Viacom has plenty of money, and even they lost. Twice, in fact.

Didn't they lose partly because it was discovered that they were the ones uploading the "infringing videos"?

As far as I know, that wasn't part of the rulings, no.

They did some of the uploading, yes. But I don't recall if that was part of the reason why Viacom lost.

Wikipedia: "Viacom did not seek damages for any actions after Google put its Content ID filtering system in place in early 2008." Google and Viacom ultimately settled. So the issue of whether Google can tie Content ID to giving them rights to content hasn't been litigated yet.

Meanwhile, Facebook is getting serious about taking on YouTube. Maybe they'll offer a better deal.

Viacom weren't exactly the most sympathetic of defendants.

Or maybe they simply didn't have a case. Like it or not, the safe harbor clause exists.

plaintiff. they were the plaintiff in that case.

For 1/3rd of the cut, you'd find plenty of lawyers. The issue is DMCA is very pro web-host, they'd never win.

DMCA is in no way pro web-host. You can send out mass takedown requests and some hosts will choose to remove the content without even contacting the host of said infringing content.

its pro-webhost with respect to generally not holding hosts liable for damages as long as they comply with DMCA requests.

The alternative was holding them liable for anything they put on their servers.

That alternative isn't even plausible. Hosts have no practical way to determine whether the users own or have licensed the content they post so it makes no sense to impose liability on them. The realistic alternative is the CDA safe harbor which has no takedown procedure. If you have e.g. a libel claim you have to go after the actual poster.

It also isn't clear whether they would even have any liability without the safe harbor, because it was put into place early enough that we don't really know what happens without it. But you don't generally expect the Post Office to be liable for what people send in the mail.

That's worse than the current system. In the current system, the host can just take down the infringing content (until the uploader challenges the takedown), and pass along a warning to the uploader. The person complaining about the infringement never gets personal info about who the uploader is. In your scenario, the webhost would leave the content up but they would have to identify the uploader.

> In your scenario, the webhost would leave the content up but they would have to identify the uploader.

What part of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230 do you read as a requirement to identify the uploader?

Obviously a plaintiff who wants to sue the uploader might be able to get a subpoena (assuming the webhost can identify the uploader), but how is that different from the DMCA?