Where are the court documents proving the claim is fraudulent. What people say on twitter is not proof.Infernal Lawyer said:So basically the main problem is that the law doesn't accept "We hear you, you can have the money when we confirm your claim". You're either fully complying with a claim, or standing in their way.Albino Boo said:Snip
This still doesn't explain two things:
1. Why Youtube doesn't ask for the money back when it's proven that the claim is fraudulent, or when there is no follow-up to a counter-claim. Even if they have to take any claim at face value, is the law really so inherently broken that they can't demand it back? Because really, using the same "guilty until proven innocent" attitude on claiments who don't respond to counter-claims would pretty much solve this.
2. Why Youtube can't just say "hey, we can't do anything until the law is changed" if it's apparently so bloody obvious to lawyers but nobody else. It would get people off their back and onto doing something more productive, like trying to actually change the law.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454YouTube can?t help you determine whether you should dispute a claim, so you?ll probably want to seek your own legal advice if you?re still not sure what to do.
https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html#yt-copyright-mythsThere is some misinformation out there that might lead you to believe fair use automatically applies if you say a few magic words. There is actually no silver bullet that will guarantee you are protected by fair use when you use copyrighted material you don?t own. Courts will consider all four of the factors described above and weigh them on a case-by-case basis.