📕

Keep fighting it - they may take it down, but even if they take it down it will be reinstated once you appeal the strike. Their only legal avenue at that point is to sue which they will not do.

somehow I don’t see any grand jury indictments coming over what happened to Christa pike

(And YouTube uses the word “escrow” so I have to assume it is a true escrow account)

I get a lil interest check every year (like $10) from my mortgage escrow account. This is purely speculation on my part, but escrow accounts can and do earn interest, and I assume YouTube is collecting that interest.

If it’s in escrow it’s in a third party-ish bank account, meaning it’s earning interest. Squatting on money (even for a few days) is a huge moneymaker - this is also how Venmo makes money off of “free” transactions, the collect interest on Venmo balances.

I am a little tinfoil hat about this tbh - when a claim is active the adsense earnings go into escrow, meaning someone is earning interest on that adsense revenue. Maybe they don't keep the revenue, but someone is earning interest, and over thousands and thousands of claim that adds up.

Travis, if you really think none of this is fair use and that this is a slam dunk case for you, then FU CKING SUE ME please, I am begging you. SUE ME. Get an easy win. SUE ME. --Is what I wanted to say. My lawyers were far more polite and asked me not to.

The Daily Wire wouldn't have the ability to make claims anymore (which would be glorious). It's fascinating that after all these years, TeamYouTube is still completely subservient to claimants and never offer any protection to their own creators who make their salaries

right? Who is making money for YouTube!! It's not the claimants!!@!#!

Hard agree - if a claimant files a takedown/copyright strike on however many hundreds of channels but NEVER files suit, they get their right to claim revoked. End of. If there's a strike system for us the same should apply for claimants as well.

my exact same thought lol

As it pertains to ad revenue and algorithm, yes. As it pertains to copyright infringement, no.

sooooo in a just world he should die? and the state should kill him? I do not follow.

Thing is he’s not making a quick buck - there’s literally no material benefit in this for Warner. He’s just doing this to be an asshole. 

While 99.9% of the time it's auto-mod, a human absolutely made the final call here; my lawyers asked Travis at Warner Chappell to release the claim. Travis refused, because the song was "not the topic of the video." I'm so tired.

Warner Chappell.

I have lawyers. Doesn't matter if the claimant decides they want to punish you (regardless if they intend to take legal action, which they will not).

you joke but it is actually her singing karaoke that is being claimed