The problem here is that, under the law and in the eyes of the court, it is worse for YouTube to let infringing videos linger than to delay the removal of new ones. The DMCA provides protection for hosts, under some conditions, if they "expeditiously" act to remove infringing materials once notified, but, if they don't, they lose all hope of protection.
In short, if they act to remove works after notification, they have at least an argument in their defense, if they don't, they're probably toast.
Though there really isn't anything about this kind of filtering technology in the DMCA, it seems to be an attempt to show good faith and smooth things over with rightsholders.
That being said, I don't think Google relies as heavily on infringing videos as we think. The top videos are almost always amateur content and there seems to be plenty of non-infringing material on the site. Will it take a hit? Absolutely. But I think it can survive it.
All Comments
In short, if they act to remove works after notification, they have at least an argument in their defense, if they don't, they're probably toast.
Though there really isn't anything about this kind of filtering technology in the DMCA, it seems to be an attempt to show good faith and smooth things over with rightsholders.
That being said, I don't think Google relies as heavily on infringing videos as we think. The top videos are almost always amateur content and there seems to be plenty of non-infringing material on the site. Will it take a hit? Absolutely. But I think it can survive it.
At least I hope so...