[kmeisthax]

They aren't trying to squat on the name. They wanted to remove copies of their own photographs and picked the cheapest lawyer they could find, who proceeded to blast out bullshit notices in their clients' names. Likely because anyone more competent would be entirely outside their budget.

If there is anything to learn here, it's that...

- DMCA 512 is wholly inadequate for creators because there are zero protections for false claims (tell me what I don't already know), and,

- DMCA 512 is wholly inadequate for creators because the cost to actually find, takedown, and potentially prosecute infringements of your work is astronomical.

It is a law that makes everyone miserable, except Google, who gets to push papers around and wash their hands of everything.

[jandrese]

The media cartels are pretty happy with it, being able to take down massive swaths of the Internet with no realistic consequences for false positives.

[kmeisthax]

The thing is, even the media cartels hate this system, because it requires they go and manually hunt infringement. They don't want to pay that cost. They want something like YouTube's Content ID where they send one notice and all the platforms do what they say (or perish). That's why there was such a big push for yesterdecade's SOPA/PIPA and today's EUCD Article 17.