"On penalty of perjury" basically always means nothing. Since being wrong isn't a crime, they have to demonstrate that you knew you were lying, which is either going to be impossible, or a long drawn out investigation.
It is ironic that if you're wrong about content being infringing and get it taken down, there's no punishment unless you intentionally lie. If you're infringing, but thought your use was fair use, you've still committed a crime.
I do wonder how some of these satisfy the "good faith" clause, though. This isn't one of those cases (I think Sega is wrong, but I can see how they meet good faith here). Some of the other cases have involved filing DMCA complaints against Wikipedia for completely unrelated articles. Once or twice I've seen companies files DMCA complaints against themselves. I can't see how that could possibly be in good faith; they clearly haven't even looked at the content, which should preclude any claim of "good faith". You can't make a good faith argument if you have no idea what you're even arguing.
It is ironic that if you're wrong about content being infringing and get it taken down, there's no punishment unless you intentionally lie. If you're infringing, but thought your use was fair use, you've still committed a crime.
I do wonder how some of these satisfy the "good faith" clause, though. This isn't one of those cases (I think Sega is wrong, but I can see how they meet good faith here). Some of the other cases have involved filing DMCA complaints against Wikipedia for completely unrelated articles. Once or twice I've seen companies files DMCA complaints against themselves. I can't see how that could possibly be in good faith; they clearly haven't even looked at the content, which should preclude any claim of "good faith". You can't make a good faith argument if you have no idea what you're even arguing.