warner music claimed my video for defending their copyright in a lawsuit they lost the copyright for

Amusingly, Warner Music themselves can't tell the difference between Dark Horse and Joyful Noise (the song supposedly being infringed upon in Dark House) ▶ this video

Simple distribution laws are going to ensure that the bulk of claims go against smaller channels, and that those channels will have little recourse but than public outcry and outrage to seek redress. But larger channels have been hit, notably Adam Neely, at 1.38m subscribers, by Warner Chappel, over his defence of Katy Perry's copyright in a Warner recording, for a segment of the video illustrating the source of the claim against Perry , and not the Perry piece Warner claimed infringement of by Neely. link link ▶ this video

Adam Neely (YouTube music educator) had an absolutely farcical run-in with this situation ( ▶ this video ) where he made a video defending Warner Music and Katy Perry's Dark Horse against Flame's Joyful Noise plagiarism suit. He lost the claim from Warner Music even though: 1- he was defending Warner Music 2- he didn't play any recordings, he just played 3 notes on a synthesizer (which is his whole premise that it's un-copyrightable) 3- Warner Music lost the actual suit (which implies they don't have copyright on those 3 notes?) 4- someone at Warner Music manually tagged the "infringing" part of the video, except the person tagged not the Dark Horse part of the play through but the Joyful Noise part of the play through (*^∀^)ノ彡┻━┻ changelog: improved ascii art

Another recent copyright abuse was this one ▶ this video and this was even manually stricken. Basically this was a critique of aggressive copyright lawsuits that was manually copyright claimed... for the wrong song.

Minutes ago: "Update - the claim was released, so I'm making this video unlisted. Thanks guys for watching!" ▶ this video