I suspect that's easier said than done. The whole take-down process is setup to keep them within the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA ( https://www.law.cor

I suspect that's easier said than done. The whole take-down process is setup to keep them within the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 ). There's provision for repeat offenders - 502(i) - but no provision for fraudulent or malicious claims (other than the standard counter-notice). This leaves providers somewhat hamstrung when it comes to "the boy who cries wolf". If you make 100 illegitimate claims and then 1 legitimate claim, that 101st claim is still entirely within the scope of §502, and ignoring it because of the user's malicious history would fall foul of safe-harbor.