Platforms should only accept takedown requests through channels in which a person has credibly identified themselves so that they can be held accountable in this way.
DMCA has protection for creators. You can say "Copyright holder is wrong, put my content back up and I'll see them in court." and "They did this maliciously, I'll see them in court."
However, YouTube fake DMCA system is using the provision of "We don't have to host any content we don't want to." so creators are stuck dealing with corporate bureaucracy. Personally, I think YouTube should lose DMCA protection if they want to run this side system.
* YouTube has no liability for incorrect take-downs (17 USC § 512 (g) (1))
* That limitation on liability only exists if they restore access to the disabled material within 10-14 business days of receipt of a counter-notice (17 USC § 512 (g) (2) (C))
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
YouTube doesn't have to host any content they don't want to. However, it seems likely that a court would say "that doesn't absolve you of complying with the counter notice provisions of the DMCA. You can't just say that you don't want to host any content that goes through a counter notice." There are always limitations on the whole "we don't have to host things we don't want to." I doubt a court would let them use that as an excuse to ignore an explicit mandate of the DMCA, but IANAL.
I think the problem is more likely that creators don't want to sue YouTube or have the resources to go up against Google.
Why not? (at least legally speaking, it'd be a PR disaster I'm sure)
YouTube is not obligated to host any videos on their platform and US law allows for businesses to discriminate for almost any reason (except specific protected classes like race or sex).
In this case, the identity of the legal department would be directly connected to the infringing content found in the video which YouTube would have access to to verify. It also wouldn't be a takedown but a royalty demand or they could have registered "Let's play" as not requiring royalties. In principle though, YouTube or even the creator could just do all of this upfront.
That's my idea, in the vein of, "We have the technology to do this better."
I think it should switch to the strike system that YouTube, at least, favors: if you issue three fraudulent DMCA notices, you lose the ability to do so again in the future.
Sure. But you don't have the right to harass people who haven't done so. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I would imagine that at some point, vexatious litigation protections ought to kick in.
Yes, it'll cost money. But these fraudulent claims cost money, too.
With blood.
No I'm not being edgy. That is the only way anything is going to change regarding the litany of fucked up corporate practices in our country. Our governments are ineffective at best and are active abettors at worst (read The Chickenshit Club for why they won't ever seriously prosecute execs). Boeing (completely different scenario from the OP but it's recent) has no qualms with killing to maintain the status quo, why should people that want actual change be any different?