I'd be curious to know if this has ever been challenged in court as an unconstitutional prior restraint. Pretty obvious problems if you get people e.g. issuing fraudulent takedowns 10 days before an election.
The bigger issue is that Content ID has always been a way for YouTube to side-step the DMCA in a way that's beneficial to big copyright holders -- channel operators assume risk fighting a takedown in a way that was never a part of the DMCA.
"Comply with the DMCA" is the issue. If the law requires user-generated content hosts to take down content and leave it down for 10 days or they lose a legal protection that keeps them from being incinerated by lawyers, that's effectively a legal requirement that they take it down for 10 days, i.e. a prior restraint, which is typically not allowed.
> The DMCA doesn't provide strict timelines (just that the initial takedown requires the provider to "act expeditiously", and nothing for restoration).
What's this about the 10 days in 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(2) then?