Classic Sabroni, he’ll blame anyone and everyone except the scammer abusing copyright law to make a quick buck, or the pro-copyright entities that enabled the loophole in the first place.

Basing your life on an income that can stop at any point is not a grown up approach

You know, plenty of children and undergrads were told to base their life on an income with a single company. It wouldn’t stop, they were told. Company loyalty is important, they were told. Now they’re told that if they’re not jumping ship every two to three years they’re losers.

The result is that nobody gives a single solitary fuck about corporate loyalty. We already assume that income can and will stop at any time because some corporate leader decided to be an asshole for the day.

if you don’t have at least one other similar sized income stream then your income is never secure

Ah, yes, because that’s exactly what companies want, employees burning themselves out doing multiple active income streams. That clearly won’t burn them out or make their efforts more inefficient.

This content id stuff is poor tech but the real issue here is a broadcaster (YouTube) who people just give content to

ContentID isn’t “poor tech”. It’s working exactly as intended. Your pro-copyright interests and entities demanded a system in which detecting possible infringements and requesting takedowns would be seamless, require minimal effort, and be nigh impossible to challenge.

The result is that you have people claiming to be Sony making a copyright claim for Pokemon music, because your team insisted on having a system where having to prove your identity and copyright ownership is unnecessary. Which makes it funny each and every time your team tries to insist that you can’t use ContentID the way you want it to, while all sorts of scammers across the world have no trouble at all. (Maria Schneider stands out as an example in particular for trying to claim she wasn’t allowed to use ContentID, and had to use a fake antipiracy company’s fake evidence to try and push her claims, then run like hell once she was caught out.)

This isn’t a utopia where everyone becomes rich

Just like the real world, you mean?

When this starts affecting alphabet’s bottom line they’ll fix it

Unlikely, for two reasons.

Anything that requires more stringent checks on the part of copyright holders – such as actually requiring people to submit a proof of copyright ownership – will always be rejected by copyright holders, because they absolutely do not want to take responsibility for when things fuck up. That means Google or Alphabet will need to sit down and assign people to manually review submissions, which leads to the second reason as to why they’re not going to fix it. It won’t be practical to review this because it will get too slow, and the copyright holders won’t want manual reviewers either – because they want the process to be near instantaneous.

Sure, people are going to absolutely criticize Google. But not for the reasons you think. None of this is going to put copyright in a flattering light.