This certainly does not deal with gray areas, but quite well copes with blatant cases: monetize false claims on both sides. The protocol: * Copyright holder

This certainly does not deal with gray areas, but quite well copes with blatant cases: monetize false claims on both sides. The protocol: * Copyright holder fills a copyright claim, video is not taken down or demonetized, ad revenue is held in escrow * * If content uploader agrees with claim - video is removed/demonetized/ad revenue directed to copyright holder * * Content uploader fills a dispute *claiming fully original content*, under potential monetary penalty of false claims * * * Copyright holder does not dispute the dispute, ad revenue is released to video uploader * * * Copyright holder fills counter-dispute, under potential monetary penalty of false claims * * * * Content is reviewed by human, decision awarded, false claim party penalized, human reviewer expenses paid from penalty In cases where the content is clearly not what copyright holder claims to be or content is clearly original this system disincentivizes automated, "what we have to lose" counter-claims. Of course, in gray area cases like "does this still fall under fair use" cases this is probably even worse than current setup, therefore I stress fully original content in the protocol, which should be different for fair use disputes.