It's legally unclear whether automated takedown notices (especially when they end up taking down legitimate material) are legitimate or not. The only case I kno

It's legally unclear whether automated takedown notices (especially when they end up taking down legitimate material) are legitimate or not. The only case I know of was a countersuit in the Warner Brothers/Hotfile case, but unfortunately Hotfile lost the original suit (WB had sued them for copyright infringement), closed and settled both cases. The EFF filed an amicus brief (https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Hotfile.EFF_.Amicus.Brief_.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Hotfile.EFF_.Amicus.Brief... ) arguing that this kind of takedown was illegal. Warner Brothers, unsurprisingly, disagreed (http://www.scribd.com/doc/184407656/warnperj542724ff-69be-4202-a6f7-de772fa4e074 http://www.scribd.com/doc/184407656/warnperj542724ff-69be-42... ), with the primary argument being that the perjury language only refers to the claim that the agent is authorised on behalf of the copyright holder to act on their behalf, and not on the claim that copyright is being infringed.