There are two major problems though. The first is with step 2. All that's happened at that point is an accusation. There's no proof and no due process at this point. Just an accusation and a jump immediately to punishment. This is a huge problem.
Also, the "under penalty of perjury" needs to be re-written to have some teeth. If attorneys were disbarred and executives imprisoned for perjury when the subject of takedowns turns out to be fair use, not actually owned by the takedown claimant, or otherwise non-infringing; I think we'd see a lot few fraudulent claims.
As a corollary to point two, all automatic and electronic submission of DMCA takedown claims need to go away as well. Supposed infringements should have to be submitted by an actual person; who will review the content and issue a sworn, notarized, and delivered by registered mail or other trackable courier, statement in writing and on the hook for perjury; that the content is, in fact, his (or his client's) and that it is, in fact, infringing.