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?