They can but that isn't what is happening according to the article.

> The notice listed three URLs which needed to be “disabled immediately” along with a statement that the “information in the notification is accurate.” Unfortunately, we were unable to comply with the takedown demands because the URLs provided were not for TorrentFreak.com but an entirely different domain that we’d never heard of, under someone else’s control.

I don't consider that a reasonable disagreement, I consider that a bogus claim.

How can you be confident it's a bogus claim? If, for example, the "entirely different domain" provided a TorrentFreak email address as their contact info (presumably along with all the other assets they copied from TorrentFreak) - that seems like a perfectly reasonable mistake.

> one with our logo, authors’ names, and sundry other pieces of information removed

If they made the effort to remove that information why assume they left the contact info?

Either way this absolutely wasn't a case of fair use. They sent the claims to the wrong people.

> They can but that isn't what is happening according to the article.

I'm aware, but I don't see how that's relevant to these comments. Someone proposed a system to help with this problem (requiring a fee to file a takedown), and now we're discussing the issues with such a system. Those issues extend beyond the cases discussed in the article.