Can a no-restriction Content ID turn into a copyright strike?

It is YouTubes' choice to strike your channel. There is no legal obligation to do so. Their legal obligation is to comply with the DMCA takedown and remove the content at the owners request. YouTube doesn't have to have a strike system like this at all. They could just terminate your channel on the first occurrence if they wanted to.
Certainly they have to do something, correct? In order to maintain their "safe harbor" status, YouTube needs some sort of "repeat infringer" policy, which is why they came up with the 3-strike system. Sure they could just terminate your account instead of giving it a strike, but they have to do something in addition to just removing the video.
 
Certainly they have to do something, correct? In order to maintain their "safe harbor" status, YouTube needs some sort of "repeat infringer" policy, which is why they came up with the 3-strike system. Sure they could just terminate your account instead of giving it a strike, but they have to do something in addition to just removing the video.

Yes, they do need to address repeat infringers in some capacity. The undefined terms "reasonable" and "appropriate circumstances" are used which is pretty grey.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
"has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers;"

This in no way needs to reflect the current method of copyright strikes. They could keep a hidden database. They could have it be 4 or 5 strikes instead of 3. They could remove accounts immediately on the second infringement. Instead, they put in place a very specific tiered punishment system with a rolling 6 month timer that removes site features along with a 3 strike to termination structure. They could easily determine that 3 months instead of 6 is enough for someone to have learned their lesson. Or 12 months instead.

Saying they don't have the legal authority because it is the claimant that issues the strike is a nonsensical position. YouTube removes strikes all the time. If it was the claimant who issues the strike, YouTube would need a court order to reverse it in the event of a false claim. It is an internal system which has room for appeal and YouTube themselves are the ultimate arbiters of how it works and what it does.
 
Yes, they do need to address repeat infringers in some capacity. The undefined terms "reasonable" and "appropriate circumstances" are used which is pretty grey.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
"has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers;"

This in no way needs to reflect the current method of copyright strikes. They could keep a hidden database. They could have it be 4 or 5 strikes instead of 3. They could remove accounts immediately on the second infringement. Instead, they put in place a very specific tiered punishment system with a rolling 6 month timer that removes site features along with a 3 strike to termination structure. They could easily determine that 3 months instead of 6 is enough for someone to have learned their lesson. Or 12 months instead.

Saying they don't have the legal authority because it is the claimant that issues the strike is a nonsensical position. YouTube removes strikes all the time. If it was the claimant who issues the strike, YouTube would need a court order to reverse it in the event of a false claim. It is an internal system which has room for appeal and YouTube themselves are the ultimate arbiters of how it works and what it does.
Okay. It just sounded like you were saying they only had to remove the video and that having a strike system or equivalent was all their own decision. I agree that their specific repeat infringer policy is their own chosen method of complying.
 
What I meant is that they don't have the legal standing to decide if a DMCA claim is invalid and thus can't just remove a strike because of that. Of course they can theoretically decide a different strike system but that wasn't the question here.
 
Absolutely, they can change their policies or choose to take down your video and not others at any time without notice. It happens quite a lot.

Filing a dispute and saying that it was previously viewable would probably not be considered a valid reason.
 
THANK YOU Tarmac! Super-detailed breakdown of everything I wanted to know. Seriously brilliant write-up, if that's not stickied already in this section you should make a thread and get that s**t stickied!
 
What I meant is that they don't have the legal standing to decide if a DMCA claim is invalid and thus can't just remove a strike because of that. Of course they can theoretically decide a different strike system but that wasn't the question here.

Wut??

Please, stop giving advice in the copyright forum without far more significant research. A DMCA takedown notice is NOT an automatic compliance issue. False DMCA takedown requests are filed all the time, whether by someone other than the content owner, a group seeking to silence critique, etc. In fact, YouTube recently refused to comply with a number of DMCA takedown requests, as those takedowns were against content that YouTube perceived to be fair use and is willing to defend that claim in court if the need arises. They did this very publicly.

https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html

A DMCA takedown request is not a court order. It's validity is always subject to verification.[DOUBLEPOST=1453390406,1453390337][/DOUBLEPOST]
THANK YOU Tarmac! Super-detailed breakdown of everything I wanted to know. Seriously brilliant write-up, if that's not stickied already in this section you should make a thread and get that s**t stickied!

It is a sticky already. :)

http://yttalk.com/threads/contentid-and-strikes.165406/
 
A DMCA takedown notice is NOT an automatic compliance issue.
Never meant to say this.
False DMCA takedown requests are filed all the time, whether by someone other than the content owner, a group seeking to silence critique, etc.
Never said the oposite
In fact, YouTube recently refused to comply with a number of DMCA takedown requests, as those takedowns were against content that YouTube perceived to be fair use and is willing to defend that claim in court if the need arises.
But the final decision is still up to the court. YouTube is simply paying for the case costs.
A DMCA takedown request is not a court order.
Never meant to say that. But if your copyright complaint is rejected by the claimant you need to file a court case. Sorry if my wording is a bit off for lawyer stuff but English isn't my native language.[DOUBLEPOST=1453391921,1453391835][/DOUBLEPOST]
A DMCA takedown notice is NOT an automatic compliance issue.
Never meant to say this.
False DMCA takedown requests are filed all the time, whether by someone other than the content owner, a group seeking to silence critique, etc.
Never said the oposite
In fact, YouTube recently refused to comply with a number of DMCA takedown requests, as those takedowns were against content that YouTube perceived to be fair use and is willing to defend that claim in court if the need arises.
But the final decision is still up to the court. YouTube is simply paying for the case costs.
A DMCA takedown request is not a court order.
Never meant to say that. But if your copyright complaint is rejected by the claimant you need to file a court case. Sorry if my wording is a bit off for lawyer stuff but English isn't my native language.

All that is far beyond the original question by the way which I was trying to answer.
 
Back
Top