The problem with the DMCA safe harbor is that it's just a safe harbor, so the incentive to follow either side of it is limited by the degree of liability one would have to the party against whom it protects you from liability. The takedown process protects you from the purported content owner, who has potentially significant copyright claims against you. The restoration process protects you from the end-user, who you probably have no liability to, because you've written your contract with them to allow you to take anything down for any reason anyway.
The only way a safe harbor would not favor media corps is:
(1) if liability that could not be removed by contract/user-agreement terms existed for a “bad” takedown, or
(2) if it were a non-takedown safe harbor (e.g., instead of the DMCA safe harbor, extend the Section 230 safe harbor to include copyright claims.)
The only way a safe harbor would not favor media corps is:
(1) if liability that could not be removed by contract/user-agreement terms existed for a “bad” takedown, or
(2) if it were a non-takedown safe harbor (e.g., instead of the DMCA safe harbor, extend the Section 230 safe harbor to include copyright claims.)