4 ms·

OK, so this article is actually factually incorrect, and so is every commenter on here. We have appealed many videos on YouTube, and I can understand that it's

by Apreche 12y ago

OK, so this article is actually factually incorrect, and so is every commenter on here. We have appealed many videos on YouTube, and I can understand that it's confusing, but let me explain. It all comes down to confusion about the meaning of this text: An appeal will result in either: the release of a claim on your video OR a legal copyright notification from the claimant. In this event your video will be taken down and you will receive a copyright strike on your account. If you have received additional copyright strikes, this may suspend your YouTube account The article incorrect interprets these two options as: Agree with us that you are a dirty lying dirty thief, and we'll still allow it to play in some countries. Disagree with us, and we're going to take it down everywhere forever. And I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record. This is incorrect. Here's what the two options actually are. A: All claims are removed from your video. Nothing happens to you. Fair use wins. Glory be. The person making the claim didn't actually come after you with lawyers. B: The person who is claiming copyright actually gets lawyers and comes after you for real. You'll have your chance to fight in the legal system. If you lose, the video is taken down and you'll get a strike. If you win, well, you win. Congratulations. We have appealed many many videos. We only appeal ones we feel are fair use. Ones that are obviously not fair use, we just say yes to start out with. EVERY SINGLE TIME we have gone all the way on appeals, we have ended up with result A. Not one single claimant on our absolutely fair-use videos has actually tried to take us to court. The claims on our videos were released. The end. It's just a bunch of scary text, but it's ok for it to be scary. If you push it all the way your video will be up with no claims. But you're giving your contact info so that they can actually sue you for real. YouTube is shielding you from taking that very real chance that you could end up in court if you aren't ready for that.

codezero 12y ago
Do claimants get litigation strikes when they claim something that someone rejects and they aren't willing to sue over? It seems like this system would level out a lot of claimants had to agree to pursuit legal action before making claims. Right now they have broad abilities to make claims without backing them up which disproportionately punishes users and creators. I absolutely believe that people who violate the law should go to court, but the current landscape puts the user in a very disadvantaged position and there appears (at least externally) to be no long term "permanent record" for litigious content owners w/r/t claims vs. rejected claims. At some point they should no longer be able to make claims.

by Apreche 12y ago

codezero 12y ago

Do claimants get litigation strikes when they claim something that someone rejects and they aren't willing to sue over? It seems like this system would level out a lot of claimants had to agree to pursuit legal action before making claims. Right now they have broad abilities to make claims without backing them up which disproportionately punishes users and creators. I absolutely believe that people who violate the law should go to court, but the current landscape puts the user in a very disadvantaged position and there appears (at least externally) to be no long term "permanent record" for litigious content owners w/r/t claims vs. rejected claims. At some point they should no longer be able to make claims.