As far as I understand, Youtube operates the following copyright tools [1],
A. Content owners: Copyright Infringement Notification (modelled on US DMCA takedown).
- content owners fill out a form with specific pre-stated legalese expressions for specific content.
- contact: email address is preferred, no specific contact information is mandated.
- user content blocked, replaced with claim statement and Strike received on account.
B. Content owners: Copyright Verification Programme.
- this seems to be an expedited and broader version of the CIN tool for mass content removal.
- need to identify agents for your ownership. Identity process unknown.
- user content blocked, replaced with claim statement and Strike received on account.
C. Content owners: Content ID (nothing whatsoever to do with US DMCA).
- an automated or semi-automated process to flag content according to any of a number of policies that content owners decide.
- this includes deciding what is or is not "Fair Use"...
- unlike the CIN and CVP processes, accounts of matching content are not issued Strikes, which would ultimately close the account if sufficient number received, but the content is blocked.
D. Content owners: Retractions.
- process that requires specific content identification, and content owner name as signature from original claimant account.
- removes claims and restrictions of CIN and CVP. Unclear how, if at all, it interacts with Content ID.
E. Users: Copyright Counter-Notifications.
- form that, among other things, requires full address information that is always relayed to original claimant.
- note. copyright laws of user's country of residence are irrelevant. The form of allowable counter-notification is based on the "location" [2] of the original claimant.
- Youtube "may then reinstate the material in question at our discretion".
In this case, the two claimants likely used the CIN which will result in Strikes without action by the user with Copyright Counter-Notifications.
In short and in my opinion, it is clear that this process is highly asymmetrical and prone to abuse - in this case as a form of harassment, if as claimed the user had zero infringing content in her videos.
A. Content owners: Copyright Infringement Notification (modelled on US DMCA takedown).
- content owners fill out a form with specific pre-stated legalese expressions for specific content.
- contact: email address is preferred, no specific contact information is mandated.
- user content blocked, replaced with claim statement and Strike received on account.
B. Content owners: Copyright Verification Programme.
- this seems to be an expedited and broader version of the CIN tool for mass content removal.
- need to identify agents for your ownership. Identity process unknown.
- user content blocked, replaced with claim statement and Strike received on account.
C. Content owners: Content ID (nothing whatsoever to do with US DMCA).
- an automated or semi-automated process to flag content according to any of a number of policies that content owners decide.
- this includes deciding what is or is not "Fair Use"...
- unlike the CIN and CVP processes, accounts of matching content are not issued Strikes, which would ultimately close the account if sufficient number received, but the content is blocked.
D. Content owners: Retractions.
- process that requires specific content identification, and content owner name as signature from original claimant account.
- removes claims and restrictions of CIN and CVP. Unclear how, if at all, it interacts with Content ID.
E. Users: Copyright Counter-Notifications.
- form that, among other things, requires full address information that is always relayed to original claimant.
- note. copyright laws of user's country of residence are irrelevant. The form of allowable counter-notification is based on the "location" [2] of the original claimant.
- Youtube "may then reinstate the material in question at our discretion".
In this case, the two claimants likely used the CIN which will result in Strikes without action by the user with Copyright Counter-Notifications.
In short and in my opinion, it is clear that this process is highly asymmetrical and prone to abuse - in this case as a form of harassment, if as claimed the user had zero infringing content in her videos.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_owners
[2] Ambiguous if whether that could refer to jurisdiction of any of the registered agents under the CVP, for example.