> And if Popcorn had made your point, then they'd have made a good faith counter notice. You're directly addressing the takedown notice by disputing its basis in law.

Popcorn did make that point. It's obvious English is not the author's primary language, but can be understood to be making that claim:

> The code is 100 % ours and do[es] not contain any [MPA-owned] copyright material[,] please check again[.]

That's a good-faith counter notice and disputes the legal basis for the takedown.

> But a judge can't work off what a party ought to say, they have to adjudicate what they do say.

What are you reading into the counternotice that makes you believe it isn't in good-faith? (Nevermind that the original takedown from MPA was not in good faith.)

> Nevermind that the original takedown from MPAA was not in good faith.

I think people are reaching that conclusion from prior bad behavior, and maybe courts should consider that.

But I don't see a factual basis for that in their filing. The MPAA establishes legal precedent and harm done to them; they check all the boxes for what a complaint is supposed to be.

Also, this doesn't fall into the patterns of verbose but invalid complaints, e.g. it clearly isn't some takedown they spammed at a random publisher.

> What are you reading into the counternotice that makes you believe it isn't in good-faith?

It's what I'm not reading that means I can't make the case that it is good faith.

The complaint addresses one issue. All I can read in Popcorn's response is that they didn't do something else entirely.

Your argument is simply not what they wrote, and the law requires one to be explicit, which is why legal brief is a contradiction in terms.

Because it's not relevant to the complaint, it's as though they left it blank and hit submit.