"No copyright infringement intended" . . . Why do people think it makes sense to use it on Youtube?

"Anything you say or WRITE can & will be used against you…."

Using the phrase "No copyright infringement intended" is basically providing evidence to the whole world that you are using someone else's property without permission. 

Many people on YouTube upload videos and then disclaim in the description box that no copyright infringement was intended by their video upload. But in essence, that is an infringement in and of itself. I don't understand why it makes sense to MOST people to even use that disclaimer. Why oh why do people think that by acknowledging the fact that they don't have permission gets them off the hook from illegal use or in legal terms, copyright infringement?  

The purpose of someone having a copyright is basically to protect him or her from having someone use their creative property aka intellectual property without permission; therefore, anyone who wishes to use a copyrighted intellectual property must have permission form the owner in order to do so. 

Furthermore, by uploading a video on YouTube without having the permission of the owner of the intellectual property is infringement. Point blank period. I don’t see the logical reason as to why it would make sense to even include a “no copyright infringement intended” disclaimer. By adding to the description that they did not mean to infringe is a complete oxymoron! It implies that a person is FULLY aware of the fact that he or she is using someone's intellectual property without permission yet, he/she publicly states no intention of infringing without permission . . .  -_- . . . where is the sense in that? Unfortunately, it is a commonly used disclaimer on Youtube but it is an obviously conflicting and WRONG statement.

Although such copyright disclaimers are indeed evidence of a copyright infringement against the person who states it, at the same time, I can KIND OF see why it may be understandable as to why people would want to include these types of copyright disclaimers. Looking at this issue in regards to the reform improvements needed in copyright law, I think that these disclaimers actually point out another issue; that there needs to be copyright law reform done like right NOW.

This area of law is difficult and has yet to be fully developed. There are many gaps and undefined regulations within copyright law. In addition, before any reform is established, there will be so many aspects to consider before an effective reform can become effective. One of the most important aspects to me would be the current lack of established copyright laws. In regards to internet use and uploads on sites like Youtube, many owners of copyrights are being deprived of the very thing they were guaranteed by obtaining a copyright.

With that being said, I think if a survey were conducted as to indicate how many people would be sued for copyright infringement, it is very likely that many copyright owners would be able to sue for copyright infringements. More interestingly, I think most of these cases would be easy to prove if the defendants disclaimed the infringement with the oh so common statement "No copyright infringement intended."

However, an instance where I think it would probably make sense to use  "no copyright infringement intended" would be where someone had certain rights to an intellectual property & wanted to disclaim that the extent of his/her rights in its use did not extend to where he/she was trying to take credit that did not belong to him/her. 

But with the constant-evolution of the internet today and how much accessibility to information it so allows, I think this area of law will be difficult for legislatures to come up with a copyright reform. I think the range of accessibility on the internet causes the difficulty in copyright law reform.