Here's the takedown:
-YouTube user posts a clip from the Superbowl, of the "this telecast is copyrighted by the NFL... etc, etc"
-NFL sends YouTube a takedown notice, citing the DMCA. so far so good.
-YouTube complies, sends poster copy of the notice
-Poster sends counter-notice (Sect. 512 of the DMCA), demanding clip is reinstated, and submits declaration that the clip is not a copyright infringement but rather used under fair use, and the clip was removed by mistake. counter-notice is forwarded by YouTube to NFL lawyers
-YouTube puts the video back up. still, all ok legally here
NFL sends 2nd takedown notice, 100% in violation of the DMCA sect 512, which requires responses to counter-notices to be made in court. By sending a 2nd notice, the NFL is "knowingly materially misrepresent[ing] ... that material or activity is infringing."
The catch? The poster is not only a lawyer, but a law professor specializing in copyright, a founder of Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, and a volunteer with the EFF. She has noted that should the NFL push the issue, they would be liable for 100% of her legal fees if they took her to court over this.