> Being therefore self-evidently invalid without needing external information beyond its text, the notice certainly doesn't impose any takedown obligation stemm

> Being therefore self-evidently invalid without needing external information beyond its text, the notice certainly doesn't impose any takedown obligation stemming from the DMCA even if GitHub wants to stay within the DMCA safe harbor. Companies that accept DMCA notices have made it plain as day that they have no interest in determining the merits of any particular DMCA notice on their own. Why bother taking the risk of ignoring a valid notice when there is no upside to declining an invalid one? The courts have also made it clear that they implicitly endorse invalid notices as a matter of course. I don't think any copyright-troll-as-a-service has ever been held accountable for rampant abuse of the system. In short, the material of the notice doesn't matter. The DMCA is a "how to delete someone else's post" button that requires no collateral from the attacker and the insurmountable lift of dragging oneself into an actual legal process for the victim to fight back.