In reply to alex.

Yeah, but there really aren't a whole lot of 512(f) cases out there, so anything surrounding it is somewhat interesting.

You've got:

- OPG v. Diebold, which says that if you misuse DMCA takedowns against clearly fair use material, you can be held liable for doing so.

- Rossi v. MPAA, which says that the "good faith" bit means that a copyright holder has to knowingly make a false takedown to be held liable, and it can't be an unknowing mistake.

- Lenz v. Universal Music, which backs the fair use thing again, and says that copyright holders must evaluate fair use before issuing takedowns.

And that's about it. There's probably a few more, but 512(f) doesn't come up all that often. Not enough challengers which make it as far as a court case. The typical process for a DMCA takedown works like this:

1. Copyright holder issues takedown
2. Material is taken down
3. The person who had the material taken down can send a counter claim, stating that the material is not infringing.

Now, in a fair world, what is supposed to happen next here is that a) the material goes back up and b) if the copyright holder wishes to file suit against the person (not the provider) in a court, then they can totally do so. What typically happens is that the host of the material either never informs the person about the DMCA takedown, or just cuts that person off, or never bothers to have any means to accept counterclaims and thus there is no way to get the material back up, etc. It's a crap process, basically, because while it does provide safe-harbor to the providers, it doesn't give them any reason to care about counterclaims, as such. It's a rare provider that will go to bat with you and file suit.

Providers like Automattic and WordPress.com should be pissed that they basically have to take down content and treat their own users badly just because any jerk can send them a letter and have no repercussions happen even if the material is reinstated later. It interferes with their business and the relationship between them and their users.

The courts are not setup for the case of 512(f) claims being brought against every single false DMCA takedown request, but that's what needs to happen to stop the glut of them. File a false takedown order, and not be willing to sue when the counterclaim comes in = pay the fees, sucker. Copyright holders do have rights, and they need to exercise those rights responsibly or pay for the consequences of exercising them irresponsibly.