http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131118/02152325272/warner-bros-admits-to-issuing-bogus-takedowns-gloats-to-court-how-theres-nothing-anyone-can-do-about-that.shtmlBasically, when issuin a DCMA you have to prove that you are representing the person/organisation you claim to represent, BUT you are allowed to lie about the material you claim to have the rights to. Or as the law talk was written:
But the DMCA expressly does not require the sender of a notice to certify under penalty of perjury that they have correctly identified the complained-of file as one of their works. A takedown notice’s “dentification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed” is not made under penalty of perjury. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(ii). A statement under penalty of perjury, under the DMCA, applies only to the claim to represent the copyright owner of the specific right alleged to be infringed, i.e. instances in which a copyrighted work is identified by a notice and the issuer falsely claims to be the representative entitled to take down the work so identified. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(vi).
So when the WB employees wanted to takedown some files from Hotfile, "because they were annoyed" they could claim that WB has the rights to those files, as long as they clearly state that they represent WB and don't lie about that (and having Warner Bros send a DCMA carries much more weight than, for example, my name.) but it does not matter wether those files actually belong to WB or not...
Obviously this is not what the law is intended to do but since there is no penalty for lying then it obviously means that lying is perfectly legal.