The problem is that the DMCA is designed to explicitly allow and encourage weaponisation of fraudulent take down claims. Specifically in GH doesn’t obey the DMCA and pull the repo the DMCA makes them legally liable for the alleged infringement. Why would they take on that risk for any random organization/project that likely can’t afford the legal costs?
Not a lot of incentives to do so though because if they are incorrect about it they just took on a lot of liability.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...
I'm just gonna quote GitHub "The DMCA requires that you swear to the facts in your copyright complaint under penalty of perjury. It is a federal crime to intentionally lie in a sworn declaration. (See U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1621.) Submitting false information could also result in civil liability — that is, you could get sued for money damages. The DMCA itself provides for damages against any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing. "
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee...
The law also recognizes that attorneys work for their clients and with in many ways are obligated to do what the client wishes. that includes "fucking around" with the law, it seems. Legal ethics rules are supposed to prevent the worst of it, but because it happened so rarely prior to the current day, the legal system has developed no "antibodies" against this kind of behavior.
it is also becoming clear to attorneys that there is little or no punishment for malevolent behavior except in extremely egregious situations, so expect this trend to continue for a while until some remedy is developed.
