Automated review doesn't need to be 100% accurate. You don't actually need to automatically stop 12 year Olds from using your music in the background of their minecraft video to turn a profit.
Manually review cases where it's actually worthwhile.
Manually review cases where it's actually worthwhile.
To clarify, whether or not you can as an organization turn a profit, is whether or not you get to own a piece of IP? How much profit is an owner of IP allowed to have? How much should an artist get paid? I don't think I could ever limit/define that.
The discussion centers around automated tools to detect infringing content. These tools are not 100% accurate and may cause false positives. I am of the opinion that issuing takedowns on false positives should come with consequences.
If an artist wants to enforce their copyright on every case of infringement, no matter how minor, they're welcome to do so. Where I take issues is issuing takedowns because an automated, unreviewed system flagged the content, and no manual review took place.
Automated review puts the onus on the secondary content creator to prove that their work is not infringing in response to bogus requests. They must take on the cost in time and energy to do so. The cost should be on the copyright holder, and if that means automated reviews are not economical, so be it.