When some random person copyright strikes your YT account you have no rights because it isn't based on the law. Its the equivalent of someone going to the manager of Starbucks and falsely saying you are harassing them, then the manager tells you to leave or they'll call the police. One private party told another private party you are a bad person and the private party in control punished you.
If memory serves the whole system came about way back because the big media companies and record companies got together to sue YT after google acquired them. So you might say the system was designed to let purported copyright holders act arbitrarily on purpose.
You could try to go after YouTube but expect to be permabanned from all of Google. You probably signed away your right to sue anyhow with some YT/Google TOS update.
The essential idea here is that there is a real cost per DMCA notice that turns into a reward for those incorrectly accused. As the total number of DMCA notices go up the more bond money is floating around ready to pay those harmed by the system. DMCA takedown agents now have a real incentive to get it right. The better they are the more money they save. The trick is to set the bond high enough to turn it into a real value prop. The only thing missing, I think, is the upward pressure on the base bond. I think that should be set by the global ratio of successful to reversed takedowns. If the industry is spamming the bond goes up and payments go up. If the industry is policing itself the bond goes down.
The actual answer is to tear the entire fucking system down because it only exists to serve megacorporations, and start fresh, but there's nothing simple about that.
Although I suppose a fixed % would limit how many claims you can file, which might be an issue for megacorporations who actually deal with lots of infringement -- although it would definitely reduce spurious claims.
Hmm, maybe coming up with a good law is actually hard.
https://abcnews.com/ABCNews/finnish-businessman-handed-12100...