> 17 U.S. Code §512(c)(3)(A)(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(emphasis added)
That last bit makes it quite easy to discover that a DMCA notice was faked, thus quite risky for the sender: either they provide contact information for themselves that will be repudiated by the actual copyright holder should anyone question it, or they provide contact information for the actual copyright holder and are unable to carry the charade beyond the initial message and the takedown will not last beyond the initial ~2 weeks for a counterclaim to take effect (plus they'd catch the notice of the actual corporate legal department, who are unlikely to appreciate the impersonation).
I wonder how often a DMCA recipient actually bothers with a counterclaim, though? I thought counter-notices were extremely risky, particularly when dealing with a (seemingly) deep-pocketed entity. Doesn't a counterclaim open oneself up to immediate ligitation within 2 weeks, else the content must remain?
If it is in fact the rightsholder, I assume they won't be happy to simply let the allegedly infringing content stand - which means they have to sue. Of course, if one really believes the claim to be bogus, they can always test it in court. They might even be right, but I suspect they'll be bankrupt nonetheless.
I guess the solution is to just reach out to the listed contact directly... Without it being in the form of a counterclaim? I love this system.
Either they ignore it and you have to evaluate whether you'll gain or lose money by suing (oftentimes that's not the case, good luck bringing to court some 13 years old living in a different country and making 2k per month from ads) or they just comply as soon as possible to avoid legal drama.