[JoshTriplett]

> I know there is a mechanism for those affected by the takedown notices to challenge them, which I guess in my case they should win

You would think that, but YouTube's Content ID system does not work that way.

It should work the same way the DMCA does: if you get a notice, you post a counter-notice, your content goes right back up without question, and if the purported content owner wants to escalate further they have to sue you.

Instead, with Content ID, if you "appeal", the appeal goes to the purported content owner, who then has complete discretion to say "no, you're still infringing", with no third-party review or ability to appeal further. Because of course the content owner would never deny Fair Use or claim a piece of content that they don't actually own...

[magicalist]

> Instead, with Content ID, if you "appeal", the appeal goes to the purported content owner, who then has complete discretion to say "no, you're still infringing", with no third-party review or ability to appeal further.

This hadn't been true for a couple of years now, as covered in the article. At the appeal either the content owner has to let the content go back up or file an actual DMCA takedown notice.

[JoshTriplett]

My comment was based on the reports of several different channels I've followed that have had to deal with spurious Content ID claims. According to those reports, there was no mechanism for further appeal if the Content ID claimant denied the initial appeal. In particular, there was no apparent mechanism to file a DMCA counterclaim and have the content restored despite the Content ID claim. The "DMCA Notice" box in the article's flowchart appears to be a terminal state.

On top of that, according to the article, you can only have so many appeals in progress at any given time, and Content ID claimants can delay responding to such appeals for 30 days.