Yeah, the Ars Technica article is far better. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-offers-a-meaningful-contentid-appeal-process/ http://a

Yeah, the Ars Technica article is far better. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-offers-a-meaningful-contentid-appeal-process/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-o... The improvements to the content ID algorithm and occasional manual review of those is all well and good, but the far more important change here (as TimNN says) is to the counterclaim process. Before, you had the situation where the only person judging whether or not your counterclaim was valid was the very company that lodged the claim, which is ridiculous (and even if a company is not malicious, they could very well be lazy and just issue blanket denials of counterclaims). A counterclaim now no longer goes into a black hole, but actually reinstates the video. If a company wants to counter your counterclaim, they then have to file a real DMCA takedown notice, with the normal DMCA process after that.