non exclusive licensing

As a general update to the copyright situation, I’m now sitting on four completely bunk Content ID claims. I’ve been waiting for a response from [Merlin] Phonofile since Thursday and have sent them two e-mails just to keep them updated on what they’re claiming and why the claims don’t have a shot in hell at being legitimate.
.
1. This songs appear to have been published in Febuary 2016. All my stuff was published well before
2. The song being used to claim my video uses at least one loop from the Sony ACID package. Those loops are sold by Sony on a non-exclusive license. This artist’s song is a whopping fifteen minutes long and I’d be surprised if a single note was original. So false positive city, right here.
3. The song being used to claim my videos doesn’t actually match the audio in my videos, really. Content ID is only matching that one little section based on the synth sound.
.
I don’t know anything about Phonofile yet. Orchard sent me a quick reject when I disputed, preferring to steal revenue while I hashed things out via their private e-mail. Orchard finally got back to me a few weeks ago and I haven’t seen a claim from them since, but maybe this is what the year is going to shape up to be like.
.
I hunted down the company and artist Phonofile is claiming my content for, and they’re poster kids for shady garbage that shouldn’t be allowed in the system. There’s so obviously no background checking, proof of licensing, nor oversight with Content ID. Anyone at all can get into this thing and make messes, and people regularly do. Phonofile will get off totally fine, but meanwhile I could be waiting a month or longer for resolution while suffering whatever hits to SEO are laid on channels that get Content ID claims.