This current situation on YT is the result of another multi-billion dollar legal fight with the music industry. I don't like how YT handles this either but I put most of the blame on the music industry for it.
(remember its beethovens moonlight sonata, one of the most famous classical pieces period. i dont think you even could copyright a part of it, at least not just the sequence of notes)
Obviously, hiring humans is expensive, and nobody is forcing them to do it, but that doesn't make it an unreasonable alternative. I consider it unreasonable to design an unethical system with the sole excuse that it makes more money that way.
I think that argues strongly that the service you want to see is "unreasonable" given the regulation regime we have. You can't put this on the hosts, you'll just be disappointed. Call your representative.
Sorry, this is not going to make business sense. If you want a free video publishing platform that does user outreach for you, you got to pay a price; the false positives is a part of the price, alas.
People don't get it. Perjury actually means something. When you have the blade of perjury over head, it is absolutely the case that as a human being, if you have doubt, you should be saying it, or you're misrepresenting the truth of the matter.
The level of perjury inherent to generating these claims via automated process is absurd. It is absolutely reasonable that when you have a group going around and using the legal system as a cudgel, the proper response is to return the favor.
This process should not scale at all if people would punch back. Perjury should be trivial to prove when no one even looked at the content in qustion aside from an analysis suite.
Regardless; there is always the self-hosted option.
I'm cynical, so I feel it's much more likely that a competitor will push actual change to come (be it through google self improving, or through future lawsuits challenging the current laws) than for a current monopolistic entity to finding alternatives to problems that don't inconvenience them at large.
>Remember it's not really an option to just throw video over the fence, DMCA requirements mean you have to be responsive
"Responsive" is the key word to be challenged here. I'm unsure if automating a removal at the behest of any barely or unverified account is the bare minimum "reponsiveness" required legally. The big problem that won't be resolved without someone legally challenging it is that there's no negative consequence to filing a DMCA claim. Or at least, there wasn't as recently as 4 years ago.
How are DMCAs expensive?
I think it's more instructive to look at it from the other side. What's the reasonable alternative for a video hosting service to doing this kind of policing? Remember it's not really an option to just throw video over the fence, DMCA requirements mean you have to be responsive. And thus there's a built-in incentive to cut a deal with the content owners to preemptively prevent the DMCA claims (which are expensive!) by doing this sort of automated policing.
It's true that not every host does this, but every host that doesn't do this either does it in violation of the law or eats significant overhead that needs to be recouped in some other way (i.e. by paying their content creators less! Check the author's channel, this is someone who's clearly on youtube for revenue. Would even she jump ship given that it would probably cost her money?)
Really, this isn't something Google can fix. It's a problem with the legal regime that imagines that all infringement is a bright line definition and that preemptive takedowns are the best solution.