Of course you're right. But it's a solution for YouTube because it means they have to do absolutely nothing, and don't get in trouble.
(Disclaimer: I used to work in the media business so I'm familiar with the process).
I have heard that the dispute process uses dark patterns to punish uploaders for actually using it -- e.g. you must select between reasons for your dispute, none of which is "the claimed material isn't actually present."
Is this true?
It seems quite bonkers that you disagree with the "disputes are discouraged by forced lying" narrative yet keep posting evidence to support it.
Ah well. It's not my fight. I should be grateful for that.
As far as I know, it's not required. Rather, if a provider doesn't do it, they can be found liable for contributory infringement when a user posts infringing content.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en
If they don't have a registration, they can't file a lawsuit. So after 10 days, Google will reinstate.
He just went about it in the typical manner of people who act like the people who field these disputes aren't customer service representatives earning $0.50 per hour reading out automated scripts like literal NPCs with no freedom to act whatsoever. When dealing with these kinds of issues you have to realize that it's not personal. It is like getting mad at a voice chat app for misunderstanding you. There is nothing personal about it.
There are a few things that could help to improve this process: force people making claims to verify their identity positively (he does bring this up in his video), improve the technology at the Copyright office to provide both platform owners and copyright owners some method to generate keys that verify that claims are accurate and authorized, and for more people who are victims of false claims to sue the people who are making them.
I think ideally copyright owners would have to go to Copyright.gov, enter the registration number(s) that they own that they want to enforce using the account that made the registration, generate a time-limited key using the system, and then enter that key into their copyright complaint on the platform that they want to police their IP on. When GooFaceZon processes the complaint, they would check with the copyright.gov server to verify that an authorized copyright owner made that complaint within the timeframe provided by the system. That way even if there is some kind of account compromise at some point the damage can be limited.
I don't actually know if that'd be the best system, but something like that would be a great improvement over the current system of being able to make any kind of fake claim with no verification.
> The process may only be pursued in instances where the upload was removed or disabled ... It should not be pursued under any other circumstances.
GP's whole point is that counterclaims don't work here, because the content hasn't been removed, just re-monetized.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en
If they don't have a registration, they can't file a lawsuit. So after 10 days, Google will reinstate.
He just went about it in the typical manner of people who act like the people who field these disputes aren't customer service representatives earning $0.50 per hour reading out automated scripts like literal NPCs with no freedom to act whatsoever.
There are a few things that can help to police this process:
Wait just a second, isn't the revenue half-life of a youtube video like 2 days or something? 10 days sounds like way, way too long.
[edit: grammar]
General question: if one did care about ad revenue.. are there some up to date resources to learn what current best practices are?