> The only part of a DMCA takedown that's under penalty of perjury is the assertion that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on behalf of the

> The only part of a DMCA takedown that's under penalty of perjury is the assertion that you are the copyright holder, or are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. But that's exactly the fradulent claim, and unlike other cases that are understandable genuine mistakes (even though the mistakes would be avoidable if the claimants put a reasonable amount of care into checking their claims), in this case, it's clear that the claimant knew the claim was false, and they falsified documents to support that claim. I highly doubt courts would appreciate this sort of behavior, it's just that the victims of the censorship likely don't know, don't care, don't have the resources to fight, or don't catch it before the statute of limitations expires. Unfortunately, it seems like the maximum penalty for perjury is five years, and I assume it's rare that anything near that is imposed, so I guess someone decided it's worth it.