> Nevermind that the original takedown from MPAA was not in good faith. I think people are reaching that conclusion from prior bad behavior, and maybe courts s

> Nevermind that the original takedown from MPAA was not in good faith. I think people are reaching that conclusion from prior bad behavior, and maybe courts should consider that. But I don't see a factual basis for that in their filing. The MPAA establishes legal precedent and harm done to them; they check all the boxes for what a complaint is supposed to be. Also, this doesn't fall into the patterns of verbose but invalid complaints, e.g. it clearly isn't some takedown they spammed at a random publisher. > What are you reading into the counternotice that makes you believe it isn't in good-faith? It's what I'm not reading that means I can't make the case that it is good faith. The complaint addresses one issue. All I can read in Popcorn's response is that they didn't do something else entirely. Your argument is simply not what they wrote, and the law requires one to be explicit, which is why legal brief is a contradiction in terms. Because it's not relevant to the complaint, it's as though they left it blank and hit submit.