I agree with you, it's in bad faith to forward notices from a machine that has proven to be unreliable without review, but I don't read that line the same as you did.
> has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized
What doesn't this line say? It doesn't say that the material identified by the request is known in fact to be exactly the thing mentioned here as the "material" the copyright owner has not authorized the use of.
They only have to certify that they own some material and its use in the manner complained of is not authorized. This is a gaping loop-hole and it has been known since the law was penned. If you think my reading of this is obtuse, I don't think we can resolve it here between the two of us, but I did not make up this interpretation.
> has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized
What doesn't this line say? It doesn't say that the material identified by the request is known in fact to be exactly the thing mentioned here as the "material" the copyright owner has not authorized the use of.
They only have to certify that they own some material and its use in the manner complained of is not authorized. This is a gaping loop-hole and it has been known since the law was penned. If you think my reading of this is obtuse, I don't think we can resolve it here between the two of us, but I did not make up this interpretation.