>>13247657No, because money talks. And they will lose money from pursuing this.
People seem to think striking videos is a function of copyright law. That is wrong. Striking is a solely Youtube-implemented policy as a compromise to retain safe harbour provisions under copyright law.
Youtube is only obligated to not have content that infringes copyright law stored on its servers. This it has satisfied - unarchived karaoke, by definition, is no longer on its servers. Youtube has no legal obligation to do anything more, nor would it want to.
The only reason permission holders are so trigger-happy is because striking costs them nothing besides an email and Youtube literally provides them bots to freely identify infringement. Going further than that requires time and labor investment. A rights holder cannot do anything beyond striking a non-existent unarchived karaoke unless they wished to proceed to a legal case. If they did so, they would almost definitely lose more money in legal costs than what they could claim even if they "won", especially since holos have SCs turned off.
