No. And their system really isn't even DMCA-compliant, in that it's far more favorable to claimants. There are also different tiers of notification they have, with known rights holders having access to the ability to submit something like a hash of a number of works and supposedly infringing gets autoblocked or taken down or monetized for the benefit of the claimant.
There's also a more normie tier for people with less need to notify (the big claimants like music industry corporations often make thousands a day), where you can just search for infringing content manually and then report each thing you are claiming as infringing by clicking a checkmark next to it.
You have to provide the information to YouTube you would in a normal DMCA claim, but you can do it just once and notify by using their notification interface afterwards instead of going through the formalities.
In theory you could end up on the hook for legal fees expended going after you for bogus complaints, but in reality this very seldom happens. But see Lenz v. Universal Music for a case in which one of these frequent claimants was smacked down hard for striking an obviously fair use (a Prince song playing in the background of a video with a dancing baby).
It's a difficult case to make because it's almost always possible at least to make out a colorable claim that some use is infringing. You really have to go out of your way to end up with a case that bad (like the dimwit who sued Soygon).
Honestly both Dunkin Donuts and McDonald's have better coffee. Even the Great Value Dunkin Donuts knockoff for Keurig machines is better. That's not even a knock on that brand, it's actually one of the better K-cup coffees and cheap as hell.
