<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Victory! YouTube Reforms Content ID Dispute Process</title>
		<description>Discuss Victory! YouTube Reforms Content ID Dispute Process</description>
		<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2026 18:30:13 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://fairusetube.org/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/25/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Jessica Evans says:</title>
			<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-886</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What I am hearing about is independent content providers creating unique content on their own monetized channels who are becoming victims of fraudulent claims. Fraudsters effectively divert the money stream to themselves during the early high-view period after the video is uploaded. By the time the dispute is resolved in the original content provider's favor, the revenue stream is much less. The ad-stream money from early watches when the content was under dispute, that went to the false claimant, is never returned to the original content provider. Why is YouTube not returning that money to the original content provider? It seems like a clear case of theft of advertising revenue. I know that YouTube gets their cut either way, but it seems shocking to me that YouTube doesn't return that money once the dispute is resolved in the original content provider's favor. So long as there continues to be a reward (diverted revenue) and no punishment for repeatedly filing false claims, more and more companies, legit and fraudulent alike, will do so. Legit companies do it out of laziness and greed, and fraudulent companies out of criminality and greed. Rumblefish created a big mess where they falsely claimed a huge catalog of videos by accident. They asked content providers to get in touch with them so they could refund the money. Why isn't YouTube doing the refunding automatically when a claim is revoked or found to be false?!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jessica Evans</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:20:20 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-886</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>DeltaSerpentis says:</title>
			<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-598</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Karen, I think it's both. They do believe they're above the law, and at the same time they purposefully exploit the GYT system in order to get as much money as they can. I wonder, laying false claim on Public Domain cultural works isn't EXACTLY the same as claiming that you own, let's say, the Colosseum or the Pyramids? An offense like that is infinitely more serious than a copyrighted song accidentally playing on the radio while you take a video of your kid chasing the cat. But the way the latter case is being treated as an outright crime while everyone seems to be getting away with things pretty much similar to the former, just shows what the world's cultural heritage really means to those in (any kind of) power. That is, it means nada, zilch. Or just one more resource to abuse in order to make even more money.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>DeltaSerpentis</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:51:41 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-598</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Karen says:</title>
			<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-503</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yesterday I uploaded a song I performed (vocally) with my own piano accompanist at my Senior College Recital, it was a Mozart piece entitled "Laudate Dominum," written in 1779. It immediately came back with "matched third party content" from UMPG Publishing (Universal). I disputed, and it IMMEDIATELY came back "copyright claim reinstated." It is obvious even the disputed claim response is *automated*! I went to the Universal website and clicked on their licensing link, and they don't even have "Laudate Dominum" in their database (naturally, it's a classical piece, the composer has been dead over 200 years and in the public domain!) even if I *wanted* to pay a sync license! Two other songs I posted have been flagged with content ID, that is Amazing Grace (AS IF!!! also in public domain, from Rumblefish) and "Summertime" by George Gershwin from Warner. Gershwin died in 1937, so it is now also public domain. This situation is unbelievable!!! ! I think they are hoping to snag a bunch of money from ignorant people who don't know the law and don't know their rights! Or maybe they think they are above the law?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Karen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jun 2013 03:19:41 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-503</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Philip Tagg says:</title>
			<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-453</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm a retired professor of musicology. I've taught/researched music in the modern media since 1971. I've had recurrent problems with GYT since 2007. Since the advent of GYT's mechanised copyright ID system I've wasted even more time battling takedown and excommunication threats that fly in the face of the US federal code of fair and/or transformative use (§107, p. 19; §118, p. 74: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf; plus Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 US 569, 1994). I could've written another book or run another couple of courses for all the time and frustration my GYT's lazy intransigence and my own stubbornness has caused! Despite my professional credentials and despite the expert legal advice I have received, there's almost nothing I can do to get GYT to respect the law of their land (the USA) because of the contract, subject to GYT's unilateral alteration of course, I entered into with GYT when I first signed up as a YouTube user. As an altruistic educator, the only way long-term way out of these endless anti-democratic time-wasters is, I think, to boycott YT (fewer users = less advertising revenue for GYT) and to stream my 'edutainment' videos elsewhere. For the time being they're on my own site but I'm advocating that IASPM (International Association for the Study of Popular Music) establish its own server for storage of educational and research materials relevant to our subject. For more about this, please see www/tagg.org/infowhy.html#Copyright.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Philip Tagg</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:24:59 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-453</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gen @ CinemaVintage says:</title>
			<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-298</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You know I think you're wonderful. I fight these false claims on YT by the truckload weekly and the traffic;s only increasing. Please keep drawing attention to it. I can;t help but think if the public knew what these "companies" were doing to our resources they would never stand for it. If you need anything, give a shout. - Gen :)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gen @ CinemaVintage</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:39:10 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-298</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryu says:</title>
			<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-229</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I wish I able to do that with my first account 2 years ago,but about the time you can appeal the CG strikes my account was already terminated.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryu</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 23:36:33 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-229</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Patrick McKay says:</title>
			<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-227</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Paul - There is an appeal process for account terminations due to Community Guidelines violations which you can access through this page: https://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=185111]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Patrick McKay</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:59:19 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-227</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul says:</title>
			<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-226</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Dear Patrick, My account was terminated due to alleged deception/scam. I wrote my open letter but, to this moment, I was unable to change the situation. Do you have any suggestions? This is not a copyright claim!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:04:01 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-226</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>smittysmit says:</title>
			<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-224</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Patrick mckay, can you help me please. I really appreciate this article. Im having a problem. I got a copyright notice on a video i uploaded recently. I followed your steps to dispute it. That worked until they reinstated the dispute. here is the link to the video. http://youtu.be/fIhKD2UTqsU can you tell me if i am infringing the copyright act or is this fair use? any help would be greatly appreciated as i speant several hours to create this video for others to share]]></description>
			<dc:creator>smittysmit</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:43:36 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-224</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Patrick McKay says:</title>
			<link>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-223</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Larry - If you do the appeal, and the copyright claimant then files a DMCA notice, the counter-notice process works just like a regular DMCA counter-notice which I have instructions for in my tutorial section. One thing I need to update though is that direct link I have to the counter-notice webform no longer works, and you now need to get there from the copyright notices section of your account. But basically you fill that out (including a brief but specific explanation of why your video is not infringing) and submit it and YouTube will restore your video after about 2 weeks, this time permanently (unless the copyright claimant files a lawsuit against you, which is unlikely to happen). If a DMCA notice is issued against you, you will get a copyright strike, but that will go away once your counter-notice goes through. Hope that answers your questions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Patrick McKay</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:05:02 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fairusetube.org/articles/25-content-id-victory#comment-223</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
