I think you may misunderstand what a DMCA takedown notice is, or how they are used.

You send DMCA takedown notices to innocent parties, that's how they work, that's how they're designed to work, that's the only way they work at all. If you want to send something to a guilty party then you send a lawsuit instead.

You can't send a DMCA takedown notice to Lex Luthor's office supplier, because the office supplier doesn't claim DMCA safe harbor. YouTube does, Steam does, so you can send DMCA takedown notices to Steam and YouTube. You can't send DMCA takedown notices to Lex Luthor, his office supplier, or the publisher at fault here.

In effect, the DMCA takedown notice is just a way of telling YouTube, "Lex Luthor does not have the rights to this video." This is not going after YouTube in any meaningful way. This is exactly what the DMCA is designed to do... prevent YouTube or Steam from being targets of lawsuits. Because Steam accepts DMCA takedown notices, they are protected from certain lawsuits for copyright infringment. DMCA takedown is a process where you tell Steam about third-party copyright infringement, and they remove the content and this clears Steam of liability.

When Lex Luthor posts my video on YouTube, I can do two things: I can send a DMCA to YouTube and I can sue Lex Luthor. Suing Lex Luthor is expensive, so I start with the DMCA takedown notice to YouTube.

Ok then its like Superman sending DMCA takedown notices to Youtube over Lex Luther's unauthorised use of Superman's S. Rather than destroying the space laser that's about to destroy the earth. :P

Possibly a better story...

Lex Luthor sends Superman a video threatening the earth. Superman posts that video to YouTube, hoping to garner public support for his upcoming moon mission.

Lex Luthor sends a DCMA takedown to YouTube alleging that he owns the rights to the video and that Superman had no right to post it.

No, Superman's S would be covered by trademark. Sending DMCA takedown notices in response to trademark violations may expose you to liability under DMCA section 512(f).

It seems like you have an objection to the DMCA, but the story about space lasers is a bit hard to understand. I'm not sure what your complaint is. The reason I chose "Lex Luthor" is because choosing a name makes it easier to understand hypothetical scenarios (instead of using them/they everywhere, or "the infringing party"), and because he took forty cakes, and that's as many as four tens.

My point is that you should be going after the actual problem, rather then messing round with the periphery. The DMCA is designed to combat a diffuse mass of people that you can't really target directly. The publisher like the gigantic space laser is one large target. Target it directly.

To torture another metaphor, this may only be one starfighter against a star destroyer, in that case, if you don't have an ion canon, kamikazing the shield generators is an option, but not your first choice.

Don't ask me what the DMCA is in that metaphor :P

in the DMCA case, you cease their profit-making pipelines, so that when you go for the actual problem, the defenders have less reason to defend (and thus, less incentive to throw more money into the defense). Theres a big difference in defending something that brings in 100k/yr, versus something that’s been DMCA’d everywhere relevant, and can’t be sold (is there any reason left to continue defending, unless you expect to win & get sales rights back?)

For any weaker party, targetting the problem itself is too expensive to start with, especially if the defendant is the only one currently making money off the product (the accuser only has external funds to work with, no matter how valuable the product is/was, while the defender has both product value and external funds; DMCA can remove one of those revenue streams)

> Don't ask me what the DMCA is in that metaphor :P

If you are basing your argument on a metaphor but can't explain the metaphor then maybe it's time to step back and reevaluate your argument. "Target it directly" is Hollywood advice, it's insane to use that as your only legal strategy.