I think a good baseline might be that you need to deposit say $1M and then when oops, you accidentally made a bogus claim it's OK that $1M is split between the victim of your oopsy and Youtube for their trouble - you just pay $1M to get back into the game. Outfits like this could explain to their investors that while their technology does sometimes have little goofs that cost a few billion dollars per year, once they invent perfect AI they can scale infinitely and make that back easily, so if you invest $10Bn of your fiat currency today, in 18 months they can 100% guarantee nothing in particular, wow.
This works for actual creators, who are occasionally slightly inconvenienced but handsomely rewarded when that occurs, for Youtube, who get paid each time these "rare" mistakes happen, and for the companies "innovating" by making up nonsense and taking people's money. Just as well the "investment" goes to a Youtuber as to some random office park or an ad firm.
I don't think so, since YouTube is operating their extrajudicial "go the extra mile for copyright holders" copyright claim system. It isn't required by law and this is what's being abused, not plain DMCA claims. For regular claimants, the regular (and free) DMCA system would still be in effect.
The bonus is that filing fraudulent DMCA claims has real legal repercussions under the law. I don't know if there's any real consequence for lying about copyright ownership to Google under their made-up claim system.
It isn't required by law, it's required by people who would sue the pants off it if it didn't kowtow to them.
Which is way scarier than something required by law. Law can be lobbied about and changed. Law has limits. Law can be ignored when you are rich and powerful.
Lawsuits from megacorps, on the other hand, cannot.
Nah, I'd expect under this model insurance would become readily available. Insurers live on the margins, so even though it would cost a lot of money if you crash that boring mid-range car into somebody's house, the insurer doesn't charge you a lot of money to insure you against that risk, they're betting that on average you're not going to do that. As a safeguard they probably don't insure kids who just got bought a Ferrari as their first car, or anybody who has just done time for crashing their car into a house on purpose, but mostly they're just playing the numbers.
That's already the status quo, random nobodies with their art ripped off by OpenAI or some content mill on YouTube don't have the benefit of hiring companies to perform takedowns.
Wouldn't this mean that the only people able to make claims in the first place are people with $1M to spare? It might deter aggressive claims, but also prevent individuals from making claims on violations of their copyrights.
Wouldn't this keep anyone without a spare million from making copyright claims, and incentivise YouTube to encourage these "mistakes" since they get paid for them?
This works for actual creators, who are occasionally slightly inconvenienced but handsomely rewarded when that occurs, for Youtube, who get paid each time these "rare" mistakes happen, and for the companies "innovating" by making up nonsense and taking people's money. Just as well the "investment" goes to a Youtuber as to some random office park or an ad firm.