I don't understand why they won't put the money in escrow instead of just shunting it to the claimant. Presumably because it would require people to make a determination. Seems irresponsible.
Along with some other reasons, the fact that they have implemented a system which effectively strips DMCA protections from content uploaders should result in there being no safe harbor provisions in effect for them.
An internet service provider can impose any rules they want unless a client can produce a contract saying otherwise. Safe harbors are an indemnification against being sued for contributory infringement. That doesn't obligate them to host non-infringing content.
Given that the DMCA is not a fundamental property of the universe, rather it's legislation. That legislation was written in a way to give both copyright holders, people who want to put content on the internet, and service providers a framework for dealing with copyright. If that framework isn't working out for all the interested parties, then it can be changed. When the framework isn't doing it's job, it should be changed. And in my opinion, part of that is that there should be no safe harbor for:
* content that is upload by users who cannot be affirmatively identified.
* content that is uploaded by users who are not within the jurisdiction of the united states.
* if a service provider implements mechanisms that defeat the intent of the law
Ultimately, yes, I get it that no one is required to host others' content. But at the same time we're not required to provide get out of jail cards.
I think it works out that Google spends more time ensuring that the content they import into the US and redistribute is something they can legally import and redistribute.
Nope, the problem is that disputes can be (and routinely are, by default) rejected by the claimants with no risks to them, again. Escalating beyond that risks a copyright strike (three of which mean your channel is gone, but even a single strike costs you access to various features).
The best approach is to only escalate if you understand the specific legal situation of your video and can make a case that would likely hold up in court. Needless to say most creators aren't well-versed in legalese and the risks to the creator are much greater than the risks to the claimant so most creators avoid this for "less important" videos.
They have a general assumption that claimants (or rather, Big claimants) are in the right by default; even when a big claimant is wrong, it's better to be on their good side and at worst lose favor with a smalltime content creator
