Agreed! They have no moral, legal or ethical responsibility or obligation to host anyone's content. They also don't have any legal, ethical or moral responsib

Agreed! They have no moral, legal or ethical responsibility or obligation to host anyone's content. They also don't have any legal, ethical or moral responsibility to ensure that any one copyright holder gets "their fair share" of the revenue for a particular video. The law already has a provision for the recourse copyright holders have if people use copyrighted material improperly. That's called a DMCA takedown request and it requires certain conditions to be met. What YouTube has done with the contentid and three-strikes system is to create an extra-judicial system for settling claims of a similar kind to DMCA takedown requests, but without going through the courts. That's their prerogative! But it may or may not be legal for them to do so, especially using the language that they use. For example something they might get sued for is fraud. These copyright claims that copyright holders are able to make. Are these legal claims via the courts? Or are they YouTube claims made through YouTube? What if YouTube has appropriated too many legal terms for this system? Imagine that I created a Security as a Service (SaaS) called The Police (tm) and for a small monthly fee you can subscribe to The Police (tm) and if/when you find yourself in some kind of tight spot they'll show up and fix things for you. It's not hard to imagine that this might not go well, and for similar reasons one could suspect that YouTube using legal-like terms for an entirely private "copyright policing" system they might eventually find themselves on the losing side of a legal challenge. It's really up to what kind of legal theories the plaintiffs could come up with that would put YouTube on the wrong end of the law.