That's not what I said. There are many other options, no need to bring your false dichotomy and straw-man scenario into it.

Actually, it's exactly what you said, whether you know it or not. Google's action was dictated by US law. If you have some magical way for a US company run by US citizens residing in the US to get around US law, I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear it.

You're a laywer as well as the development and operations that your profile mentions?

Funny thing, I thought that the DMCA was the legal path. This was not used. And this alarms some lawyers: http://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/

And the "review", supposedly by a human being which failed to spot that this birdsong was not the same copyrighted recording was also an exact legal requirement? And the lack of any appeals process after that too?

I said, after you put nasty words in my mouth, that there were other options, and there are. You're not thinking this through.

No, but I'm clearly better versed in the law than you are.

The DMCA wasn't used because Google negotiated a separate agreement. Without that agreement -- in which Google also had to give things up -- the DMCA would control, dictating both immediate compliance and a ten-day waiting period before the video could be returned.

You arrogantly behave as if you know better than me. Put up or shut up.

I think I already did put up: a review process that's meaningful. I'm done here.

A review process that would not be accepted in a negotiated agreement by the copyright trolls, and one not permitted under the DMCA.

What's a "Coder in London" doing trying to educate a US citizen and resident on US law, anyway?