It's that very same point which makes it acceptable (to some) to break civil law. Unless the plaintiff can actually prove that damages are due, then the prepara

It's that very same point which makes it acceptable (to some) to break civil law. Unless the plaintiff can actually prove that damages are due, then the preparations for the case (which are admittedly expensive for many) are the only costs that the defendant bears. In the grandparent's example, the TV series is still available, and so the copyright holder could make a strong case for damages. If it's an otherwise unavailable news report about a specialist topic, it would be much harder to claim that any damages (such as loss of profits) was actually incurred. The fact that YouTube can simply restrict access whenever they feel like it is of course tangential to the legality of distribution in general.