He hasn't received any DMCA notices, Youtube don't do those - since DMCA gives creators fair use rights and have punishments for fradulent reports.

Youtube has its own "extra jurisdictional" copyright system.

> Youtube don't do those

YouTube can't just "opt out" of the law. YouTube absolutely responds to DMCA notices, and per the video he issued counter-claims already - that's a core part of responding to DMCA.

https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/copyright/#...

And you don't have to go through youtube's webtools to submit one, either (which of course you don't - the law doesn't require that). You can mail, fax, or email the DMCA takedown notice: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005908?hl=en&ref_...

> YouTube absolutely responds to DMCA notices,

Sure, but these aren't proper DMCA claims. As kristofferR pointed out there are other extra jurisdictional mechanisms that Google employ to make your life difficult as a creator.

And then, which laws apply? US, UK, EU, Russian, Indian....

Now sure, it's a private platform and they can shut you down any time. I recognise there ain't no free speech on private platforms.

But if they've been making a tidy sum of lots of ad money due to your apparent infringement (and much, much more than you the creator) along the way then I'm sure we might see a well funded case against this practice, maybe not in the US, but other jurisdictions that still recognise the limits and powers of private companies and the right not to be fucked over by them.

It's not entirely clear what type of process actually lead YouTube to terminate this channel, so we can't know either.

> there are other extra jurisdictional mechanisms that Google employ to make your life difficult as a creator.

That's not quite true. The DMCA is a very strict mechanism. You get a notice, you take down the content, and if the uploader isn't happy with that, they have to sue the claimant.

Of course, Youtubes process is streamlined for its own interests and the interests of big corporate copyright hoarders. But it's not designed to bully creators.

The problem isn't really the process in itself, it's how Google applies it and the fact that Youtube doesn't seem to care that much for its creators.

This is kinda missing the point: to appease Viacom and the other media companies when Google took over years ago, they set up a parallel but separate system for processing copyright claims that is in addition the DMCA.

A creator can have up to three strikes, with them disappearing over the course of time if they don't get more strikes. Contested copyright strikes may be elevated to DMCA requests if YouTube finds in favor of the creator, but it's not required.

If you run out of those strikes, your channel is immediately shut down. It's possible (especially with a large backlog of videos) to exceed this strike count before you can use their tools to argue against the strikes. When this happens, your account is shut down, and a "grace" timer is enabled to allow you to try and challenge the copyright strikes (one at a time). If that grace period passes and you're still out of strikes (don't dare to take a vacation), the only remaining choice is to appeal to the public.

No DMCA claims necessary.

When Github was sent a DMCA for the PopcornTime repo, PopcornTime was able to submit a counter DMCA which allowed the repo to be reinstated. Then, if the repo was really in violation, it had to be proven in court by the original claimant. Youtube doesn't allow creators to file a counter DMCA.

The same thing happened here. The creator issued a counter claim, and his channel is currently still up and unaffected https://www.youtube.com/c/GarethEvansYT

Youtube does allow DMCA counter claims because they legally have to. Youtube has absolutely no wiggle room with DMCA. No amount of complaining to them can ever change that, either. You have to get the laws changed.

Here and elsewhere in this thread, you're exaggerating the power of the DMCA over YouTube. The only consequence to YouTube if they fail to follow along with the DMCA takedown notice/counter-notice procedure is that they lose safe harbor protection against being held liable for their users copyright infringement. In a case where YouTube is overzealously removing content that is not actually infringing, they really aren't at much risk of that somehow leading to them being sued for infringement. And you can bet that their Terms of Service adequately indemnify them against any torts their users might come after them for related to such behavior.

> they lose safe harbor protection against being held liable for their users copyright infringement. In a case where YouTube is overzealously removing content that is not actually infringing,

Do you understand that the content in the submission is infringing? And not just to the civil level but to the criminal level? And so YouTube losing safe harbor would be huge.

> And so YouTube losing safe harbor would be huge.

No, it wouldn't, because YouTube is actually removing the content. So they're not going to get sued for infringement, and other parts of the DMCA still protect them even when they operate outside the bounds of the takedown notice procedure.

Youtube works in its own little court, they're not real DMCA notices. Otherwise companies wouldn't be allowed to blanket claim random stuff with no repercussions.

How do you know these aren't real DMCA notices? From the video it's a manual claim, which means it's not Content-ID. The email he received from the support agent also specifically states that they responded to a "complete and valid takedown notice." It also doesn't have the required information that YouTube's manual non-contentid system requires. And, finally, the creator issued a counter claim (stated at 2:40) and states the claimant's course of actions are now to either drop the claim or sue him.

All signs therefore point to this being a DMCA notice. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

0:30 he says "without any evidence at all". A DMCA notice should have "identifying infringing material clearly and specifically". Even though it sounds like a real DMCA notice, it still sounds like YT isn't facilitating it correctly. At 3:55 he mentions not being able to get this information. Seconds later he mentions YT doesn't mediate disputes. So what's going on here? Through their strike system and communicating to both parties, are they not mediating this? It looks more like a DMCA against YT, in which they immediately roll over, allow the company to file false DMCAs with no repercussion, and tell the content creator "kick rocks"

YT never mediates DMCA complaints. That's not their role or responsibility, nor something they can even do at all. DMCA requires the sites receiving them to immediately role over and comply. Which is the system that should be getting the ire and calls for changes.

And the video itself is identified. He does have that information.

Note that you can definitely get a "manually detected" non-DMCA Content ID claim on a video[0] - but the screenshot he shows at 3:43 is in fact a DMCA claim since it says "This video is contributing to a copyright stroke on your channel".

https://youtu.be/jpOzW_kRzHs

Sorry that I didn't read much. But above comment section there are directly contradicting comments. One person says he may have received 5 DMCA notices and another person says it is not true. I have seen similar very contradictory things in other social medias too. How is this possible? How to quickly find who is lying without spending too much investigating?

I'm not sure anyone is lying here, so much as being misled by the conventional wisdom that YouTube has no incentive to straighten out. "DMCA" is a well-known buzzword, and the shallow understanding is that copyright infringement claims that get content taken down are all under the DMCA umbrella. The deeper understanding is that most of the big content hosts like YouTube have frontline systems that exist outside the DMCA procedure and its associated legal requirements, but YouTube is happy for the DMCA to take the blame for anything that is handled poorly by their own system. Disputes through that system can be escalated to real DMCA takedown notices.

It is very obvious this is not Content-ID, which is what the big content hosts use for broad protection. It's a manual claim.

Content-ID is something else entirely - an automated preemptive system. But last I checked, it looked like formal DMCA procedures weren't the only manual complaint alternative.