The problem with take downs is that no one has to show proof of their claim, they only have to make the claim. Since it was handcrafted by the RIAA for themselves, they made sure that there were no repercussions to making false claims or more properly incorrect claims. If the owner of the website in question should refuse the take down notice then the ISP must either takedown the site or ultimately be responcible also. Most of the ISPs are looking at the liability side and not looking out for the protection of their customers in the process. There was one such where a Mr. Rossi was charged with allowing his members access to the Lord Of The Rings sequel far before its filming was even complete. Now whether Mr Rossi ran a scam site or not, I will not get into. However the idea that such was not possible at the time of the takedown notice was of little interest to the MPAA. They made the claim and it was backed up in court that Mr. Rossi was in the wrong regardless of if it was true, possible, or even feasible. Since there is no need to show proof of claim and no damages should those claims prove to be false you now have such as this article where some organizations toes are stepped on and they are out to stop the criticism that might lead unsure potentials away from the path that organization might wish its potential err, victims to go. Certainly some sort of penality should be required for false or misleading claims on take down notices.