[logfromblammo]

Why not? A triplicated datum gives reasonable certainty that the complainant did not accidentally mis-identify the copyrighted work.

The takedown requests are a waste of the complainant's time, anyway. The site does not host any files, and a listing of facts, such as the contents of a telephone book, is not eligible for copyright protections.

Such a request is equivalent to a demand to remove someone's telephone number from the telephone book, because if you call it, the voice mail system plays Lionel Ritchie's recording of "Hello". It's ridiculous on its face.

If there is nothing to take down, you can make the DMCA request process as burdensome as you like, because your response will always be a brush-off.

[spaceheeder]

Saying magic words in legalese that sound "right" to the choir in the court of public opinion is necessary but not sufficient to see through to overturning standing precedent in courts of law.

Maintaining, and abiding by, a DMCA policy is the price of doing business online in the US and WIPO treaty countries.

[logfromblammo]

Yes, of course. When Simon says, "Stand on one foot.", you stand on one foot.

My goal is not to fix the US legal system. I personally believe that having enough money is a greater factor in achieving a court victory than being technically correct or ethically sound. Therefore, I also believe it is pointless to speculate upon what the courts might decide as a guide for ethical behavior.

The only way to always win in court is to never be sued (or arrested).