[hfsktr]

Just out of curiosity. Is there a time limit of how long they can sue for after it's restored? Could they wait for you to get a huge user base or revenue and then strike to get the most out of you or is there protection against that?

I don't see myself ever creating anything that would get taken down but I imagine most people don't when it happens to them.

Any time I hear about DMCA it seems so very one sided that there is just about no recourse.

[pyre]

Well, they can sue you at any time. They don't really need to issue a DMCA notice first. The issue is that:

1) Most of the time they don't know your real identity from your (e.g.) YouTube username. IIRC, you have to use your real name or contact information when filing a counter-notice.

2) If they sue you, the content stays up until they can convince the judge to order it to be taken down.

The point of the DMCA was to allow for things to be taken down quickly, and then sorted out in court later if need be. The content is taken down quickly. If you push back (counter-notice), then the (claimed) content owner has 10-14 days to start court proceedings to keep it down; otherwise, it goes back up. None of this precludes a suit being filed at any point.

The real issue with this process is that there is little relief for negligence in filing DMCA notices. All you have to do is have a good-faith belief that you are the content owner, and this violates your rights. So acting like you're ignorant of the law is actually a defence against being held accountable for filing a bogus notice.

If bogus DMCA notices were punished more often, and people were required to consult a lawyer before firing at the hip (e.g. people that don't understand copyright law, and just say, "I don't like X take it down! DMCA!"), then maybe it would be working better.