(Replying to PARENT post)
To be clear, YouTube's goal is not to obey the law, but to minimize their loss. This is why they entirely disregard key aspects and intents of the law, leaving fair use and fair process as a joke.
Their implementation harms creators and redirects their earnings to companies that were never legally, contractually or morally entitled to it.
> the right way to change the law is to participate in the public civil procedures.
Unless there is going to be fines for not allowing copyright unencumbered content to be displayed and monetized, no change of law is going to help here. Copyright law is twisted because of companies like Disney, but the underlying problem is that YouTube will only ever care about avoiding expensive litigation.
(Replying to PARENT post)
What YouTube does instead, which is absolutely unacceptable and far beyond what the law requires, is put the purported copyright holder in charge of judging the video poster's appeal, and naturally they tend to say "no". No counter-notice mechanism, video doesn't go back up.
(Replying to PARENT post)
you mean youtube tried to obey the law?
You cannot just unilaterally decide not to obey copyright laws.
> It could have spurred a copyright revolution.
I am not in favour of vigilantism - the right way to change the law is to participate in the public civil procedures. For example, if enough people joined the Pirate Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pirate_Party), such laws could be changed.
It's just that most people dont give a shit about copyright, and this is the democratic outcome.