I think you're exactly right. They won't achieve balance by levying massive fines for mistakes one way and nothing for mistakes the other way. Its the DMCA all over again: a license for anyone with a lawyer to control whats permitted.
Except that's not how DMCA works. If your content gets taken down by a DMCA request, all you have to do is fill out a form stating that your content is not violating copyright, send it to the hosting service, and they are required to restore your content unless the take down requestor shows them proof that they have actually filed a lawsuit against you.
Yes, I know that's not what happens at YouTube. YouTube has their own system for dealing with copyright complaints that they use instead of DMCA.
The DMCA does grant the target of a DMCA notice to sue the person who gives the notice for knowing material misrepresentation, including access to damages. But indeed it's been enforced very rarely and at very inadequate damage levels after subtracting legal fees. The main example of this provision being enforced is OPG v. Diebold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold....
