Also, in this case often the person accused of copying someone, needs to proof that they didnโt, which inverts the burden of proof.
I'm not sure that that claim is accurate.
To my knowledge it is not usually the case that someone who is sued for copyright infringement needs to prove their innocence before the court. Normally it is the accuser who needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the copyright infringement took place.
Could it be that you might be conflating it with YouTube and their ContentID system?
That system is not strictly a legal requirement, but rather YouTube covering their ass so they don't get sued into oblivion for the many cases of copyright infringement that people upload to that platform on the regular
Edit: However, I do agree that the copyright system needs a pretty significant overhaul to better suit the digital age.