The DMCA process allows a right-holder to submit a takedown request that the content host will review and, if found to be correct, act on with "expeditious" timeliness.
The direct delete was not a takedown request; it was a deletion order. This is beyond MU's DMCA responsibility.
I do not have evidence of rights holders abusing this feature at MU. But we do know that the labels have made mistakes before [1]. It would be irresponsible for MU to give a third party the ability to wipe large swaths of their servers clean without oversight.
On or about April 23, 2009, DOTCOM sent an e-mail message to VANDER KOLK, ORTMANN, and BENCKO in which he complained about the deletion of URLlinks in response to infringement notices from the copyright holders. In the message, DOTCOMstated that “I told you many times not to delete links that are reported in batches of thousandsfrom insignificant sources. I would say that those infringement reports from MEXICO of “14,000” links would fall into that category. And the fact that we lost significant revenuebecause of it justifies my reaction.”
The direct delete was not a takedown request; it was a deletion order. This is beyond MU's DMCA responsibility.
I do not have evidence of rights holders abusing this feature at MU. But we do know that the labels have made mistakes before [1]. It would be irresponsible for MU to give a third party the ability to wipe large swaths of their servers clean without oversight.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/ice-admits-m...