> When you get thousands of videos uploaded at any given moment and probably a huge amount of DMCA takedown requests what choice do you reasonably have? Legall

> When you get thousands of videos uploaded at any given moment and probably a huge amount of DMCA takedown requests what choice do you reasonably have? Legally following the DMCA process. The DMCA process allows a response and does not demand channel deletion. Also the DMCA complaints are supposed to be forwarded. > That guy makes song covers. He claims it's non-profit, he claims it's fair use. The IP owner disagrees, issues a takedown. Automated takedown software issues the takedown because it's crappy software that can't tell a cover from infringement. Covers are not new, they are very well protected and very common. This isn't some kind of new internet thing, covers date back to like the dawn of radio. > I'm not entirely convinced that his "non-profit fair-use" defense would even hold up in court That he makes money from the cover isn't infringement, anymore than other covers are infringement when they were sold on physical CDs. > Focusing on big bad google is a bit simplistic here IMO. Yet other services are capable of handling the DMCA process correctly. Instead Google didn't even forward the DMCA notices, list the specific infringements or give him the legally required ability to respond. Google is choosing to not follow DMCA and instead just delete channels because it's more cost effective. That's it - this is about a few dollars of profit margin that they're destroying someone else's business they've spent a decade building. So yeah, they're the big bad in this situation.