I went searching around using that info and came across a (similarly outraged) thread on google's support forums about this video, in which someone named longzijun seemed to make a reasonably sound counter-argument:
https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/108213944/a-posted...
> Then she files a counter-notification. The appeals process has not been completed. She is only part-way through it.
> Once she files that and if she does it properly, the claimant has 14 days to initiate a court action against her or the claim is released, the strike removed and the video goes back online.
> Obviously, the claimant will not pursue legal action in this case.
> False claims can cause inconvenience for sure, but with the counter-notification system, they don't do long-term damage.
> Both the takedown system and the counternotification system are mandated by US law (specifically the DMCA).
> YouTube is not supposed to intervene in copyright cases. If they do so, they will lose their safe harbor status (again under the DMCA) that protects YouTube from being sued for hosting copyright infringing content.
> To sum up
> 1) the dispute process has not been completed in this case
> 2) your beef should be with US legislators, not YouTube