Most of the policies I'm referencing are a few years old. My reddit post I linked is from around a year ago and talks about all these policies except for the 7

Most of the policies I'm referencing are a few years old. My reddit post I linked is from around a year ago and talks about all these policies except for the 7 day courtesy period, so I don't know exactly when that went into effect. Anyway, if people are linking articles from 2016 I'm going to point out the current state of the policies. >Seven whole days until your channel is closed forever. How generous. See: Vacation, holidays, natural disasters (or PG&E disasters) It's not forever, you can always file a counternotice after it's been taken down. But yes, you should be prepared to defend your business. You want passive income, you can be prepared to check your email at least once a week. > >Also, why doesn't the copyright claimants also only have a maximum of 7 days to respond? We're talking about Content ID claims here, as a reminder, not DMCA. That's a fair criticism. Presumably Youtube feels that they need a longer time to satisfy claimants and avoid DMCA filings. Remember, content ID claims do not harm the channel at all, so there's no real rush to get them removed except for getting the ad revenue out of escrow. >So, your channel is in hiatus for more 30 days. On my reading you can keep uploading while the counternotice process continues. >Which was not the case in either of the situations I posted. The actions only involved YouTube. Looks like Alex Mauer was involved in legal action https://leonardjfrench.com/2017/06/30/imagos-softworks-v-alex-mauer/ https://leonardjfrench.com/2017/06/30/imagos-softworks-v-ale.... Not familiar with the other case but looks like it's not obviously fair use to share leaked content, could be wrong. >Jim Sterling from the article has many a horror story of spending between 6 months and 2 years fighting copyright claims and associated from corporations and CEO's. So does sidalpha and Angry Joe. Can we really claim in good faith that they're lying by pointing at Google FAQs? What are they claiming? Have they claimed to have submitted a counternotice that was rejected? Can you link me to someone going through a timeline, with dates on what was disputed when, showing that Google FAQs are wrong? Because I've not seen that. I have seen someone posting about getting a counternotice rejected mistakenly and getting it overturned by tweeting at Youtube. And then there's the UMG exception as my first comment noted. But most horror stories I've seen are people who get a bunch of claims and don't even seem to consider filing a counterclaim, or think it's too risky based in bad info. Or, very very rarely, people who actually get sued.