Agreed. My complaint in the “dispute” process is that there is no “Wrong Song/Content identified” option. All the choices in the “dispute” acts as if the right song/content was identified.

one complaint on the YouTube help forums was that a person had composed his own song, performed it himself, and he posted his video…

So if a creator like Jim Sterling chooses not to monetise, but someone else disputes the ownership and wants to monetise it, they’ll still end up with ads on the video?

Yes there could be actually 30 claims against such videos.

he had nothing to do with this change in policy (its been in discussion for several months and actually popped up as a topic in the YouTube Help forums)

There’s a huge difference between Content Id/Copyright Claim and a Copyright Strike

Currently, if the uploader loses his/her dispute, the content ID/copyright claim remains, but it doest not affect the uploader’s account status

Jim Sterling’s method wasn’t a hack. as I explained in a comment on that article.

^^^ This

so again are you saying he can’t simply watch the flagged videos to see if ads are running?

so are you saying he doesn’t know if ads are running on his videos?

Can you please elaborate this point? You seem to know more than me.

and you would be right if you weren’t wrong. in case you didn’t notice he says he’s done this before and it worked.

If I put up footage of a Sony product, Sony will remove all of google’s ads from my footage.

In this video, Jim has purposely forced the Content ID robot to implode in on itself because the content ID claims cancel each other out. One company, Nintendo, claims the video uses their content, and so they try to monetize it. Another company, Take Two, claims the video ALSO uses their content, and so they try to…

him tying up the content ID system is just his way of preventing those companies from profiting off of his videos.

he’s created a situation where the companies have to decide among themselves and all they’ll get out of it is virtually no money.

I thought monetizing was not a prerequisite to getting a claim.

nothing on youtube’s information shows what happens when more then one company tries to claim. so if anything its a bug in the system which as a result, will require rights holders and youtube to figure out. which may lead to “negotiations.”

How does this apply in this situation? Sterling already does not want to monetize the video.

Are you sure about that? According to the screenshot, WMG has opted to monetize. This means ads should be activated automatically on the video, and all the revenue they generate would go to WMG, no?

If you look at his post-release comments he explained it pretty clearly.