Correction: I was tired when I listened to this. He actually says that YT took the account down because three videos contained copyrighted material and YT removes material because of an "automated" list. This does not alter the fact that fundie Xtians play dirty.
So, was our anger at YT inappropriate?
Knee-jerk removal of entire accounts is utterly ridiculous. I'll explain.
Irritating though WMG's greed is, YT has merely stripped soundtracks rather than take down accounts. I suspect that YT adopted this policy because it has generated anger at WarnerMegaGreed rather than at YT. This probably puts pressure on WMG to make a more reasonable deal with YT.
(We are given the option of re-activating the video with YT approved material—usually so awful that they can't give it away.)
The policy of stripping WMG soundtracks demonstrates that YT has the ability to handle videos with copyrighted material in a variety of ways.
Inadvertent, and advertent violators (those who know that they did not personally compose and record original music tracks), add to YT's stockpile of profit-making videos. (There are original artists on YT—they too are usually so awful that they can't give it away. This is why they don't have record contracts.)
It is understandable that YT is quick to remove material that might prompt legal action against YT.
However, I think that the three-strikes-your-out policy should only apply to guideline violations that include genuinely pornographic material, hate speech, gratuitous violence, and such like. (By "genuinely pornographic material" I mean to exclude those instances of flagging by religious nutters who are easily offended by bare shoulders and kissing.)
YT refuses to print a list of to-be-targetted or likely-to-be-targetted tracks. It does have software to prevent activation of uploaded videos that contain targetted tracks. This software prevents new uploads of WMG material and has stripped the soundtracks of already uploaded videos. This is a reasonable way to proceed in view of the fact that some third parties suddenly decide that they are not being remunerated sufficiently for tubers to advertise their product.
Further, YT states that YT will be exempt from law suits while its uploading tubers are not exempt from prosecution. Since the intent of copyright law is to protect profits, it seems unreasonable that the little guy who does not profit should bear the brunt of litigation. As far as I know, this travesty has not occurred.
One of my videos does have a soundtrack that is blocked in some countries. I was notified of this. Since it is my only problem video, I obviously have the choice of deleting it. If I had hundreds of uploads, then shifting rules about which material is on a hit list could easily result in a sudden unnotified account deletion, such as happened to James Randi.
If YT wishes to keep third parties and tubers sweet, then it ought to rethink the way that they handle accounts that could fall victim to shifting policies and automated software. Simply strip the soundtracks from offending videos or delete those videos with egregious violations.