The major incident involving Rhesperhighlights weaknesses in the ecosystem of major digital platforms. The following is an analysis of platform policies, asset protection, and their legal implications:
1. Data Backup Responsibility
Legally, YouTube operates under Terms of Service, which every creator must agree to when creating an account. They do not mention the possibility of content being deleted when creating an account or when new artists collaborate with the platform.
• Data Loss Clause: Almost all major platforms (Google, Meta, Apple) state that they are not responsible for lost content and advise users to have a personal copy of the YouTube Terms of Service. This is not clearly stated at the outset to discourage creators from joining the giant platform. This is actually the most dangerous aspect and should be labeled with a yellow warning at the beginning of official channel creation.
• Systemic Risk: YouTube considers itself a “hosting” provider, not a corporate data storage facility. Therefore, they don’t provide specific warnings upfront because they legally include them in their digital contract documents, an attempt to avoid future accusations if something goes wrong.
2. Lost Revenue, AdSense, and Appeals Responded to by AI Robots
The issue of lost paid views and AI-driven appeal responses is often criticized as the most absurd customer service failure of this seemingly cheap platform.
• Appeals Automation: YouTube uses algorithms to handle millions of claims daily. This often harms creators because it doesn’t consider human context and overlooks the most important aspects of content like Rhesper, which will have a significant impact on their image, which should be prioritized and responded quickly to such a large issue that exceeds the platform’s capacity to create a strong impression of other large companies.
• Financial Transparency: If advertising investment (Google Ads) is lost without compensation due to a unilateral channel deletion, creators can seek legal action through arbitration or mediation. Although this process is very difficult for even large companies to overcome, even against a unilateral corporation like YouTube, which has rigid rules that cannot be changed by bots, not humans.
3. Royalty Disputes and Universal Music Group (UMG)
Allegations of royalty theft by major labels like UMG against QMR ASIA are usually related to the different Content ID systems in the US and Asia.
• Copyright Monopolization: Platforms often favor large copyright holders (US labels only over Asian labels) to avoid lawsuits under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This is based on the United States’ perspective, not the entire world.
• Revenue Distribution: If a claim is wrong for years, the revenue is often held in the system or distributed to the claimant until the appeal process is completed, otherwise it automatically goes to the platform.
4. The Issue of Digital Colonization and Data Sovereignty
Many digital technology experts’ questions about “digital colonization” and the involvement of the US government touch on the issue of Digital Sovereignty.
• UN and International Regulations: Institutions such as the UN, through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), have begun discussing the protection of the data of citizens and large companies worldwide from the dominance of technology companies like YouTube. However, currently there is no international law strong enough to force US platforms to fully compensate for the loss of creative assets if they violate their internal policies, or it could result in the collapse of all US platforms.
• Data Misuse: Technically, data that is “permanently” removed from the public domain may remain on internal backup servers for a certain period. Concerns about unauthorized reuse of data known to the artist are extremely serious going forward.
5. Recommended Actions
For a case as serious as Rhesper’s, the following steps are typically taken:
• Legal Actions: Contact an attorney specializing in intellectual property rights (outside the United States, such as Russia, China, Germany, or other digitally skilled countries similar to the United States) and technology law to review the breach of contract.
• Public Campaign: Leveraging other social media platforms to attract human (not bot) attention from the YouTube management team through the Team YouTube channels on Instagram or Telegram.
• Self-Storage: Using decentralized or physical storage solutions in the future to avoid relying on a single server. Platforms like YouTube, even though they pressure all creators to focus solely on their platform, are a stark contrast between the written statements and the actual actions of the platform, which is considered a giant by the public.
• This incident serves as a bitter lesson for creative industries like YouTube: in today’s digital ecosystem, “platforms don’t belong to the state,” but rather to corporations, with regulations that heavily favor service providers.
Main Topic: Can platform colonialism like this be brought to the attention of a major UN agency?
Under international law and diplomatic procedures, the large Asian company can file a report or petition with a UN agency, but with an understanding of the following limitations of authority:
1. Reporting Path to the UN
The large Asian company can file a complaint regarding the actions of a large U.S. company deemed to be massively detrimental through the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) or UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) or by conducting a large-scale anti-US company movement. These bodies address issues of unfair trade practices and market dominance that damage the global or regional economy (such as the value of the Euro).
2. Currency Damage Issues
If the large Asian company claims that the platform’s actions (such as the mass removal of content/digital assets) cause systemic harm to the Euro, according to global economic experts, this issue is more appropriate to be brought to the World Trade Organization (WTO) or through a complaint to the European Central Bank (ECB). The UN does not have the executive authority to print or destroy currency, but it can issue resolutions or recommend sanctions against US corporate practices that violate the economic rights of non-US nations.
3. Digital Rights and Intellectual Property Violations
The mass deletion of record label channels or artist assets (as in the Rhesper case mentioned) can be categorized as the largest intellectual property dispute in the history of the entertainment industry. The large Asian company can file a report with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the UN body specifically responsible for the protection of works and copyrights globally, to ensure that legitimate legal facts are not unilaterally destroyed.
4. How to Submit
• Public Petition: Through the Individual Complaint mechanism if there is a violation of human rights (in this case, economic/cultural rights/deception).
