YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is.

I recommend the excellent video by Youtuber Tom Scott "YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is." ▶ this video While I agree with the OP in broad strokes (they clearly have the right to post and profit off their performance), I find that the vast majority of comments on Youtube's copyright claim system fail to even acknowledge major aspects of the problem. Perhaps Youtube's practical monopoly does it a disservice here, and it's hard to separate "big self publishing video platform" problems with Youtube specific problems. Without a system like YT currently has, it would get absolutely sued into oblivion by rightful copyright complaints. This is in many ways is a problem of copyright law not being designed with modern technology in mind. I think a good first step would be a way for copyright owners to be punished for broadly overreaching with their claims.

A really great video (if you're willing to spend the better part of an hour watching it) about this is YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.[1] by Tom Scott. [1] ▶ this video

▶ this video Tom Scott explains the situation and the solution best. Just shorten copyright to 20 years (instead of life + 70 years). .......that said, we did just strong-arm the world into matching US copyright law and I’m not sure we could do that now even if we wanted to.

> youtube algo's screwing up content creator A slightly different problem, but Tom Scott did an excellent video on the automation of the copyright system on YouTube: ▶ this video In summary, auto copyright checking solves Most copyright issues, to a degree that no other solution can really provide. And while there are a small (yet very unfair) number of false positives, the benefit that the system as a whole allows far outpaces that downtrend: for YouTube to exist! With regards to fact checking, I'd be more interested to hear how many people who read those kind of "fact flags" actually change their opinion in an easy case (flat earth, climate change, etc.). Honestly, the problem of "true truth" might never be solved, but so will the cause of incompetence never disappear.

> many unintuitive parts I think a more concrete term for unintuitive is outdated. The use cases for Copyright law were defined a century ago when society and technology was different. It is difficult for current citizens to understand copyright law because has nothing to do with their own day to day experiences and needs. Great video about Copyright by Tom Scott: ▶ this video Too long didn't see: Copyright is broken needs to be fixed in a way that fits the current situation and needs, but, it is going to be damn hard to do.

Always has been. Tom Scott did a great video on copyright [1] - it's long overdue to revamp. 1 - ▶ this video

The copyright system has been broken for a long time. AI is just making the system’s inadequacy more obvious. Just look at YouTube copyright strike and understand how screwed up the enforcement of a law like this is going to be. Tom Scott did a piece on it that’s worth watching: ▶ this video

I recommended checking out Tom Scott’s video on DMCA (0). It’s 40 minutes long and rather YouTube centric however it paints a very clear picture as to why these companies are engaging in a seemingly broken practice. It’s not because they want to, it’s because they are legally required to do so. (0) - ▶ this video

Absolutely, especially with all the mess on Twitch recently, and with Youtube for the past few years, it's very clear that DMCA needs to be updated. I do like Tom Scott's comprehensive video on the subject ▶ this video

according to Tom Scott's very informative summary of all things youtube and copyright [1] there are seemingly reasonable alternatives to suddenly shutting down a whole channel - it seems like we're not getting the whole story as to why those were rejected or aren't being considered in this case? [1] ▶ this video

Relevant - Tom Scott explains the copyright situation and YouTube's Content ID: ▶ this video (42 minutes)

Yes but an imitation is not necessary and usually a parody. There is a good Tom Scott's video about this distinction and other common misconceptions about copyright: ▶ this video (42 interesting minutes)