When the copyright strike is issued a video is taken offline from the publishers channel.
In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers.
It is a problem only slightly less nasty than channel hijacking. =3
Content ID is just as bad... if not worse... given no one checks for fair-use cases. A lot of old public-domain stock-footage was re-uploaded under dubious conditions, and will get your content auto flagged.
You originally wrote that extortion of funds is an ongoing pervasive issue:
> In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers.
The three links you provided are all about the same, single, extreme case - from seven years ago - that ended with YouTube suing the person who was extorting money.
I still don’t think there is any evidence that extortion of money through abuse of notice-and-takedown is an ongoing pervasive issue.
Indeed, I gather you don't often talk with very many other content producers.
What made the case exceptional, was the fact they caught the guy and there were legal consequences. Usually, this does not occur... at best it wastes everyone's time, at worse it costs you like any other SLAPP lawsuit.
Best of luck, and check if your commercial insurance covers legal expenses. =3
Note, this is often used for political purposes as well:
In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers.
It is a problem only slightly less nasty than channel hijacking. =3