An internet service provider can impose any rules they want unless a client can produce a contract saying otherwise. Safe harbors are an indemnification against being sued for contributory infringement. That doesn't obligate them to host non-infringing content.

Given that the DMCA is not a fundamental property of the universe, rather it's legislation. That legislation was written in a way to give both copyright holders, people who want to put content on the internet, and service providers a framework for dealing with copyright. If that framework isn't working out for all the interested parties, then it can be changed. When the framework isn't doing it's job, it should be changed. And in my opinion, part of that is that there should be no safe harbor for:

* content that is upload by users who cannot be affirmatively identified. * content that is uploaded by users who are not within the jurisdiction of the united states. * if a service provider implements mechanisms that defeat the intent of the law

Ultimately, yes, I get it that no one is required to host others' content. But at the same time we're not required to provide get out of jail cards.

> * content that is uploaded by users who are not within the jurisdiction of the united states

Really? And how do you think that works out for the millions of content creators in Europe, Asia, Australasia, Africa and South America?

I think it works out that Google spends more time ensuring that the content they import into the US and redistribute is something they can legally import and redistribute.