> they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim.
No, they wouldn't? The law clearly says that what they have to do "upon notification of claimed infringement" is "to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". Nowhere does it say they are even allowed , let alone required, to legally review the claim.
If JoeGamer uploads a video of him playing dark souls with music in the background, and MusicCorp claims infringement, YT has to remove the video without putting it past a lawyer. You and I are on the same page so far.
Once JoeGamer contests the claim and says, "No, I got that from one of the dozen websites that offer CC licensed music, here is the link," YT either needs to have a lawyer review it, or simply side with MusicCorp. If YT sides with MusicCorp, YT quickly loses their monopoly.
Since the alternative is a terrible business strategy, I think the term "need" applies here.
You are factually incorrect about the well-known DMCA notice and counter-notice provisions. Please read 17 USC §512, subsections (c) and (g). The comment to which you are replying quotes what I presume from context to be subsection (c) (the language is repeated across multiple subsections).
The law provides that service providers can avoid liability by following these procedures, which afford them no discretion or opportunity to review claimed infringement.
You claim that "DMCA claims [...] [impose] a significant legal burden on YT; they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim." From the statute, it appears instead that reviewing section (c) notices or section (g) counter-notices and acting based on their own purported determination of infringement or non-infringement would cause the loss of their safe harbor, a safe harbor available only when the provider follows the nondiscretionary procedure laid out in (c)(1) and (g)(2).
> YT either needs to have a lawyer review it, or simply side with MusicCorp
No, YT must "replace the removed material and cease disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless [it] first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification (..) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order"
There's no opportunity for review by YT, from either side.
No, they wouldn't? The law clearly says that what they have to do "upon notification of claimed infringement" is "to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". Nowhere does it say they are even allowed , let alone required, to legally review the claim.