>>Counter-suggestion....go up to YouTube and see how many times Eye of the Tiger is up there (and in many ways where the person doing the posting did some level of subtle indirection). Actually, I found a ton of Survivor content posted by members and I am pretty sure it would violate copyright laws. But almost all of the content I found up there has one thing in common - free of any endorsement.

Copyright conglomerates require Youtube to analyse and attribute to a certain standard. Initially there were severe implications like deletion of video or cancellation of account, but current consensus seems to be that it's an "own goal" to mute the music or cancel the video rather than advertizing the music for free and in fact many publishers put official videos up there because they perceive advantage. Presumably Youtube and copyright holders enter such agreements willingly after legal advice. Youtube then passes some obligations onto its users. I challenge your claim that the result infringes copyright laws. Which of the copyright holder's stipulations is broken?

>>I'll stick with my original statement. Survivor isn't interested in copyright laws and loss of revenue, no much how much they might claim it. It is selective outrage with concerns of perception of false endorsements. Period.

Even if what you say were true- you're allowed to preserve your own property in whatever legal form you prefer. I point again to the Somalian refugee example I gave. Some people might be willing to let them camp out on the lawn but you're not racist for refusing. You're wanting to preserve your own property in a certain state. This is still allowed in the United States.