Is this really true, though?
Google certainly doesn’t want to pay for people, but automated systems can be used as a first-pass filter, before human are brought-in to make a second-pass judgement.
So what is the rate of false-positives? And how many automated flags are triggered per day?
Yes this costs money but it is the only way to do the job without being a scumbag and a general burden on the world.
Furthermore it should cost the person sending a complaint somethings to file it, which then is refunded if the complaint is found to have merit.
Lastly, some of these steps could and should be skipped if a particular account or multiple accounts determined by some other means to be the same person are repeatedly found to be in violation.
Similarly if a person keeps making unfounded accusations the refundable fee might increase in steps.
I apologise and transfer my scumbag stamp from google to Congress then for this particular case :)
False positives are absolutely unacceptable when it comes to anything dealing money. I sure wouldn't stick with a bank if they said "oh well, false positives happen. you'll get your money next week... maybe".
but there are several banks that help ensure that security. There are no checks to google allowing for such false positives.
Will they produce false positives? Of course. Do the benefits to content creators outweigh the costs of these false positives? Yes if you believe creative content should be protected.
The only other viable model for content creators are subscription based services like Patreon and they have/will also be pressured by the entertainment industry or even the content creators themselves to flag copyright infringement once the platform gets large enough.