Arriving Late and Ill-Informed

Here's a post by someone who, as far as I can tell, has zero formal legal training. Further, he has neither done any empirical studies on YouTube nor researched the studies which have been done.

In his ignorance, he writes:

...by YouTube's own rules, YouTube cannot exist. And yet it does.

How do we reconcile YouTube's official hard-line position on copyright with the reality that 90% of the content on their site is clearly copyrighted and clearly used without permission?

Had he any legal training or done any research into work by those who do, he would know that:

1. The lawyers at the EFF have been able to defend the fair use of YouTube videos and,
2. Studies have shown that 90% of videos on YouTube are non-infringing.