Since the alleged copyright owner Patrick Savey chose the DMCA Process to pursue his claims, I will abide by that law. Below is a link to a complete flowchart that ran its course since July 19, 2011. It is clear that the purpose of the DMCA is to immunize the Internet Service Provider, in this case YouTube, against secondary liability stemming from aiding and abetting the alleged infringer by hosting allegedly infringing material on its site. However, many copyright owners abuse the DMCA to process takedown notices only to realize that their victory is short-lived when the alleged infringer files a counter-notice and ISP re-publishes the allegedly infringing material after 14 days.

In other words, a DMCA takedown is like a Temporary Injunction where the claimant is ordered to appear in court within 10 days to show cause why a Permanent Injunction should issue. If the claimant fails to show up in court, the takedown is voided akin to having a default judgment against the copyright owner. Hence, the DMCA law is of no use to unscrupulous copyright owners who have no intentions of going to court, but they just like to pursue takedowns on the cheap. The record will show that Patrick Savey filed 32+ takedown claims but failed to keep the material down because he failed to go to court and not due repeated infringing activity as he falsely claims.