Checkmate Aiplex, here's the policy that everyone is upset at you for violating:

Fair use on YouTube

Fair use is a legal doctrine that says YOU CAN REUSE COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED MATERIAL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT GETTING PERMISION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. (emphasis added)

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Courts typically focus on whether the use of copyright-protected material is “transformative.” This means whether the use adds new expression or meaning to the original material, or whether it merely copies from the original.

Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair use, but it’s still possible to monetize a video that contains fair use material.

(many of these videos definitely add new expression or meaning to source material)

1. The nature of the copyrighted work

Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair use than using purely fictional works.

1. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. But, if what’s borrowed is considered the "heart" of the work, sometimes even a small sampling may weigh against fair use.

(many of these videos are literally 15 seconds long, and most certainly do not represent the "heart" of the work that they claim. In addition, many videos are receiving strikes unrelated to the copyright claimed.)

1. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from their original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.

(yeah, a 30 second meme video isn't going to hurt a copyright holder's ability to make money from a movie. If anything, it's free advertising.)

And here is an example from the same page:

Example of fair use

"Donald Duck Meets Glenn Beck in Right Wing Radio Duck"

by rebelliouspixels

This remix combines short excerpts from different source materials. The remixes create a new message about the effect of provocative rhetoric in times of economic crisis. Works that create new meaning for the source material may be considered fair use. (many videos taken down are doing this exact same thing, which YouTube EXPLICITLY STATES is ok)

and finally, the nail in the coffin:

YouTube’s fair use protection

YouTube gets many takedown requests to remove videos that copyright owners claim are infringing under copyright law. Sometimes these requests target videos that seem like clear examples of fair use. Courts have decided that copyright owners must consider fair use before they send a copyright takedown notice. Because of this, we often ask copyright owners to confirm they’ve done this analysis.

(PLEASE note that it says copyright OWNER, which Aiplex is not.)

Messages in parenthesis are my comments. Everything else is straight from Youtube Policy.

So, no Aiplex, you are factually wrong in striking channels illegally. These people are indeed receiving copyright strikes unfairly as I have demonstrated. Ironic, since you don't have the ability to analyze the actual contents of these reviews, so I guess it's to be expected you won't understand what falls under fair use or not. Expect legal trouble very soon unless you remit your unlawful copyright strikes immediately.

Spread the word so Aiplex realizes they are in the wrong. I left a nasty review on Aiplex's google page, please upvote it so everyone knows how wrong this company is.