I mean, so what? Yes, people on YouTube are trying to make money. I have no problem with that.Fixed it for you
Leaving Beato out of it personally, I don't see how anybody can believe that the way copyright claims work on YT isn't massively broken if they understand how it actually works. Entities like record labels can slap a copyright claim on any video they want and then the default result is that 100% of the profits for that particular video go to the party that put the copyright claim, regardless of whether you can claim fair use, or if the offending part of the video was 10 seconds long, or anything else. They don't have to prove anything up front to do that. Don't like it? Yes, you can appeal. And the appeal goes to the party that put the copyright claim. They can just reject your appeal.
There are a few steps beyond that, but the risk of contesting things for a YouTuber is very dangerous. If you keep contesting and you lose your channel gets a copyright strike. 3 strikes and your channel is deleted. Needless to say, if you've spent years building up a subscriber base and making content, this is terrifying. So people get bullied into just sucking it up and dealing with it unless they're huge like Beato and have the ability to speak up and actually get noticed.
For those who seem ok with this system, how would you feel if a similar thing were implemented in live situations? Like say your band played a set at a bar and, heaven forbid, played one cover song. What if the record label for that song could step in and claim all of the money your band was going to get paid for that gig? How would you feel about that? Because that's effectively how the YT system works now.
And yes, I realize that venues pay ASCAP license fees, but there are certainly still tons of people who make a lot of money, or even their whole living, off of playing covers. Record labels don't have the right to step in and claim every cent associated with the performance, but that's exactly how it works on YT.