Your math is flawed. This is about reviewing videos that face copyright strikes. Every single minute of uploaded content does not need to be reviewed. And on top of that there are several technology aids that can be used to shorten review times - while still having some human involvement.

> If their claim is found to be without merit, they forfeit the bounty to the person who created the video in question.

That would mean there needs to be an appeals process and humans who do the reviews, right?

My math is not flawed. I highlighted that filing copyright claims can be completely automated. The punishment for doing so is nothing. I'm proposing a way to limit the false copyright claims.

It also shouldn't be Google's responsibility to resolve copyright claims.

If it's Google's responsibility, then you're just raising the barrier to entry for any YouTube competitor.

The people who benefit from Copyright need to themselves pay for fairly enforcing copyright. I can't imagine another way around it.

Google has designed a system where a power dynamic where the copyright owner largely gets the ultimate say because of a combination of artificial "intelligence" algorithms, the ability to perform bulk claims, and googles indifference. To insert a human element in terms of an appeals process or deciding which claims have merit, etc, has nothing to do with reviewing every single minute of content that is uploaded on YouTube.

Actually, it's Safe Harbor laws in the DMCA that have designed that power dynamic. And if there is no negative consequence for making a false claim, then yes, that's exactly what would happen - human reviewers looking at a huge amount of content.

Google could have designed the system where each claim must be specific to a video url, time, and duration. (I think they have made changes recently to do that, but I'm not sure if they're active) That way the copyright owners are left having to review this giant database of video content. Google helpfully runs audio finger-printing on every video and then lets copyright holders issue bulk claims.

>And if there is no negative consequence for making a false claim, then yes, that's exactly what would happen

Google can protect their creators and counter-sue on their behalf or set aside monies for legal defense funds.

>human reviewers looking at a huge amount of content.

More importantly, humans can be part of the appeals process and will be able to determine if someone was illegitimately targeted. As you can imagine its possible to design various review workflows where humans get involved after a certain level of escalation, or after other automated means have been exhausted etc. Also whats your definition of huge? You seem to now agree with me that this is not every single minute of YouTube content as you originally indicated.

> Google could have designed the system where each claim must be specific to a video url, time, and duration. (I think they have made changes recently to do that, but I'm not sure if they're active) That way the copyright owners are left having to review this giant database of video content. Google helpfully runs audio finger-printing on every video and then lets copyright holders issue bulk claims.

No, what happens instead is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....

Copyright holders don't want to do it themselves, and they have the muscle to hurt Google over it. This is going to happen to every video site when it becomes big enough to be a target. It's a bit absurd to suggest that Google could have designed a system that gave themselves no responsibility but simply chose not to; do you really think Google wants to be involved in these disputes?

But most of this content will get a negligible amount of views, which means that most of the conplaints come from a much lower number of videos.

But you just proposed the solution. A penalty for a failed copyright claim. Penalty+human intervention would cut the claims dramatically.

YouTube is already covered by safe harbor, and in theory making a false copyright claim is perjury! It's just that the law isn't going to be enforced in that direction.