Of course, you better be sure that you are in the right if you're gonna do that though.
The problem is, in the worst case Joe Random has to go to court over a snippet of music that randomly blasted from a passing car in a youtube video and risk going to battle with, say, Sony Music - a conglomerate with eight billion dollars yearly revenue. Many cannot take on that level of financial risk, not just the risk from the court verdict itself (punitive/damages) but also the cost of all the lawyers involved.
And at that point, we're in kangaroo court territory - when people have the theoretical right to due process but practically cannot use that right due to the risk involved, it's nothing short of the foundation of democracy being undermined. We need a cap on lawyer costs and damage awards so that the 99% can have their fair day in court against the 1% again without having to fear going bankrupt. At the moment, the only resource the 99% have is to go to the media and raise a stink, but the success chance for that route is probably on the same order as a lottery win.
After a few days, they got back to us saying actually we needed to file a counter notice form, which involves pasting the URLs one by one into a web form with an explanation for why the page did not violate copyright. So Eric and I split up the URLs and did that, one by one, for 317 URLs
We filed the counter-notice on Thursday. As of the time of this comment (Monday afternoon), we have not heard back, and our pages have not been reinstated