Another way the process is biased in favor of takedowns is that the counter-notification procedure is designed to thoroughly de-anonymize any individual who fil

Another way the process is biased in favor of takedowns is that the counter-notification procedure is designed to thoroughly de-anonymize any individual who files one. A valid takedown notification need only contain "reasonably sufficient" contact information. A counter-notification is explicitly required to contain name, address, and phone number. I guess I can't fault the authors for failing to anticipate petty YouTube rivalries back in 1998, but it seems like the sole imagined use case was a respected corporation going after a pseudonymous warez jockey.