Wait, so you would prefer to claim a video and get the whole monetisation instead of getting your proper share and the uploader keeps his share he earns thru ads?
That's exactly the damage this new system avoids. The uploader is not pusnished anymore for using music he didn't clear the rights for, because YouTube does it for him. I can't see why this would be a bad thing.
The old system is really flawed. Afaik there is a deadlock state where when there are 2 claims on 1 video, youtube just keeps all the money and no one else gets paid.
If they manage to put something in place that
just works™, and pays out reasonable splits to all parties involved, I'll be very impressed, but also very surprised.
I'm all for cracking down on those ridiculous tech monopolies (starting with the crazy tax evasion schemes they're all allowed to pull off), but I trust neither the lawmakers to make sensible laws for this, nor the tech monopolies to implement them in a good enough way. I hope I'm wrong, but I genuinely think it's more likely youtube will just say "Fuck it, we'll just block all European IPs and they can buy VPN accounts if they want to keep watching", than them actually coming up with a sensible and effective solution to this problem. I really do hope I'm wrong, because this would most likely be hugely disruptive for a lot of European youtubers that focus on non-english-speaking audiences.
Like for example this recent data privacy stuff where now every website throws up a cookie permission nag-screen, that in practice only makes surfing the web more cumbersome and most people just click "accept all" anyway, because it's the fastest way to get rid of the popup. The original intention was right, but I'm not happy with the implementation.
A related question: let's assume in the past you've sold anything to a client with "worldwide exclusive rights of use". Now the new law comes to pass, you don't opt out from anything, someone else uses the thing you made in their youtube video, the appropriate license is paid by youtube to the entity that manages this stuff, and they keep the money because you never actively registered that thing you made with them. Isn't this still a breach of contract with your old client who paid for "woldwide exclusive rights of use"? And if so, who assumes the liability for that breach of contract? Is the creator forced to opt out of the new system if they want to be sure that no such situation arises where they legally are in breach of past contracts in this roundabout way?
In the past I seriously considered joining the VG-Bild, but their contract seemed to me like it creates similar issues, so I didn't go through with it. In practice, it's probably the "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" principle for 99.9+% of cases, but I'd still be very uncomfortable with taking on any legal liability here, even if it's very very unlikely to ever matter.