[Underpass9041]

As someone receiving a notice you have no idea if it's legitimate or from a AOL account someone made 15 minutes ago, the threat of it being perjury doesn't work when there's no authentication whatsoever of who sent it. Unless the DMCA is signed by Zaphod Beeblebrox the receiver has no choice but to assume it's legitimate.

[SteveNuts]

What happens if you ignore it?

[gruez]

You lose safe harbor protections, which means if the notice was legitimate, you could be on the hook for copyright infringement as well.

[bombcar]

You can respond and refuse, but you have to authenticately dox yourself to do so, and you assume liabilities.

[eurleif]

You're conflating two things: a DMCA counter-notice by an alleged infringer, and the refusal of an intermediary to honor a DMCA takedown notice. Your statement is a mixture of claims that are true about one or the other of those separate things.

DMCA counter-notice:

* Sent by an alleged infringer (in this case, that would be the artist) to an intermediary (in this case, TeePublic) asserting that a takedown notice the intermediary received was invalid.

* Requires the alleged infringer to provide information about themself ("authentically dox").

* Can enable the intermediary to restore access to the material without losing their liability shield.

* Doesn't affect the alleged infringer's copyright infringement liability in any direction (though as with takedown notices, there's the potential for perjury). If the alleged infringer committed copyright infringement, they were already liable for it, and remain so; if they didn't, then they never were liable and still aren't.

Intermediary refusal:

* Simply a lack of action on a takedown notice by the intermediary to whom it was sent.

* Doesn't require anyone to dox themselves, or to do anything in particular. The intermediary can throw the takedown notice in the garbage and go about their day.

* Removes the intermediary's liability shield; the intermediary can potentially be liable for infringement, when they would otherwise would have been immune.

[more_corn]

Provider has to take it down. The vendor making the shirt can simply file a dmca counterclaim (basically stating that the dmca claim is invalid) Then the provider puts the content back up and the courts decide.

[amanaplanacanal]

One side note: the provider is not required to put the content back up, it is at their discretion.

[LocalH]

I don't believe that's true. I think they must make the material available after a proper counter-notification, or they lose their liability shield as per the exception here. IANAL, just reading the text of the law at face value.

(g) REPLACEMENT OF REMOVED OR DISABLED MATERIAL AND LIMITATION ON OTHER LIABILITY.—

(1) NO LIABILITY FOR TAKING DOWN GENERALLY.—Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider’s good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.

(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C), unless the service provider—

(A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material; Applicability. PUBLIC LAW 105–304—OCT. 28, 1998 112 STAT. 2883

(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and

(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.

[eurleif]

They lose their liability shield for the act of taking the content down, but that liability shield is of limited value to begin with because they'd typically be well within their rights to take any content down for any reason (or no reason).