Pre-screening is a huge burden indeed. Yet if we start with the assumption that copyright law is good in principle, I can sort of see the point of copyright hol

Pre-screening is a huge burden indeed. Yet if we start with the assumption that copyright law is good in principle, I can sort of see the point of copyright holders: That burden or identifying infringing content exists no matter what. Right now, it falls on the creators to patrol the internet and play wack-a-mole with infringing uploads. I can't really come up with an argument why creators should be saddled with that effort, when they get nothing out of it by default. Whereas all the profits accrue with the platforms. It also seems trivially obvious that it's far easier for a platform to run some algorithm on their content, than it is for every single photographer and/or musician, author, etc. The latter would require an effort on the scale of Googlebot. If youtube wants to profit from the possibilities new technology creates, they are on the hook to create the concomitant tools to prevent harms. It's no different than, say, an inventor pushing a new method to synthesize insulin being responsible for its safety. If it's impossible to do so, they can't just throw up their hands, point to their best effort, and tell patients to "take adequate precautions".