>>11343988>>11344044That takes far too much effort to pursue. First of all you don't have Youtube's handy bots to help you out, you need to do it manually, actually watch the videos to make sure it's your song on it, and then get all the other information like when the (now-vanished) stream happened.
And then, so you've "proved" they sang your song on stream. Now what do you get out of it? First of all it's difficult to prove damages off the bat, because they never have SCs turned on. By this time you've probably spent more than 3 man-days on the whole thing, which already cost you more than any money they would have gotten even with SCs turned on.
The real issue are Youtube copyright strikes, which are basically Youtube's way of gaming the DMCA. If Youtube didn't have strikes, it would be required to automatically police and remove copyright-infringing content even without being told to. If it failed at this (which it would, obviously, given the sheer volume of content), it would lose its safe harbor protection status and be held liable for every single act of infringement on its platform. So the compromise is to have it be automated (so it's cheap enough for Youtube to do reasonably) and severe enough that no one can reasonably claim that Youtube is not doing its job at protecting the rights of copyright holders.
The end result of that severity is that two strikes render you unable to upload or stream content for up to 90 days, and three Youtube copyright strikes delete a channel permanently. The strike takes place first, and then you can dispute it. So even erroneous claims can be damaging.
So you see now that the only thing that matters is avoiding Youtube copyright strikes. But within the bounds of the Youtube system, you obviously can't copyright strike content that doesn't exist - the purpose of the strike is already fulfilled, that content is gone - which is why it's fine for other people to upload it. Those people can be copyright striked, of course, but no one bothers to. If you wanted to go after the original infringer who no longer has that content? Well, Youtube's system is literally run by a skeleton crew who barely knows how it works, so you're going to have to prepare for a long, drawn-out back-and-forth to get the necessary evidence that will cost you ten times what you can possibly recoup in damages. Which would be near-zero, because, as above, you'll find that SCs are turned off for the stream, which then necessitates you and your lawyers to put together some convoluted arguments with shitty math on how singing your song in particular - not the other songs - generated some proportion of SCs for a later stream or something.
There is another kind called a Content ID claim - this is an automatic process which can make the ad revenue from your video go to the claimant. Many vtubers wouldn't really care about this if they're getting the views and pumping the algorithm - it's still better than having their work gone altogether.
