Just as a FYI, Blender runs their own PeerTube instance (that you can subscribe to via ActivityPub/Fediverse (so Mastodon and all of those others)) which they fully control: https://video.blender.org/

Reason they created that in the first place was because of a similar accident in the past. Maybe hopefully soon they'll stop using YouTube fully as YouTube doesn't seem to care about solving the core problem of driveby copyright strikes.

Assuming the facts reported here are true, it seems that YouTube is putting its safe harbor in jeopardy by not complying with the counter-takedown:

> Following receipt of a compliant counter-notice, the online service provider must restore access to the material after no less than ten and no more than fourteen business days, unless the original notice sender informs the service provider that it has filed a court action against the user.

https://www.copyright.gov/512/

I get that mistakes can happen, but companies filing frivolous DMCA notices should be barred from this avenue in the future. Further, YouTube's appeals process is fundamentally broken if it can't get such obvious cases right.

> Determined to have his video restored, Bruno accepted the risks and sent another counternotice to YouTube. This time there was no indication that the counternotice was deficient. YouTube thanked him for filing it – but still declined to process it.

Uh, dealing with YouTube is fun on every level.

Not long ago I was helping a successful content creator friend bootstrap a YouTube channel, and since she has a large number of existing videos, I wrote a program using YouTube Data API v3 to automatically upload them. Turned out the upload API has been restricted since a few years ago, one has to submit a lengthy application form and go through manual approval, or all videos uploaded through the API are automatically locked as spam. So I submitted the application, and a few days later, I got an email rejecting my application, which ends in the following:

> To reapply, you may complete and submit the appropriate form once the above concerns have been addressed. Please do not reply to this email.

> Feel free to reach out to us with any questions.

So, I'm supposed to "feel free to reach out to" them, but I should "not reply to this email", leaving the only way to reach out to them the application form, which doesn't have any Q/A field, and incidentally they just rejected it. Did anyone think about their process when they authored that email template? Anyway, I eventually managed to identify the problem and pass the review.

This seems like something the EFF might be able to provide a lawyer for.

They have repeatedly fought for Open Source Licenses in court in the past, and helped get legal representation for people who couldn't afford to fight large companies on their own budget.

This is the point where one should actually get a copyright lawyer to help fight it out.

Just youtube and its mediocre moderation team doing what they always do. Google is a zero support company. They do not care about ordinary people, only about their commercial advertisers, and, even then, only the top percentage of them.

Slow clap..... YouTube needs to penalize such false copyright claims with demonetization ot rate limiting the ability to do so in the future

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468?hl=en

> Creative Commons licenses can only be used on 100% original content. If there's a Content ID claim on your video, you cannot mark your video with the Creative Commons license.

Do they add some sort of their own license terms on top of creative commons with this?

IANAL. Does this count as Slander of Title?

I.e., does the DMCA indemnify a company that makes a clearly false claim?

How many times does this need to happen again until people stop uploading their OC to Youtube?

I wonder if a retaliatory clause in CC licenses where if you issue an erroneous DMCA notice your license is immediately terminated and you can be targeted would help.

Headline should be "YouTube does not recognize user's right to post CC By-Licensed film"

Isn't this the second time this happened? I thought i heard about this years ago.

Can we ask EFF to fire a lawsuit against YouTube on that case? Or open a funding campain for that exact case if EFF cannot fund it from their primary stream of donations? This is a crystal clear case, easy win.

It seems like the TV station company has violated the CC license, so why not copyright strike their video and save other people the pain down the line?

Applying occam's razor here, I wonder if this was caused by a corrupt Google employee taking a bribe from the TV station in Uzbekistan?

Social network content moderators have been known to take bribes[0][1]. The fact that there was a manual DMCA review involved makes this more sus

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/lawsuits-onlyfan...

[1]: https://calcoastnews.com/2022/08/former-twitter-employee-con...

Torrentfreak.com seems to have built its business upon benefiting financially from media pirates.

Massive media piracy seems to be what enabled (if not necessitated) the DMCA process in question here. As well as numerous human-hostile technologies and legislation.

I don't know about the situations in other countries, but in the US, this whole dynamic driven by media piracy the last 2-3 decades has always seemed incredibly stupid and shortsighted.

If there's a news story about a DMCA takedown Kafkaesque process, can we get a more objective source?