That actually doesn't matter. You're advocating someone bear the risk of a ruined life over a single mistake, and given the number of takedowns needing to be filed there will be mistakes made. Someone will have to bear the cost of that risk.
Of course, this is all leaving aside larger reforms - I just think that harsher liability is not an obvious band-aid; it has issues too.
There is however a big difference between Lawyer A: "I see I made a sincere mistake and apologize."
And Lawyer B: "Our machine gun takedown software fuzzy matches anything approaching our artist's name, or any track by him, doesn't examine the content, but just issue blanket takedowns by script."
Because the analysis is of what it does to the burden placed on artists (or those, really or purportedly, operating on their behalf) in the existing system. If the cost of a mistake is a ruined life, that side of things gets radically more expensive.
All of my analysis here is predicated on "if we want to try to make the existing system work like it is supposed to," which I will be the first to agree is not our only option; even in that restricted scope, my conclusion was "it's tough to say..."
Of course, this is all leaving aside larger reforms - I just think that harsher liability is not an obvious band-aid; it has issues too.