Is this the internet that we want?

Since YouTube Poop relies heavily on audiovisual material protected under copyright law, and the manner in which these sources are depicted is perceived by its owners as detracting from the ways in which consumers are apparently intended to access them, YTPs are known for being removed from YouTube following DMCA complaints. Political scientist and author Trajce Cvetkovski noted in 2013 that, despite Viacom filing a copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube in 2007 explicitly concerning YouTube Poops, in particular "The Sky Had a Weegee" by Hurricoaster, which features scenes from the animated series SpongeBob SquarePants (in particular, the episode "Shanghaied") and Weegee (a satiric caricature based on Nintendo's Luigi as he appears in the DOS version of Mario Is Missing), it and many others have remained on YouTube.¹
Copyright law in the United Kingdom allows people to use copyrighted material for the purposes of parody, pastiche, and caricature without being seen as infringing on the copyright of the material. Copyright owners are only able to sue the parodist if the work is perceived as communicating hateful or discriminative messages, and modifying the intended purpose of the copyright owner's material. If the case is then taken to court, judges are advised in jurisdictional terms to decide whether the video meets these criteria.

The right to use the copyrighted content without permission of the copyright owner in certain conditions is deemed as “Fair Use”. The legally permissible purposes for which the copyrighted content can be used and fall under Fair Use category include:

• News reporting
• Commentary
• Research
• Criticism
• Scholarship
• Teaching

Fair Use promotes creativity and people using the copyrighted content for the above-mentioned purposes won’t be charged with copyright infringement.To determine whether there was Fair Use of the copyrighted work or not, consider the following factors:

• Nature of the copyrighted work/content
• Usage purpose of the copyrighted work; whether it’s of commercial nature or for educational purpose
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used by the third person
• How the portion used will affect the potential market and its impact on the value of the copyrighted content

Katharine Trendacosta and Corynne Mcsherry, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote an article on 2020 concerning the impact of the use of filters (like Content ID) for content creators'production.² They deal with the new European Directive for the Copyright, in particular the Article 17. In this article is written that every platform need to implement a filter algorithm to check the content uploaded by the users. They said:

Put simply, the regime envisioned by Article 17 would end up being too complicated and expensive for most platforms to build and operate. YouTube's Content ID alone has cost $100,000,000 to date, and it just filters videos for one service. Musicians are 100 percent right to complain about the size and influence of YouTube and Facebook, but mandatory filtering creates a world in which only YouTube and Facebook can afford to operate. Cementing Big Tech’s dominance is not in the interests of musicians or users. Mandatory copyright filters aren't a way to control Big Tech: they're a way for Big Tech to buy Perpetual Internet Domination licenses that guarantee that they need never fear a competitor.

Source 1 ↗
Source 2 ↗