That's not how I read that. "lost" in this context simply means the so-called copyright holder clicks the button that says "nah, still can't use my stuff" that's considered a strike.
The "Resolve a copyright strike" section of [1] includes:
> There are three ways to resolve a copyright strike:
> [...]
> 3. Submit a counter notification: If your video was mistakenly removed because it was misidentified as infringing, or qualifies as a potential fair use, you may wish to submit a counter notification.
That's not entirely clear whether the copyright strike is removed when you submit a counter notification, or whether the status of the copyright strike is resolved after further proceedings.
I think the strike is removed immediately upon submission of the counter notification, because I think this is the action that moves the dispute fully into the formally defined DMCA takedown legal procedure and out of YouTube's own content ID procedures. But Google's documentation is obviously avoiding any clear statement of user's rights and what's required by law vs by Google policy. Google and the big copyright cartels want the system to continue to function largely on intimidation, and don't want it to be too easy for users to find and exercise the "sue me or fuck off" option they are legally entitled to.
The strike isn't removed until after ten days, but the effects are paused during that period. The content will stay down during that period but the account is fine.
I don't want to ascribe particular motivations to Google here, but I agree that more people should be aware that they can dispute and counternotice and won't be harmed except in the very unlikely case that they actually get sued.
This also assumes that the entity that made the original claim doesn't just come back and say that your counter-notice is invalid. Google doesn't actually check that they are telling the truth and will just suspend your account permanently instead.
If you involve some lawyers and media pressure they might reverse the decision, but if you are just a random person without a legal team on call 24/7 you're SOL.
>This also assumes that the entity that made the original claim doesn't just come back and say that your counter-notice is invalid. Google doesn't actually check that they are telling the truth and will just suspend your account permanently instead.
Not how it works. They need to actually file a lawsuit.
> The strike isn't removed until after ten days, but the effects are paused during that period. The content will stay down during that period but the account is fine.
The stuff you're saying in this thread all sounds plausible, but I have no idea where you're getting this information and there are plenty of other plausible interpretations of the vague Google documentation I've read so far. Can you please provide some more authoritative sources for your claims? Because as-is you're not really reassuring anybody.
Specifically, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000 mentions the courtesy period for anyone that's actually monetized and says the account won't go down at all if counternotices are sent. There's no courtesy period for accounts that aren't monetized (I.e. Not part of the Partner program). But of course if you're not monetized you have very little reason to dispute a content ID claim, since that also doesn't harm your account.
Right. The DMCA takedown process is more reasonable in this regard: if you post a counter-notice, the service provider puts your content back up and the party trying to make a copyright claim has to sue you. YouTube, on the other hand, makes purported copyright holders the absolute judge of their own cases.
This is incorrect. If a rights owner refuses to retract in the face of a dispute, YouTube will require them to convert it into a DMCA notice and will then honor any counternotice.
I've seen multiple reports from channel owners who have not been given any such option; the message saying that the supposed "rights owner" has confirmed the dispute is presented as "final" (along with the copyright strike). Unless this has changed recently, or there's some obscure link to switch to the DMCA process?
The only exception I'm aware of is a special agreement Google has with UMG where they ignore counternotices and appeals, but they also don't count as strikes and won't hurt the account in that case.
Describing it as "won't hurt the account" is a bit misleading. They won't nuke your account ("at this time"), but they also won't let you post the legal non-infringing content that the cartel has paid Google to suppress. That would generally qualify under the broader meaning of "harm" that applies during legal disputes.
It may hurt you in that sense, but not the account. I think it's pretty clear what I meant by that. Regardless such cases are fairly rare, vast majority of cases I've seen people complaining about YouTube issues have nothing to do with the UMG deal and I haven't heard of any other companies than UMG subject to this.
