The "Topic" bit generally gets added to a channel name when a music distributer (like DistroKid [2]) publishes music to youtube on behalf of a musician (in this case Alive Violet Molland), typically at the same time adding it to other streaming services.
Distrokid will let you publish an unlimited number of albums in this way for about $20 a year and then collects the revenue from any streaming on your behalf. I'm guessing the distributer may also register the audio with music rights organisations, which are presumably the source of the copyright claims.
The Wicca Moonlight video now has 4.4k downvotes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThyLB6bakk [2] https://distrokid.com/
I went searching around using that info and came across a (similarly outraged) thread on google's support forums about this video, in which someone named longzijun seemed to make a reasonably sound counter-argument:
https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/108213944/a-posted...
> Then she files a counter-notification. The appeals process has not been completed. She is only part-way through it.
> Once she files that and if she does it properly, the claimant has 14 days to initiate a court action against her or the claim is released, the strike removed and the video goes back online.
> Obviously, the claimant will not pursue legal action in this case.
> False claims can cause inconvenience for sure, but with the counter-notification system, they don't do long-term damage.
> Both the takedown system and the counternotification system are mandated by US law (specifically the DMCA).
> YouTube is not supposed to intervene in copyright cases. If they do so, they will lose their safe harbor status (again under the DMCA) that protects YouTube from being sued for hosting copyright infringing content.
> To sum up
> 1) the dispute process has not been completed in this case
> 2) your beef should be with US legislators, not YouTube
Especially since there’s no strike for copyright holders if they issue a false claim.
Instead the copyright claim is purely via YouTube’s content ID system that detected the supposedly infringing audio before the video was even published, as the YouTuber states in the video linked. The company claiming the copyright sought to monetise the “infringing” video for themselves through this content ID mechanism.
I would argue that, while YouTube says it cannot arbitrate copyright disputes, if it continues to allow supposed copyright holders the exclusive right to decide whether something is in fact their copyright, they are arbitrating the disputes, just in a completely one sided manner, and the creators beef should be with them. If they were actually neutral, they would instead allow the DMCA system to work as you said.
So for this reason YT might have some minimal justification for handling "old classical music" (but it is not based on copyright of a long dead composer, but on the "mechanical reproduction" copyright of some orchestra/artist).
Now, that said. If they can't distinguish between performances, then it should not be left to them.
And, anyway, the real problem is the fucked up bias in favoring the claimers.
Then it's purely google's fault that their AI contentid scanner can't distinguish between Wicca Moonlight and some other arbitrary performance of the sonata. It's google's fault that their AI doesn't understand that the sonata itself is in the public domain so they have to only match against exact reproductions rather than "kinda sounds the same because same notes and instruments" reproductions.