> I still don't quite understand what aspect of the law you consider draconian.
The fact that it accepts complaints as factual and valid without evidence and without any legal due process for conflicting claims. Conflicting claims are supposed to be decided by a court, and neither party is supposed to have their claim accepted as fact and acted on until a court has decided.
Accepting a DMCA complaint doesn't mean it's factual or valid. It simply means the content is removed for 14 days, if a valid counternotice is submitted and no lawsuit is filed.
So to be clear - the 14 day period is what you consider draconian?
> Accepting a DMCA complaint doesn't mean it's factual or valid.
Yes, it does, because the content gets taken down. That means treating the content as if it does infringe copyright. That means treating the claim of infringement as valid. Saying "well, we aren't accepting it as valid, but we're still taking down the content anyway" is just sophistry. Taking down the content is accepting the claim as valid, or would be in any sane legal regime. But we don't live in a sane legal regime.
The fact that it accepts complaints as factual and valid without evidence and without any legal due process for conflicting claims. Conflicting claims are supposed to be decided by a court, and neither party is supposed to have their claim accepted as fact and acted on until a court has decided.