> The DMCA notice itself only contains the repo name and the DMCA submitter. https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-

> The DMCA notice itself only contains the repo name and the DMCA submitter. https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi... > Provide your contact information. Include your email address, name, telephone number and physical address. They redacted a couple of those on the actual DMCA request, but if via their form mail name/email was in a different field. That's a bunch of info they could verify, though: > You May Receive a Counter Notice. Any user affected by your takedown notice may decide to submit a counter notice. If they do, we will re-enable their content within 10-14 days unless you notify us that you have initiated a legal action seeking to restrain the user from engaging in infringing activity relating to the content on GitHub. [...] > GitHub Isn't The Judge. GitHub exercises little discretion in the process other than determining whether the notices meet the minimum requirements of the DMCA. It is up to the parties (and their lawyers) to evaluate the merit of their claims, bearing in mind that notices must be made under penalty of perjury. They say just "don't be a bot", "ask nicely", etc. There's a lot of trust on the DMCA notice itself... kind of a weird way to handle this. It's also the same way Google/YouTube and the like handle them, just trust the submitted implicitly. I wonder what percentage of Facebook/Google/etc "censorship" claims are just their inherent belief that threat of perjury is something that a criminal/miscreant gives a crap about. "But they promisssseddd it was the truth!!", technically legal, probably legally safer to argue that in court than leave it "knowingly" distributing copyrighted work after you've been notified. Thanks legal system! This country is a complete mess.