20 years later, the DMCA in the US actually seems pretty decent. It's not perfect but it strikes a pretty good balance between the interests of copyright holders and allowing for innovation.
Only innovations that neatly fit the copyright industries' business models. Innovations that totally break business models based on centralized distributors selling to consumers -- P2P filesharing systems, for example -- have been stifled. If you want to build your own DVR using an HDMI capture device, get ready to do business with some Chinese electronics makers, because nobody in the US can innovate in the market for that sort of hardware.
Just because the EU is doing something worse does not mean the DMCA is "decent." It is still a terrible law even if the EU manages to create something worse.
Few companies I work for have their stuff stolen and posted on youtube constantly. It took 3 months to get any response from Youtube. That times goes down to 3 weeks IF you have attorney representing you. Over 70 vidoes I have worked with lawyers to get removed, we always been looked at as the real criminals; we have to upload and prove all sorts of things just to get pass by the submit form. Longest case took us 5 months and $3,000 to remove a 45 seconds of stolen material.
Yes, DMCA works pretty decent; for lawyers that charge per hour.
On the other hand, the 45 seconds of stolen material you refer to sounds like you may be going after uses that may fall under fair use, in which case you should absolutely expect to have a fight on your hands, though only after going through the DMCA takedown notice and counter-notice dance.
Can you explain what 45 seconds of video was worth $1 to get off the internet. 45 seconds isn't a song length let alone a video of note.
Here is a random guess here. The 45 seconds was damaging in some way to the client and they really wanted to bury something.