“The time required to track down, report, and get an actual removal from Google is pretty high. To document it, track each page, make sure that the site in question does in fact infringe, etc…”

IP holders are in a far better position to do this than others because IP holders are in a much better position to determine whether something infringes on their IP privileges or not. If it’s so expensive for IP holders to do this then imagine how much more expensive it must be for service providers to do this.

“Shouldn’t it be those who choose to use and profit from content that should be required to show that they have rights, not the other way around?”

No. That’s like saying that the mail delivery system, which ‘uses and profits’ from mail deliveries, should be the ones required to show that they have the rights to deliver everything they deliver and that they aren’t delivering any infringing or illegal items. If anything, the ones sending contraband should be the ones to be punished.

The overwhelming majority of the material that the post office delivers is perfectly legal, just like the overwhelming majority of content that Google and others host is perfectly legal. Google doesn’t profit from infringing content any more than the post office does. Requiring Google to police all of its content in the way that you desire is like requiring the post office to open every package and research every delivery to make sure that nothing illegal or infringing makes it through. It would either bankrupt the post office or make the process so expensive that it would stop the overwhelming majority of perfectly legal deliveries from being delivered. The same thing with Youtube. But that’s what you want to do to Youtube, you aren’t interested in stopping infringement, you want to stop competition altogether. Since it’s impossible for Google to police content as thoroughly as you would like them to without substantially reducing the amount of content being uploaded (since every piece of uploaded content must be viewed by a Google staff and then thoroughly researched and negotiated to make sure that it’s not infringing) your proposal will effectively prevent many many people from uploading perfectly legal content for no good reason.

Actually, I responded to your request before, you are likely the same shill I responded to before. Here is my response again.

“The overwhelming majority of uploaded content is non-infringing and days of content are uploaded every minute. It’s prohibitively expensive for service providers to hire someone to manually watch and review all of the content and then to magically determine which parts of that content are infringing before posting it. But that’s what admittedly you want. Which will necessarily prevent the overwhelming majority of that (perfectly legal) content from being uploaded by making it too expensive for most users to get most of their content uploaded and reviewed. All of the (perfectly legal) content that doesn’t get uploaded as a result hurts the creators and uploaders of that content and it hurts all of those people who would otherwise view that content. But, again, this is what you admittedly want. You truly are selfish. Your very own words express your selfishness, you don’t even do a good job hiding it with what you say. You make for a terrible PR person.”

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120406/02303918400/viacom-didnt-actually-win-against-youtube-appeals-court-ruling-is-still-dangerous.shtml#c363

(more responses are there too).

Why should IP holders get an IP privilege (something entirely provided to them by government at taxpayer expense) and require everyone else to hold all of the burden of enforcing this privilege.

IP is opt out, it’s virtually impossible for a service provider to know what’s infringing since everything is protected by default, especially given the volume of uploaded content. and since the overwhelming majority of content is non-infringing and Google makes almost all of its money from non-infringing content (and likely spends far more money policing infringing content in labor costs than any money they allegedly make from it), it’s far far far easier for IP holders to identify infringing content than it is for a third party. At the very least the burden should be on IP holders to enforce their own privileges, they should be thankful that our bought government even provides them with any privileges (a privilege that I think ought to be abolished), if they can’t be bothered to police their own content then the least they can do is forgo their privileges. IP holders aren’t required to do anything to let others know what constitutes infringing content, they aren’t required to opt in anywhere so that service providers can better reference the content and have a starting point to further investigate whether or not it’s infringement, they should hold such requirements, it’s the least they can do, but instead they want to force everyone else to police their privileges. That’s typical of IP holders, they’re lazy, they want all of these free unowed monopoly privileges and they want everyone else to undergo all of the expense and do all of the work required to enforce their privileges.