Google does not have that kind of superior legal negotiating position. Copyright owners use ContentID and revenue sharing in lieu of suing Google for knowingly participating in copyright infringement. If Google locks out a copyright owner from their alternative to legal disputes, the next step is the copyright owner sending large quantities of mail to Google's legal department to get handled manually. Complete non-starter, Google needs to have a highly automated system with copyright owner participation, and as I understand it copyright owners are forced to opt-in if it is provided.
Google can use the automated system while also cracking down on false copyright claims, using a strikes system for them too, and by not just handing the video revenue to the claim maker just because they make it. They can stash the revenue in a sort of escrow bucket until the copyright claim is actually resolved in either party's favor.
Google cannot categorically ignore copyright claims without opening themselves up to potential legal liability. If you've made a hundred bogus copyright complaints to Google and they cut off your access, and you send in another complaint, they still have to either A) shove it into a DMCA safe-harbor exception, or B) risk knowingly continuing to violate your copyright. Option B is straight up not happening when the risk is that high, not without expensive lawyers reviewing the situation.
There isn't and will never be a "strikes" system for false copyright claims.
they can deny access to content ID, and require manually submitted claims (providing a postal address and requiring hard copy notifications still meets the DMCA requirement's AFAIK)
so while they cant just ignore a claim, they can make it harder to make a claim.
The DMCA provides for a counter claim that would require Google to restore the alleged infringer's content unless the alleged owner promptly shows proof of a court filing against the alleged infringer. This is automatable, fair and allows Google to avoid litigation.
Google needs an automated system, but not this goes far beyond what the automated system needs to do.
> large quantities of mail to Google's legal department to get handled manually. Complete non-starter,
Why is it an acceptable excuse for trillion-dollar-companies that compliance and manual oversight would incur costs? Like, it costs Ford tens of thousands to make each truck. Why shouldn't Google have to hire some people to oversee their program?
