[lxgr]

> I think a more sane approach would to require every copyright takedown to require a court order.

In a country with an efficient legal system, maybe…

Requiring the claimant to put something at stake (make it a nominal deposit you get back in case of either no challenge or the case actually going to court) seems more realistic, but I’m not holding my breath for a reform of the law to that extent.

[NetMageSCW]

Why does DMCA need to be handled quickly?

[duskwuff]

Because one of the requirements the law sets out is that the content be removed "expeditiously" upon receipt of a takedown notice.

[bluGill]

Claimants put something at stake: false DMCA takedowns are under prejury laws which carry prison sentences.

I doubt this is really a DMCA case though. DMCA laws exist, but to invoke them requires some specific steps which Google prefers you skip.

The fact that this probably isn't DMCA may leave Google open to being sued, but you would have to see a lawyer - be prepared to spend several million dollars to win a few thousand.

[plagiarist]

Has the US ever opened a single DMCA perjury case against anyone?

[tanseydavid]

If a court order was involved then the offense would be "fraud on the court" -- and much scarier for the undecided fraudster.

[FireBeyond]

Not once, in the history of the DMCA.