I find the comments people make on YouTube around this non-understanding somewhat interesting. The "stealing" metaphor seems to have led to the unintended consequence that people are confused by what "copyright infringement" even means, thinking that maybe it only applies to something like plagiarism--- "stealing" a work by claiming that it's yours when it was actually made by someone else.
So the solution is to still post the video, but with a confusing disclaimer like, "this video isn't mine, all music belongs to [artist], no copyright infringement intended". Saying "no copyright infringement intended" while still uploading the video is strange thing to be doing, unless you have a nonstandard understanding of what copyright infringement means.
I find it funny that you think that's a misinformed view of copyright. That's exactly what copyright exists for in the first place. Not to provide a sales monopoly, but to provide the artist the right to take a claim against someone else if they pass off that artist's work as their own. If it went back to that and shorter terms we might actually see some innovation....Oh wait, it basically has outside the corporate content industry.
You are mistaken. Copyright is exactly about providing a temporary monopoly so creative people have a window to exploit their work commercially. The idea you are describing about credit/recognition is also recognised as a legal right in many places (typically called something like "author's right") but is different to and typically independent of copyright.
I agree it's gotten a bit ridiculous, but I also agree with the substance of the historical correction: copyright was initially about providing a temporary monopoly on copying and distribution, not just for guaranteeing proper attribution. The original monopoly period was considerably shorter, though.
More ridiculous to me than the long terms is the perpetual extension - that copyright terms are increased regularly to prevent works from entering the public domain. The US Supreme Court ruled that protection "forever minus a day" (as Larry Lessig put it) is not incongruous with the definition of copyright as a "temporary monopoly".
I have a small hope that the recent review in the UK and our government's current political drive to win over small companies will act as some sort of catalyst for at least starting change in the right direction. Even more than the Gowers review a few years ago, this latest survey describes the current copyright system bluntly as being unfit for purpose in the Internet age. Combine that with the disaster on top of a screw-up surrounded by mess that is HADOPI in France (how many laws have they and their agents clearly broken now?) and we might actually make some headway in the coming months.
I may actually go and visit my MP to discuss this issue in person (as opposed to writing, which I have occasionally done in the past but which I suspect doesn't make the same impact as someone looking you in the eye and saying you're doing it wrong for reasons X, Y and Z).
I certainly agree that the current implementation in many jurisdictions is far from the spirit of the original idea and leaves much to be desired. Still, copyright isn't about an author's right to credit/fair attribution.
Copyright(s) come in two forms: (1) moral, and (2) economic. You are talking about the moral rights, OP is talking about economic rights. Both are part of copyright law (at least in Canada). Also IANAL.
So the solution is to still post the video, but with a confusing disclaimer like, "this video isn't mine, all music belongs to [artist], no copyright infringement intended". Saying "no copyright infringement intended" while still uploading the video is strange thing to be doing, unless you have a nonstandard understanding of what copyright infringement means.