DMCA counter-claims require the name, address and phone number of the repo owner which is why fake DMCAs are a well-known method of doxxing anonymous people. T

DMCA counter-claims require the name, address and phone number of the repo owner which is why fake DMCAs are a well-known method of doxxing anonymous people. The DMCA is a very flawed law that is easy to abuse and isn't even effective at stopping actual copyright infringement from being rampant on the internet. My understanding is that you can sue for damages if somebody makes a fraudulent DMCA claim but that's not a sufficient deterrent because lawsuits are expensive and often the damages are small or non-existent. For example, it almost certainly wouldn't be worth it for the owner of this repo to sue the MPA (if an actual attorney disagrees, then I defer to their opinion). For the MPA, this DMCA is all upside and no risk even though it seems legally dubious. For the repo owner, a counter-claim is a self-doxx that opens up the risk of being sued by the MPA (if they think it's actually worth suing over) for very little upside. Which is why this is such a good example of why the DMCA is a bad law.