YouTube doesn't have a lot of flexibility here. The DMCA spells out specific requirements YouTube must follow when they receive a copyright claim and even with the current DMCA submission system and content id system which creators claim is too large media company friendly Google is constantly being threatened with law suits by the large media companies claiming they are in violation of safe harbor requirements for not making it even easier for them to make mass DMCA take down claims.
> Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual obligations
> YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions.
> In exchange for this, some of these music copyright owners require us to handle videos containing their sound recordings and/or musical works in ways that differ from the usual processes [aka the DMCA takedown/counter-notification process] on YouTube. Under these contracts, we may be required to remove specific videos from the site, block specific videos in certain territories, or prevent specific videos from being reinstated after a counter notification. In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available. Your account will not be penalized at this time.
That's not how that law works. The safe harbor protection in the DMCA is for Youtube, not their customers. It protects them from legal action by copyright holders as long as they honor the process spelled out in the statute.
There's absolutly no law requiring Youtube to host whatever content you want them to. Nor should there be, really.
> It protects them from legal action by copyright holders as long as they honor the process spelled out in the statute.
Yes, that's what I was referring to; YouTube is now saying in some of their emails[1] about taking down a video that they are not intending to forward the counter-notification to the claimant, which they are required under 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to do if they want to limit their liability as a service provider.
They don't have to put the video back up or do anything when someone sends a counter notification, but that means they have full copyright liability for that video. They can now be sued directly for violating copyright for each copy they made when someone viewed the video prior to when it was taken down.
In the video in my previous comment, a copyright lawyer discusses the situation. He thinks the big music industry companies that are involved in these agreements ("YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners") must have indemnified YouTube for any legal costs they might face in exchange for the power to anonymously kill videos without question or appeal.
> They don't have to put the video back up or do anything when someone sends a counter notification, but that means they have full copyright liability for that video. They can now be sued directly for violating copyright for each copy they made when someone viewed the video prior to when it was taken down.
Anybody claiming to own the copyright. It doesn't matter if the claim is legitimate; "safe harbor" means the time and effort wasted on copyright problems is limited to hiding/restoring videos and forwarding a few legal notices between the claimant and alleged copyright infringe channel. The expensive parts like defending against potentially frivolous claims happens directly between the parties involved.
Copyright holders could file a DCMA request, but YouTube's process makes it easier while achieving the same result. This allows YouTube to satisfy large content holders by avoiding the penalties for false DCMA claims.
DCMA is intented for forcing a comapny to remove content. YouTube simply removes things without actually involving DCMA.
