> Content ID exists so YouTube can ease big partners.
It's probably more to ease their own burden. YouTube likely receives a huge number of takedown requests daily, but with Content ID a lot more can be automated. Also, without Content ID, there would probably be a lot more companies just doing poorly-scripted takedown requests, which would make the experience of everyone on YouTube a lot worse. See: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/absurd-automated-notic...
> I am not sure about the three strikes being a part of DMCA. Are you sure?
The DMCA includes a clause about the termination of "repeat infringers"; I assume that YouTube's strike system is their easy-to-understand-and-apply way of addressing that. From the DMCA:
"The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider 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"
As for your last point, that does sound broken. Perhaps the content owner of the song you used decided that they didn't want people using it on YouTube after all?
> As for your last point, that does sound broken. Perhaps the content owner of the song you used decided that they didn't want people using it on YouTube after all?
Can one revoke a copyright license like that? If one did, would that song still be available on YouTube Video Creator for new videos? Also, how does one be certain in the case of classical music whether one owns performance copyright to it without introducing a certain deviation from the score (defect or flaw if you will) in the musical piece as a fingerprint? I'd imagine if YouTube used an audio score in its tool, it has obtained some sort of a global, perpetual, irrevocable blah blah license don't you think?
It's probably more to ease their own burden. YouTube likely receives a huge number of takedown requests daily, but with Content ID a lot more can be automated. Also, without Content ID, there would probably be a lot more companies just doing poorly-scripted takedown requests, which would make the experience of everyone on YouTube a lot worse. See: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/absurd-automated-notic...
> I am not sure about the three strikes being a part of DMCA. Are you sure?
The DMCA includes a clause about the termination of "repeat infringers"; I assume that YouTube's strike system is their easy-to-understand-and-apply way of addressing that. From the DMCA:
"The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider 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"
(source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512)
As for your last point, that does sound broken. Perhaps the content owner of the song you used decided that they didn't want people using it on YouTube after all?