No, the DMCA doesn't work like that. It doesn't require any action by the site owner at all. It simply says that if you demand removal in the proper manner and the content is removed from the site promptly, then the site owner cannot be held liable for any infringement. In practice, site owners are very responsive to DMCA demands from "big content" and pretty much ignore them from everyone else.

> In practice, site owners are very responsive to DMCA demands from "big content" and pretty much ignore them from everyone else.

That isn't even FUD, it's an outright lie. Please take your unfounded allegations and conspiracy theories elsewhere.

(I work with/know personally several people/small organisations who are content producers, whose work has been widely ripped off, but who have been quite successful at limiting their unwanted exposure on the big name content sharing sites because of DMCA takedown notices and similar provisions elsewhere in the world.)

Granted, the plural of anecdote is not data, but I've filed six DMCA takedown notices for photographs I've placed under Creative Commons licenses but were not used according to the terms of those licenses. Every company I dealt with took swift action to take down the infringing material.

I am sure those were reasonable demands but the proposition here is for a nuisance "work to rule" campaign. Understanding the political motivation, the big companies could call your bluff and wait for a court order, expensive to obtain.

Not a real downside risk, but my point is that the circumstances are not directly comparable once the intention is to kick the hornet's nest.

Ha-ha. Let's take Google's current approach to DMCA for instance. You are a small guy. A big guy sends a completely baseless DMCA complain. Google takes down the URL. Well, that’s the policy blah-blah; everything is according DMCA. You send a contra-down notice. According to DMCA you don’t need to explain anything. However Google sends you an email (I’m quoting) “We would like to help you, but we require more information. Please provide additional details clarifying the reason for your reinstatement request.” That put you in an awkward position. Since the initial take-down notice was completely baseless – you simply has nothing to provide. So this time Google doesn’t react with the same speed. Their email reads “We have received your DMCA counter notification dated XX/XX/XXXX. As described in 17 U.S.C. 512(g), we will forward the counter notification to the complainant. If we do not receive notice that the complainant has brought a court action within 10 to 14 days, we will reinstate the material in question.” As you can see – immediate respond just disappeared. Google wants to wait 10-14 days despite of direct and explicit SOPA text that allows (requires actually) reinstatement of the content. Just read it. Google is going to keep your content banned based on a started court action(!) - not the court verdict. Well, you might think it works both ways. If that’s the case – try to send a semi-baseless complain about a big guy page. Somehow it will not work the same way.

That's what happens right now. And that's Google. no-shmno evel - but Google does try to be neutral. That's as much as they could go.

And now SOPA/PIPA is about to create the situation when the same will happen with entire websites. Heh…

Copyright law requires Google to wait at least 10 and at most 14 days before reinstating access to the content:

"replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice" 512(g)(2)(C)