in general, presumably mixed together with the ability to qualify in a specific case, without drawing that distinction explicitly.
I know wikipedia ignores 75% of the dmca notices they get (source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/transparency/2021-2/dm... )