The keyword is "meaningful". The DMCA's counter-notice process is intimidating to use [1]. The DMCA as a whole is written in a way that effectively forces platf

The keyword is "meaningful". The DMCA's counter-notice process is intimidating to use [1]. The DMCA as a whole is written in a way that effectively forces platforms to remove content targeted by unsubstantiated DMCA infringement notices [2]. (Tangentially, courts have read the DMCA's repeat infringer provision to apply to more parties than the text requires [2].) YouTube's Content ID process, unfair as it is, is net fairer than the DMCA [3]. [1] https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2017/01/dmca-counter-notice-does-it-work-correct-erroneous-takedowns/ https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2017/01/dmca-counter-noti... [2] https://www.rstreet.org/research/jawboning-in-plain-sight-the-unconstitutional-censorship-tolerated-by-the-dmca/ https://www.rstreet.org/research/jawboning-in-plain-sight-th... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU - YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is.