> Update:YouTube provided Ars Technica with the following statement: "Our partners do not have the right to take down videos from YouTube unless they own the rights to them or they are live performances controlled through exclusive agreements with their artists, which is why we reinstated it."
So, certain companies have access to some sort of Youtube backend and they can shut videos and such without prior Youtube/Google permission (due to time limitation, I'd guess). Although Youtube/Google has the power to overwrite any changes made by these 'partners' (don't know which word to use).
Considering how Google has handled "customer support" in other areas of their business, the "override" option sounds like a cop-out.
What Youtube/Google should have done is require an arbitration system funded by "rights-holder", backed by monetary damages if they abused the system. Instead, we seem to have a system with no downside-risk for the media companies of over-reaching.
So, certain companies have access to some sort of Youtube backend and they can shut videos and such without prior Youtube/Google permission (due to time limitation, I'd guess). Although Youtube/Google has the power to overwrite any changes made by these 'partners' (don't know which word to use).
Does that seem right?