This seems to be Intellectual Property laws working as intended. Company A submitted 10 takedown requests for infringement. Pages were taken down. The recipients objected, and as of right now all but one of the pages are back up.
I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not. If that's them working as intended, the laws need an overhaul. Maybe it didn't have too much of an effect in this instance because it was old content, but taking down a creator's work can cost them big in income if it's taken down right away. If it's a false take down, there are unfair damages to the creator that the creator just has to suck up now because the company that made the claim isn't in any way held responsible for their false claims.
I was serious about that. If it needs an overhaul, how? If the people hurt by these claims want to hold Entura responsible, they are able to. There are several examples of the EFF helping people do exactly that.
The idea behind the DMCA is that the host for content does not need to be a copyright lawyer to host something. Almost any proposed change would require the host to determine the line for what is an is not Fair Use, which is at least a somewhat blurry line in a lot of cases. The situation with these videos, as I see it, is that Vimeo received a complaint from Entura, a company it had worked with before, that videos were infringing on their copyright. It seems like a safe assumption that next time the result will require a review, given the publicity this event has gotten. All in all, that seems like its working like intended.