One of the issues is that these aren't proper DMCA claims, instead Google/Youtube do a weird pseudo-DMCA thing where they just agree to take down your content and make you argue about it.
But the DMCA allows immediate countersuit for false notice with damages. If Google/Youtube actually just forwarded strict DMCA notices and no longer did takedowns once you counter-claimed, you could sue the trolls and collect damages. At that point it's just a free lunch for some bored lawyers willing to publish public domain works, covers, etc that are protected.
One of the loopholes of the counter-claim, is that you accept whatever random jurisdiction of the original claimer as your jurisdiction, pulling you usually into US Sphere.
It's a rigged game, its better not to engage with.
the specific laws and consequences from ai:
> Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), for a DMCA counter-notice to be legally valid, the person filing it must explicitly state in writing that they consent to the jurisdiction of a US Federal District Court.
> If you live in the US, you consent to the federal court in your local district.
> If you live outside the US, you must consent to the judicial district where the service provider (YouTube/Google) is located—which means the Northern District of California.
> For a creator living in Europe, Asia, or South America, filing a counter-notice means signing a document that legally exposes them to a federal copyright lawsuit in California. Even if the creator is 100% in the right (e.g., they used public domain footage or have clear Fair Use), the sheer financial threat of having to hire a US federal defense attorney to fight a lawsuit in California is often enough to make them abandon the dispute.
Yes. However, there are a lot of attorneys who do not want to take on the risk of representing a small client[0] and advise them to just settle - that's why copyright trolling works.
In addition, some platforms have their own parallel dispute resolution processes that have to be navigated first before you can make a formal DMCA complaint or counter-complaint. The reason for this is because those platforms have a lot of user piracy, and having their own system to ID and takedown work their users are reuploading makes it easier for them to negotiate their own licenses to the work. These systems are unregulated and often biased in favor of the legacy media companies who are selling them these rights in ways the DMCA process isn't.
The average attorney is not an expert platform Kremlinologist, and law schools don't teach how to fight YouTube Content ID - mainly because the things that actually work against Content ID are things that would get you punished harder in a real court of law.
Finally, the actual case we're talking about - Luanti - is a lot more involved than typical piracy cases or DMCA abuse cases. They are, after all, trying to make a game engine for Minecraft-like voxel games, and the screenshots they're showing off of those games are not entirely dissimilar to Minecraft. This is not "Luanti is an infringing copy of Minecraft", but "There is enough similarity to survive a motion to dismiss and require an actual trial". At which point the actual cost to defend goes from 4-5 figures to 6-7.
[0] The massive payments attorneys get for representation are priced into the cost of education and testing required to become a licensed attorney. As a result, every minute you spend representing someone who can't afford you is time not being spent paying back student loans.
But the DMCA allows immediate countersuit for false notice with damages. If Google/Youtube actually just forwarded strict DMCA notices and no longer did takedowns once you counter-claimed, you could sue the trolls and collect damages. At that point it's just a free lunch for some bored lawyers willing to publish public domain works, covers, etc that are protected.