I think they have a good case against you. Linking is linking. Personally I love Bandai, they publish a lot of good anime.
I don't know why people keep assuming that just because they don't host the files, that they are in no way liable for contributing to the crime. YOU ARE ! You can't claim "I'm the middle man", and what your affiliates say about it, means nothing to the owners of the copy written material. That's like saying: "I gave money to the guy so that he could purchase liquor for a minor...I didn't actually do the purchasing, he did that of his own free will, I just made it possible for him to commit the crime.....my mom doesn't have a problem with it, so why should the police?" Makes no sense....you know that you are linking to illegal material, so your argument is ridiculous. You should study the law first before you just assume that what ever justification that you made up in your mind, must be the truth. Bottom line is you are completely wrong for providing access to illegal activity and if I were you, I would bend over backwards so as not to get hauled into court for lost income for all of the downloads that you allowed through your site, that may have normally been purchases.
One could argue that you didn't actually give him the money for that purpose so liability cannot be proven and should not be assumed. I still live in a world where folks are innocent until proven guilty, not presumed guilty.
I do not believe that linking to the main page of a site (even if that site infringes) has ever been brought up in a copyright case as being congtributory infringement. The two cases from the article above referred to sites that were offering software that would break copy protection schemes. There is specific law in in the DMCA about providing access to software or hardware that is designed to break technological copyright protection schemes. However, that is a different ballgame. Directly linking to copyrighted material on a site that does not have the rights to display the material is contributory. But I have seen no case where linking to the site is contributory. Otherwise, the media would be suing every site that had a link to the piratebay's main page. If the Bandai representatives havee told you that they do not recognize this person as being authorized to represent them, I would report the DMCA notice. Filing a notice under false pretenses is illegal.
The DMCA is fake, way fake. Since I emailed the supposed issuer, spoken to the law firm he supposedly represented, and got my host to stop jumping every time someone said boo to them - I havn't had a single problem. This was never brought up again. Probably just some kid being immature.
Attorneys use email to send legal notices all the time when allowed by law. DCMA notices are most certainly allowed to be sent via email.
In my experience most attorneys won't even do business by e-mail, it's just more formal to use standard mail when sending a notice.
if people were to submit links to his site, then he would not be responsible...as he would not have been the one to submit the link...think about the shams placed on ripoffreport.com - of course they have been sued, and they are still around...there are laws that protect websites if the owner ie not the one that actually posts the content, i do not remember what the law is at the moment...but it is a good one as others can post content to the site as 3rd party posters, and the owner can not be held responsible....their is always a loop hole somewhere.
Most attorneys I know absolutely use email. Of course, with most legal matters it is more prudent to do so in writing using regular mail. My reading of the DCMA is that email is most certainly allowed. "To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider" The code further requires any authorized agent who is to receive these notices must provide a: "the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent." Reading those two sections of the DCMA together (and they are in the same section) it is clear that a written notice can be via electronic mail. I was really only taking issue with your comment that people should send it via mail like an "actual attorney" because actual attorneys also use email. The upshot is this, as the recipient of a take down notice under the DMCA, you must treat an email notice the same as one sent via regular mail. However, if I were representing someone and sending the notice I would do it via email, fax, and written letter.
That's a pretty dynamic question. First, there's a huge chance the thing will either get caught in a spam filter or accidentally mistaken by spam when reviewed by a Level I tech. Second, I don't remember ever seeing a legitimate DMCA come across e-mail. I'll leave you with this, if you want me to review a DMCA complaint as a legitimate complaint and actually take prompt action and ensure it gets done it better come snail mail so I can verify the legitimacy first hand.
I've been an attorney for more than 30 years and I use email almost exclusively for all my correspondence. While I may send a DMCA notice or other cease and desist letter by mail as a follow-up in some cases, I feel very comfortable sending the notices by email. In many, if not most, instances, webmasters provide a contact email address and no mailing address on their website. Even their whois information is often hidden behind privacy protection. I don't feel that I have to go through the motions of using stationery and a postage stamp to send a message that may or may not be received when the email address is readily available.