synkrotron
...had an advert on it, and not a very nice one either (Dope Factory).

 
Isn't that the name of their law firm? 
 

My understanding of this issue is that YouTube has worked out a system so that legitimate owners of copyrighted material can notify them it is being used in a post, and then, instead of demanding a takedown, the copyright owner can receive benefits from advertising that YouTube then places with the posting. A takedown is of questionable benefit to the copyright owner unless the posting is actually cutting into his own sales. "Monetization" benefits the copyright holder because he gets a share of the ad revenue, and benefits Google because they get a share of the revenue from the ad as well. 
 
There is now an industry that uses robot searches to identify possibly infringing material by vising web pages and analyzing content like Shazam does and then generates a (presumably also automated) claim to YouTube. This can be done very rapidly and at very little cost, as it must be in order to be profitable. They sign up copyright holders to create a big catalog of material for their database of content to match against postings. Since the copyright holder would find it impractical to police the internet himself, even the paltry amount he receives after these services take their cut is free money. The system is outside the copyright act takedown provisions, and the protections it gives to posters wrongly accused of infringement. So you are arguing with Google and the "anti-piracy" service, both of whom have money to gain by denying or delaying your protest, and your only appeal is through some kind of legal action, from which you are in practice barred by the cost to you. 
 
A system that looks like it should be a fair way to let posters use copyrighted work via a backdoor "license" and still pay the owner can easily go awry. If your work looks or sounds enough like the work of their clients, it will get swept up in the dragnet these copyright crawlers are casting, and it is in their best interest to set the tolerances so loose on discriminating whether your stuff sounds like their clients' stuff that it will capture everything even close. Some amusing anecdotes include an incident of someone who posted videos of their trip to the beach finding the upload had been "monetized" because the recording of seagulls calling in the background "matched" seagull sound effects on a copyrighted song.
 
 

Beepster
Now that I've made you sufficiently parnoid (sorry... lol) this is probably just some kind of confusion on youtube's part.
 
Really you disputed it. They'll probably get a real human involved to check it out and all will be well. Do NOT contact "Party X" though just in case they are skeevy fudgemonkeys out to screw you. As soon as you make direct contact it kind of opens the floodgates to more harassment and litigeous bullpuckey.
 
All will be well I'm sure.

 
The cost of getting a real human involved is probably prohibitive for all concerned. If you read everything here, you will see that Google is phrasing their appeal process in such a way that it will frighten (warn?) most readers into simply accepting the ad or removing the video. Your appeal will give Party X all they need to have a robot generate a cease and desist letter complete with realistic machine signature and the name of a real lawyer. But even without such a costly mailing, the reputed copyright owner can wait thirty days then just tell Google they still think you are a pirate at near zero cost. Google is not involved at all here and pays no cost, it is you vs the complainant. The complainant does not have to offer any evidence whatsoever to either you or Google that their position is correct, a simple statement (again machine generated) that a given work has been infringed is all they will ever have to provide. You can then appeal the rejection, and after another 30 days the claimant must either release their claim, or they must issue a takedown notice. A takedown notice can be machine initiated with the information they have from the appeal process and there is no filing fee or other apparent significant disincentive. If they do issue a takedown notice, again without any proof or evidence or evaluation of the merits by Google, you account will receive a "copyright strike." Google helpfully "warns" you that:
"Because an appeal may initiate the takedown notification and counter notification process, the contact information you provide in the appeal form will be shared with the copyright owner, who may eventually choose to take legal action against you."
 
If the takedown notice is issued you are in copyright law territory, and you have a statutory appeal. Google takes that takedown appeal as your only defense against the "copyright strike" it has issued without any hearing of the facts itself. It is not clear if the strike is suspended during the appeal process, but it appears that the post will be taken down pending appeal. The complainant may issue a retraction at their discretion, which will apparently wipe the strike and reinstate the posting, but there is no reason for them to do so. If the complainant simply lets things slide without further affirmative action on their part, the strike apparently remains.  And again a warning:
"Please note that when we forward the counter notice, it will include the full text of the counter notice, including any personal information you provide. The claimant may use this information to file a lawsuit against you in order to keep the content from being restored to YouTube." In fact the same information can be obtained by subpoena regardless of your filing an appeal.
 
The statute says that anyone who files a takedown notice must include "A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." A good faith belief is a very elastic concept, and proof of actual infringement typically requires a trip to court, so unless the claim is clearly fraudulently made, or absurd on the face of it, the complainant has little to fear about doing so. If you file a formal statutory Counter Notification Letter, the law requires YouTube to restore your posting unless the complainant actually files suit for copyright infringement within 14 days. That step is very likely to be more costly than it is worth to the complainant. If he does not file suit, you should be able to get your posting put back up, but it is not clear that YouTube will retract the "copyright strike" unless they get a formal retraction from the complainant. If he does file suit, the cost of simply answering the suit will almost certainly be more than you could hope to gain by the posting, and if you lose a suit, with statutory damages it could cost you several orders of magnitude more than the benefit of the posting. 
 

Patents and copyrights are only as good as your ability to defend them. Whomever has the deepest pockets usually wins in the end because they can drive the other party into the poor house. Right or wrong, money wins.

So essentially Google's Youtube has made itself a breeding ground for profit driven copyright troll extortion artists.
 
Nice.
 
I change my advice to... call a lawyer and crush the trolls. There are probably pro bono lawyers and class action suits geared toward shutting this kind of crap down.
 
What a fooking pathetic way to make a living. Pricks.
 
Also I have noticed that every single youtube vid now forces an ad. Due to my script/adblockers I don't see them but it makes the vid choke for the duration of whatever ad is supposedly playing. Now I'm wondering if it's because scumbags like this hopped on these YT policies (am I understand this correctly? If they claim they own it they can force an ad on it and get the ad revenues?) and made bot style infringement claims on EVERYTHING just to get their ad revenues.
 
...
 
No, that would just be too twisted. I don't even want to think that could possibly be true.

synkrotron

Moshkito
I have to post those for Sharke to see.

Right topic?

Actually yes, because the style that I will show you guys starts as the easiest, craziest and nuttiest SCRATCH on a piece a paper that you have ever seen! Actually it would be on the other post, of course!
 
It's a doodle and then some ... but you will ALL (I'm not kidding!) not believe me! (Again! What's new!)

ampfixer
Patents and copyrights are only as good as your ability to defend them. Whomever has the deepest pockets usually wins in the end because they can drive the other party into the poor house. Right or wrong, money wins.

Actually a bit different, and it was the cartoon book that showed it and amplified and explained a lot of music history in America. The movie studios owned almost ALL the music that was copyrighted in America through the 1940's and into the 50's, which allowed them to use it in their works (and pay themselves on it!!!) and the like and later helped bring their "stars" to sing!
 
This started breaking out in the late 50's!

Totally weird... All of it.
 
I'm glad I asked the question though...
 
thanks for the info everyone

Yeah... I'd really pay attention to what slartabartfast posted. He's a smart dude and seems to have figured out WTF YT is up to.
 
I gotta study up on this because it could potentially screw up some plans I have. Very disappointing. I may have to pay for some video server space because of this. I jsut don't want to deal with these kinds of greifer clowns.
 
Cheers.

And the bad news is...
 
The adverts are back on my music vid, so I've deleted it.
 
I've also e-mailed youtube expressing my disappointment, which will more than likely go straight into the trash.
 
I'm now looking at where else I can post my vids...