>I really don't understand why the process has been designed to assume the copyright claimant is in the right from the get-go when it's the claimants that abuse the system.
If Youtube didn't allow claimants (who couldn't care less about "fair use" of their IP) vast and arbitrary power even to the point of abuse without consequence, those claimants would turn around and sue them into oblivion the way Viacom nearly did.
The system is doing precisely what it's intended to, which is to pay the Danegeld (of user content) to major media companies and not only keep Youtube alive, but make it attractive as a platform for officially licensed content.
If Youtube didn't allow claimants (who couldn't care less about "fair use" of their IP) vast and arbitrary power even to the point of abuse without consequence, those claimants would turn around and sue them into oblivion the way Viacom nearly did.
The system is doing precisely what it's intended to, which is to pay the Danegeld (of user content) to major media companies and not only keep Youtube alive, but make it attractive as a platform for officially licensed content.