There's no abuse mentioned in this particular article, and in this article it is exactly a "technologically broken" issue.
The article says that if a TV network's real, legitimately copyrighted feed, that they are correct in telling Youtube is copyrighted uses public domain video in some parts (which doesn't mean their particular feed based on it isn't still copyrighted), then other videos that use the same public domain video (from the original source, not off of the copyrighted feed) are identified as being the copyrighted source.
The article says that if a TV network's real, legitimately copyrighted feed, that they are correct in telling Youtube is copyrighted uses public domain video in some parts (which doesn't mean their particular feed based on it isn't still copyrighted), then other videos that use the same public domain video (from the original source, not off of the copyrighted feed) are identified as being the copyrighted source.