But filing claim is protected by law, you ability to have content on YouTube is not. There is a fundamental asymmetry.

Filing claims by suing is protected by law; filing claims on YouTube is not.

Under the DMCA that isn't the case. Platforms, including YouTube, are required to react to your claims if properly submitted.

These are not DMCA claims.

It would be entirely reasonable for Youtube to block them from submitting the current style of claims and require them to submit actual, proper DMCA claims which open the claimant to all kinds of counterclaims, require the claimant to assert under the penalty of perjury that they own that content, etc.

That's an idea for sure. I should have clarified my point that while these aren't DMCA claims, YouTube is required to handle DMCA claims, and their current process essentially preempts them. So that's how they're choosing to effectively 'handle' what would otherwise presumably be large numbers of DMCA claims.

But yeah, maybe requiring claimants to actually go through the official process would be better (albeit more work for YouTube).

Youtube has it's own system that is not actually DMCA, so they don't need to get pesky lawyers involved.

These aren't being properly submitted under DMCA, Youtube is proactively matching audio to submitted samples.

> But filing claim is protected by law, you ability to have content on YouTube is not. There is a fundamental asymmetry.

Filing a claim automatically and conveniently is not protected by law. They could just as well say, "We have an automated system with a convenient interface for good-faith actors. If you show yourself to be acting in bad faith, you can exercise your legal claim in writing by sending it to this address: X. The postal system to that office is pretty bad, loses stuff all the time, so you'd better send it FedEx."