Note that if &#x27;real&#x27; DMCA notices were to be the norm, then YouTube, by law, would be unable to give back access to materials before 10 business days expired, and only after receiving a valid DMCA counter-notice[0].<p>Compare this to the current system where they actually have the ability to evaluate the content ID notice independently and then make adjustments.  They may not always use that ability, but at least they have it.  With DMCA, their hands are tied.<p>Specifically, 17 US code 512 (g)(2)(C) (emphasis mine):<p>&quot;(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not <i>less than 10</i>, nor more than 14, <i>business days</i> following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.&quot;<p>That&#x27;s two full weeks (not including weekends and holidays), where even if the DMCA is clearly bogus, they have no choice but to keep the content offline if they want to keep their safe harbour status.<p>So it may not be the best system, but the DMCA isn&#x27;t either.<p>[0] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;17&#x2F;512" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;17&#x2F;512</a> section (g)