This is how the DMCA, as written, is supposed to work. Step 1: Alice uploads some media to Bob's website Step 2: Charlie decides Alice's upload violates his c

This is how the DMCA, as written, is supposed to work. Step 1: Alice uploads some media to Bob's website Step 2: Charlie decides Alice's upload violates his copyright Step 3: Charlie sends Bob a DMCA takedown notice. Step 4: Bob takes down Alice's media, issues Alice a notice that he's received a claim, and is now protected from being sued by Charlie. Step 5: Alice disagrees that her upload violates Charlie's copyright, and issues a counter-claim to Bob. Step 6: Bob reinstates Alice's upload, notifies Charlie that Alice has contested his claim, and is now protected from being sued by Alice. Step 7: Charlie sues Alice, because he still believes the content to be in violation of his copyright, or gives up Step 8: Court case / counter suit decides damages between Charlie and Alice The problem is not the DMCA system, which if anything is too generous to the media host. The problem is YouTube's added bullshit layer, which goes something like "Charlie hints that he might send a DMCA takedown, Bob takes down Alice's video and threatens to ban her from the platform"