The whole issue is who gets to decide if the clain is false or not.
In Belgium the comany I used to work for we received several claims from SABAM for people uploading things through e.g. napster and other sharing programs (So this dates back a while) asking first for the name and address of the people doing this.
Legal told me to caugh it up and I told them no, because of the law on privacy. They must come with a legal order, otherwise WE would be punishable as a company. That was something they did not want to do.
Next SABAM asked us to block the sharing of content, to which we said no as well (unless court order).
The idea behind all this was that I, nor anybody in the company can legaly determine if there was a copyright infrindgement or not. I culd have a legal document of being allowed to stream Metallica's music and they just don't like that I have that.
It is similar to saying "I do not like that you park in front of my driveway." and I say "But that isn't your driveway. It is illgal poured asphalt." If we can not figure it out, we go to court, but untill then, I park there.
It obviously helped that at that time I read an official letter from the court letter that as long as no money was involed. e.g. people sharing music, SABAM should not bother the legal system. The moment money would be involved (e.g. burn CDs and sell them) they would be happy to help.
The courts should decide who is right and who is wrong (not commercial entity like e.g. Judge Judy
This is dated information. If you take legal advice from me, you owe me 10 quadrillian Euro.