> I’ve literally never heard anyone suggest that the main, or even a major, problem with the DMCA safe harbor was too many takedown notices made with reasonable, good-faith belief in their accuracy that were nonetheless wrong.
I have seen the subject come up regarding organizations that carelessly bulk-send DMCA notices based on quick searches for possibly infringing material with little, or sometimes any, effort to confirm. Though I suppose that wouldn't be "good faith". But wouldn't that be a negligence standard? The law says "knowing".
> So, to me, this seems like an probably-unconstitutional solution to a non-problem.
As for the constitutional impediment, that may well be the case, but this is not a non-problem. If the DMCA regime shifts all the costs for a false statement (even if not a "knowingly" false statement) to the recipient (and/or their hosting provider), that's a problem. Maybe not a problem worth upending first amendment precedent over, but a problem nevertheless.
