>>84943451>no expert opinion can be ever used as a point of reference No, that is exactly what they can and should be used for
>or proofThis part is correct. Their statements themselves have to stand on their own merits. Their mere expertise can lend weight to existing evidence, their interpretations might be meaningful, but on their own they are nothing, they only act as support for existing proof. There are too many problems with thinking otherwise to even really get started on it. Would you win a court case by default if you just hire more lawyers who agree with you?
I sincerely hope you come to understand why mere claims made by an expert are not enough. Not at all.
>they have to deal with copyright system regularly, so they know that they have to provide personal infoI think there is some confusion here, perhaps you misunderstood or perhaps they are oversimplifying. Youtube requires you to provide your personal information when you make an account, this information is tied to your account. You can however also make an account as a corporate entity. You don't think every Nijisanji account has Riku Tazumi's personal information do you? You don't think if they get copyright struck Riku Tazumi has to personally contest it do you?
Now, I imagine you're thinking that this doesn't quite work, as IronMouse for example might have used her personal information when she made her accounts, but shared ownership of accounts is also entirely possible and in doing so you can let other people contest copyright strikes on your behalf. There are other ways beyond this, but it can be a hassle so it's not far fetched to say they probably just didn't want to bother. Simply put: It's not impossible to contest copyright strikes without providing personal information, but it might not be worth the effort. The claim that there is no other option but to provide your personal information however is factually incorrect.
