You wouldn't believe the amount of crappy DMCA notices that get sent out by various bots. So far we've received ones for:

1) Our copy of jQuery (FOX claimed they owned it)

2) Our contact page

3) Our custom written javascript includes

4) Our CSS

5) A daily notice for two weeks, even though the infringing file was removed within minutes of the first request

It's utterly abusrd. There's really no way to make the crappy notices stop (you can't contact the company that sends them, they ignore email/phone calls).

But sending out fake DMCA notices is perjury! And here companies are creating bots to do this? This is absotulely ridiculous.

The only part of a DMCA takedown notice that is under penalty of perjury is: "A statement [...] under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." If a takedown notice doesn't have meet all the requirements, it can be safely ignored (ie. you the ISP or host will still get sued, but might get it dismissed).

Note that for a counter-notice, the penalty for perjury is somewhat broader, in that it includes your statement that you have a good-faith belief that the material was removed by mistake or due to mis-identification. This means that you technically cannot make a valid counter-notice for what you have reason to believe is a bad-faith takedown notice, even if that bad-faith notice does not carry the penalty of perjury for the sender. (The sender may still be liable for your legal fees.)

This imbalance where the first to send notice in a copyright dispute has such a strong advantage and presumption of being right may even be a violation of the equal protection clause.

I'd say there's more bots sending out DMCA notices then actual people.

There's essentially no penalty for sending out incorrect ones. We'd end up having to take the senders to court, which would end up being very costly.

Every program has bugs.

Sony shouldn't be handing power of attorney to robots just yet.

When the program makes legal statements under penalty of perjury on behalf of its operator, the program should not be permitted to have bugs.

IANAL, but isn't it perjury, or at least something subject to civil sanctions, to attest to facts in this manner without personally performing enough due diligence to ascertain the facts are at least probably correct? The Bar Association should be interested in its members signing-off on legal documents they have not properly vetted. Perhaps the best course of action is an education campaign directed at the States' Bar Associations.

Likewise, when an automated stock trading program makes unfavorable trades, the company running the program is responsible for those trades.

To the extent machines are allowed to proxy for humans, the humans are fully responsible for the actions, automated or not.