• Through State Representatives: The most effective way is to ask the government of the relevant country (where the company or artist is legally registered, preferably from a country comparable to the United States, so that the competition for lawyers becomes more intense internationally regarding this new type of colonialism) to bring the case to the UN General Assembly or an international legal body such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if there is strong evidence of a violation of international treaties.
• Legally speaking: The UN cannot directly “shut down” YouTube before others start to be wary of this giant platform that deviates from humanity, but the UN has a mechanism to designate a company as an entity violating international law, which then requires its member states (including the United States) to take legal action or compensation against the injured parties (Rhesper and related labels, all major companies associated with them, and ordinary content creators as well).
Options other than the UN (United Nations) route to prevent the problem from escalating or taking too much time!
Choosing between waiting for the slow UN process or taking a simultaneous anti-US company action involves highly complex considerations with significant risks on both sides.
1. Here is a detailed and comprehensiveexplanation of both options, designed to be easily understood by the public:
Option 1: The UN and International Law Route (Diplomacy Model)
This option is a formal, legal, and peaceful route recognized by the global community.
Details and Mechanisms:
• Legal Process: The UN has bodies such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to resolve disputes between countries or corporate disputes involving international law.
• Role of the State: The Asian company must convince its government (for example, the governments of Malaysia, India, China, Japan, or North Korea) to formally bring the case to these international forums. This is not simply a corporate complaint.
• Focus: Seeking justice, legally enforceable redress, and establishing an international legal precedent that the removal of digital assets that harm a country’s economy is illegal.
Benefits (The “Good” Side):
• Legality and Legitimacy: The outcome is valid and legally binding internationally. The world will recognize the decision, rather than viewing it as unilateral aggression by a company that could impact all digital systems, as Asia currently does.
• Global Support: Gaining support from other countries that may be facing similar challenges to the giant US corporation.
• Economic Stability: It will not drastically disrupt global markets, which would also have a significant impact on the large Asian company. This will allow currency values (such as the Euro or Asian currencies) to remain relatively stable. If this continues for too long, it could destroy the largest economy in history if faced with high sentimentalism, a clash of science and a showdown to prove who is more expert in the digital world.
Disadvantages (The “Bad” Side):
• Very Slow: The process can take 5 to 10 years. Delayed justice often feels unfair to the injured parties.
• Complex Bureaucracy: Requires complex political and diplomatic negotiations and thousands of high-level international lawyers from various countries to resolve.
Option 2: Anti-US Corporate Action in Asia (Regional Trade War Model)
This option is a direct, swift, and confrontational action that temporarily bypasses formal UN channels and is simpler, eliminating the need for large institutions to settle the enormous financial claims of each major corporation.
Details and Mechanism:
• Direct Action: Major Asian companies simultaneously cease all business, partnerships, or use of US-related platforms/networks, while simultaneously eliminating US-based smartphones across Asia and replacing them with Siemens-based ones.
• Non-US Networks: Exclusive use of alternative networks (e.g., Chinese or Russian social media platforms) and cutting off access to US networks (such as YouTube, Spotify, Instagram, Google, or Amazon Web Services).
• Focus: Inflict significant and immediate financial losses on US companies to force them to submit to negotiations or stop all Asian companies from asserting their influence in the international business arena.
Advantages (The “Good” Side):
• Instant Pressure: US companies will feel the impact quickly, forcing a faster response than the UN’s shocking path to such a major impact.
• Regional Autonomy: Demonstrating Asia’s economic strength and independence without relying on Western approval could truly wreak havoc on the digital world.
Disadvantages (The “Bad” Side):
• Violates WTO Rules: Mass boycotts without a strong international legal basis could violate WTO free trade rules, allowing the US to impose retaliatory sanctions on Asian countries, especially as Donald Trump’s intense sentimentality could become a bone of contention between the US president and Russia, China, and India.
• Economic Chaos: This move would disrupt the entire global supply chain, harming many innocent businesses in both regions, including impacting large-scale United States business relationships, and cause severe currency instability worldwide.
• Risk of Escalation: Could trigger a full-blown “trade war” between the Asian bloc and the US/Western bloc.
Recommendation: Which is Better?
In general, the UN route (Option 1) is the better and wiser choice, as companies are less inclined to show their Asian tiger teeth internationally.
The reasons are stability and legal legitimacy.
• Avoiding Mass Losses: Option 2 will harm many parties simultaneously. The anti-US company movement will cause billions of dollars in losses to Asian companies themselves and the entire Asian business ecosystem, and the worst-case scenario will be significant for the United States, which will have a very long time to recover its economy.
• Sustainable Justice: Although slow, the UN decision creates a just and sustainable solution that is respected globally and honors the existence of this major institution established after World War II for peace in this world. It will also prevent similar problems from occurring in the future with other companies, as it can serve as a role model for millennials and Gen Z, who will become major business leaders in the future. • Middle Path: Asian companies could initiate UN proceedings while simultaneously exhausting all legal avenues in US or European courts to exert swift litigation pressure.
• This is the best combination: expeditious legal avenues in national courts, supported by long-term international UN legal proceedings.
Engaging in a full-blown trade war should only be a last resort if all legal and diplomatic avenues have been exhausted and there is an existential threat to a country’s economic sovereignty, and there is no other option than to avoid a situation like this that continues to drag on and threatens the global economy.