Shouldnt there be some recourse for that? Isnt that the point of it – thats the check that should stop this happening?

A takedown only works when there is a centralized source. If you send a thousand takedown notices for one and the same file and it is still for all intents and purposes freely available, then the entire exercise is just a total waste of overhead. At best it can become a marketing ploy enlightening individual users that the creator of the work has a page where you can pay for it if you found it good.

I can see a good reason for the same methodology to apply to physical goods, pirated brand names, and similar…but indexed files on cyberlockers and accessed via links on torrent pages shared and swapped without fiscal remuneration? No. The only effect possible will be the potential for collateral damage.

Any legislation will eventually be exploited in the worst way possible.

And that, boys and girls, is why common jurisprudence means that no law should be instituted where the harm CAN be worse than the cure. Since if that possibility exists it always will be the end result.

You’d think we’d have learned this after close to a few millenia of lawmaking, but it seems we have to reinvent and rediscover the legislative equivalent of the wheel – the most common concepts required in law – every ten or twenty years.