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

> many unintuitive parts I think a more concrete term for unintuitive is outdated.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: [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.

> 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: [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.

[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.

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] [VIDEO]

I recommend the excellent video by Youtuber Tom Scott "YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is." [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.

Related Tom Scott video [VIDEO] tl;dr ContentID is a workaround for a broken copyright system. It's not perfect, but it's better for everyone than falling back to the default of copyright through court.

Relevant - Tom Scott explains the copyright situation and YouTube's Content ID: [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: [VIDEO] (42 interesting minutes)