That’s why we need a regulation change to make it so that you can’t outcompete by being unethical.

I don't think it's viable, but I welcome any attempts to actually imagine how such regulation might work, what would it consist of.

Easy. Put the burden of legal fees and risk of censure on a DMCA mill for false positives. This means if a host takes down content to maintain their safe harbor status, and the person can prove the copyright claim was false or frivolous, you get a cause of action to counter-sue the original claimant. Moonlight Sonata is in the public domain. The teacher's performance != anyone elses. Therefore, false, therefore it should have reprecussions for the signing attorney. If it was pre-emptive by Google without a DMCA request from an external entity, that's a different issue.

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 definitely don’t have a general case solution. A solution for this case would be something like “a provider of video hosting services is not allowed to take down videos automatically without having a human review each request.”

The law never had that intent though, and getting it into there will most probably be impossible .

I’m not saying that we will get this outcome, just that it’s the outcome that we need. Unfortunately I agree with you that we won’t.

I agree it doesn't make business sense, but it does make moral sense. And yes, this hypothetical service probably wouldn't be free.

well what kind of a monstrosity is this buisness sense then when it is strcturally incompatible with any moral whatsoever (as seems to be more or less the consensus of the first couple comments here)