Unless the infringement is real, where the harm to the original creator can be just as great. That waiting period gives them time to go to court and get an injunction before a falsely filed counternotice puts the illegal copies back online, potentially ruining a product launch or otherwise devastating their brand/income from the original.
Even if the infrigement is real the waiting period makes no sense. What difference are those 10 days going to make? Not to mention, the risk to the counter-noticer is quite high since they'd be commiting perjury if they filed a false counter notice.
It's totally skewed- a false counter notice has a high risk and a false notice a low risk. The damage due to a false counter notice is likely small (it can't disrupt the real owners own usage; it's probably been online quite a while anyhow; and the infriger(s) can find other ways to do so if he really wants to - notice the quick Flat UI resuscitation). But the damage due to a false notice is potentially quite large since it imples complete loss of service (not just someone else getting a few days of free reign), and potentially loss of momentum, and the issue with free speech - which isn't critical, perhaps, but all else being equal I'd prefer we err on the side of open.
So given the skewed potential for damage (much greater for a false notice), and the skewed risk to the fraudulent/mistaken party (much smaller for a false notice), it's utterly obvious there should not be such a waiting period.
