Is it fair to ignore copyright laws only when it profits the copyright owner?

I watched an incredible video on TED.com where I came upon a video by Margaret Gould Stewart (Stewart) entitled How YouTube thinks about Copyright. In the video, Stewart describes how YouTube deals with copyright infringement.

There are tons of media duplicates on YouTube of the same content. So obviously, it appears as if YouTube allows copyright infringement to occur on their website? 

But doesn’t it seem as if YouTube does not properly enforce copyright laws? At least, that is how it seemed to me until I watched Stewart’s video. However, according to Stewart, YouTube does have boundaries set in place. Although YouTube does not know or track down the original content owners for most video uploads, for identified content from established companies like Sony or music artists like Chris Brown, YouTube enters into contracts with them. Whether content uploads are based on a contract or not, YouTube monitors every video submission for copyright infringement on its content database. 

Each time someone uploads a video that is a match to the original content, YouTube refers to the contract and the copyright owner. The decision is then made whether to allow the upload or to refuse permission to upload. In many cases where there is a match for content infringement, if YouTube does not have a contract with the original copyright owner, does not receive a request for content removal, or a notice of infringement, the video upload then remains on the site without repercussions. In addition, many copyright owners allow duplicates of their content to be uploaded on YouTube because it is promotion for them as in publicity, popularity, increase in sales or product, etc.

But I don’t think its fair. Then again, some may argue that because the copyright owners allow for the upload then they are in fact giving permission for the use and therefore it is no longer considered a copyright infringement. I disagree. The owner is not giving permission for use. The owner is actually giving permission to allow “the infringement” to be uploaded. It is still a copyright infringement because the person uploading the video never got permission from the owner prior to uploading the video. 

Why is such discretion given to either allow or deny copyright infringement anyways? This discretion is what I call a form of discrimination in actuality. Whether an upload will bring profit or not to the copyright owner, an infringement is against copyright laws. It is still an infringement. It is unfair to punish some and not others. The subliminal message implied by copyright owners is “Hey, you can infringe my copyright only if you can make it profitable for me.”  -_-

I think that it’s an oxymoron practice to try to enforce copyright laws only when it’s convenient. Yes there are plenty of exceptions to copyright law such as The Fair Use Doctrine and The Creative Commons License, but the vague boundary line for consequences as a result of infringement demonstrate the necessary need for copyright reform. More importantly, I do not think that current copyright laws align with the new digital age era in which intellectual property is used, accessed, and shared nowadays.