IMO the biggest issue with all this is the lack of a suitable appeals process, handled by humans.
Would such a process be expensive? Yes, but you can't have it both ways, enabling copyright holders to lodge spurious claims at will, and not allow content creators - who the entire platform is built on! - to disclaim them.
Would such a process be expensive? Yes, of course - but YouTube can very well afford it.
Step 1: Someone files a copyright claim (or perhaps this is done automatically). This is free.
Step 2: Someone disputes the claim. This is also free, and automatically restores the video.
Step 3: The filer can re-submit the claim but they have to post a bond for the price of a professional manual review by a trained copyright lawyer; maybe $1000.
Step 4: If the video owner can re-dispute the claim; to do so they also have to post a bond for the price of a professional manual review. The trained copyright lawyer comes to a conclusion; whoever "wins" the ruling gets their money back, and the other person pays for the whole thing.
If the video owner doesn't go on to step 4, obviously the copyright claimant gets their money back.
Would this not allow companies with deep pockets to continue to abuse the smaller channels who might not have $1000 lying around to put in escrow on the off chance of losing the $1000 just because some lawyer somewhere made a bad decision? Or they just get their video removed because they dont have $1000 to begin with.
Let's not let the best be the enemy of the good. Right now 1) companies with deep pockets can easily false claims with very little consequences 2) small channels basically have no recourse.
Obviously the whole system is predicated on the lawyers being fair: but assuming the lawyers usually DTRT, then 1) there will be consequences for false claims, resulting in far fewer of them and 2) small channels can get a real human to look at their claims.
No situation is perfect, but I'm pretty sure it would be better.
It would also create an arbitrage opportunity for investors who could inspect the copyright situation and put up the $1000 and collect at the end. The system would work well.
Perhaps the copyright holder should have to pay for a human review, where the content creator agrees to pay the cost if it turns out to indeed be a true copyright infringement.
This would get rid of all bots and most false claims
If the little guy is indeed little and is earning little or none from their content, then is the copyright holder being harmed? Or is the copyrighted material being promoted, thereby increasing the potential value of that original material?
I think the biggest issue is that the burden of proof and all the risk is on the person who's video is being claimed. False DMCA claims are free, practically riskless, and require no evidence.
Copyright enforcement should be on the copyright holders. YouTube shouldn’t have to build AI to scan for copyrighted material. Copyright holders need to a person verify all copyright claims and be liable for the opposite exact same amount of damages that would be rewarded for legitimate copyright claim.
Disallow the uploading of all content held by RIAA/MPAA-affiliated companies from the likes of YouTube, even if the owners thereof wish it to be there. Fuck them. Let them go build their own platform if they think their work is so god damn awesome. Save YouTube/et al. for works created by, well... You.
Would such a process be expensive? Yes, but you can't have it both ways, enabling copyright holders to lodge spurious claims at will, and not allow content creators - who the entire platform is built on! - to disclaim them.
Would such a process be expensive? Yes, of course - but YouTube can very well afford it.