[ratel]

What I don't understand is that although there are a lot of non-profits in the US that are willing to help in these kinds of cases. Non of them ever tried or suggested going after the original notice giver for perjury as at least some of these notices would fall under 'willful ignorance' as defined in United States v. Fawley (1998). The notice giver is in a (unique) position to determine if they actually hold the copyright and which specific part of some digital information is indeed infringing on that as this is the entire basis of the take-down notice. The fact that they do not supply it when serving the notice, but later will have to rely on it in court makes them willful ignorant when serving the notice.

Getting the perjury clause of the DMCA upheld would of course have a chilling effect on sending take-down notices in such a frivolous manor.

Disclaimer: a) I am not a US citizen b) TGIANAL