Takedown notices need to have a refundable processing fee. The fee should be refunded if the targeted publisher agrees the content shouldn't be online. If the takedown notice gets a counter notice, then the hosting provider/platform should split the fee with the targeted publisher.
The problem with DMCA notices is that the party trying to takedown content has zero incentive to behave in good faith. A $10-$30 fee would provide an incredible disincentive for the worst sort of trolling and over-broad shotgun takedown notices while protecting legitimate IP holders (who would see their fee refunded almost every time)
This doesn't make a lot of sense. It would make the DMCA completely useless if enough people decide to pirate your work because you wouldn't be able to afford to issue the takedowns.
Counter notice means I'm ok with defending a lawsuit. There are some big costs there. The problem with the current system is there's no protection for false/bogus DMCA takedowns and those do real economic damage to legitimate content owners and creators. I've had IP protection companies file takedowns on my own code and my own artwork and that was highly disruptive to my business.
The problem with DMCA notices is that the party trying to takedown content has zero incentive to behave in good faith. A $10-$30 fee would provide an incredible disincentive for the worst sort of trolling and over-broad shotgun takedown notices while protecting legitimate IP holders (who would see their fee refunded almost every time)