The DMCA allows a 48-hour takedown period if I remember correctly. So a platform is still a "safe harbour" as long as they comply with takedown requests.
Personally I trust the Internet Archive and GitHub for my online file hosting. Other file hosts have limitations (e.g. Mega.nz only provides 50GB storage, Google Drive is only 15 GB, Dropbox I can't remember but it's small).
DMCA doesn't specify a precise takedown period; service providers are simply required to "respond expeditiously" to takedown requests. What that means is a matter of interpretation, but seems to err on the generous side; the only case I'm aware of where a court found that a removal was insufficiently "expeditious" was one where it took seven months for the service provider to respond (Perfect 10 v. Google).
Who really cares about DMCA? If you’re copying discs you bought and aren’t sharing those copies, who would even know you did it? I view it as more of a way to theoretically throw the book at someone caught sharing than a way to imprison people who make personal copies.
Breaking the digital lock to read the blu-ray disc was made illegal in Canada with the Copyright Modernization Act (2012). Since then the courts have said that act doesn't trump fair dealing which makes it a bit grey (I am not a lawyer) but not clearly legal.
Downloading is a "grey-zone", but no one that I know of got in trouble for that.
Uploading is not allowed, and the little seeding done while downloading a torrent is still illegal. Although getting in trouble is rare because ISPs are not allowed to give out user data to random companies.
The Internet Archive provides direct downloads for the content they host, so the fact that they also offer torrents doesn't really change the legal situation.
