False DMCA claims are perjury, which is (at least in some states) a felony.
The rationale is that the DMCA gives complainants the ability to restrict others' speech, and so the law wants to strongly disincentivize abuse of that power.
The rationale is that the DMCA gives complainants the ability to restrict others' speech, and so the law wants to strongly disincentivize abuse of that power.
In any case, I didn't express it well. What I intended was that, in my personal opinion, these matters should be treated as a civil matter in view of copyright essentially being a tort.
USA Americans seem to contort the notion of speech beyond recognition. Being prevented from publishing a video someone else created, say, doesn't inhibit your right to express any opinion (aka freedom of speech). But of course, disincentivising abuses of power is always good.
Yes. DMCA claims are made under penalty of perjury.
> Being prevented from publishing a video someone else created, say, doesn't inhibit your right to express any opinion (aka freedom of speech).
Indeed, the inhibition of free speech is when you are prevented from publishing a video you created, because someone else falsely claims that they created it. Hence the felony.