Do the "abusers" tend to be the actual owners though? If not, there's no actual IP to take away from them.

If not implemented carefully, this could incentivize shell games.

Does matter whether the abusers are the owners themselves or merely representative agents of that the owners have hired?

I don't think that it does.

Per the definition, yes. A DMCA notice submitted by someone other than the copyright owner or someone acting on their behalf is invalid.

Also I could totally seeing this getting abused with competitors posting fake DMCA for one’s content to get their competition public domained.

That seems like you’d be committing perjury, which the victim could prove easily by showing there’s no authorization.

If you submit a DMCA notice without authorization, then it’s perjury.

If you submit one with authorization, then the authorizing party should put their IP as collateral.

That's what I had in mind as the consequences in the last paragraph. I'm not sure what the process for that reclassification would look like. I think it does need some level of actual confirmation that the copyright owner is responsible for the abuse, while ignoring of abusers by a platform is easy and decentralized.

Some penalty is clearly appropriate, but IP protection is part of the constitution.

Do you have a source for that? I don't see anything in the US constitution being remotely close to Intellectual Property protection. It does have several protection on property, but I'm pretty sure it's talking about the physical kind.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:

> “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...

That is a power granted to congress, not a constitutional right.

That is, the constitution grants Congress the authority to create a legislative IP right. It does not create a constitutional IP right.

You can tell, because Congress could say: “stuff it, no IP rights for anyone. Copyright no longer exists for new works”, and that would be constitutional.

People interpret the constitution in different ways, but this is commonly interpreted as a requirement not just a power. Critically, this stuff is interpreted by the Supreme Court not simply anyone so someone could bring a case should congress fail to provide any protection.

Thus congress could specify that copyright only lasts for 1 month, but they can’t just ignore it or set it to 1 second without the courts getting involved.

If the legislature wanted to protect IP differently, it is at their prerogative though.

For instance, if they think the value of IP to promoting the arts and sciences is reduced significantly by IP claimants committing perjury and abusing other people's freedom of expression, and that the situation needs a remedy.

There's nothing saying it has to be this way, merely that granting rights is a thing that can be done. Y'all can find this section of the constitution I'm sure, and it's dull but short! This is super up to the legislature, otherwise how would they have passed the DMCA in the first place? Of course they could make a law to revoke IP for any kind of thing they decide they need to -- like for national security:

"The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."