An interesting discussion.  As I survey the copyright land, two things
strike me:

1. Infringement is a civil matter handled in civil courts (i.e.,
somebody has to actually sue you) unless,

2. The FBI pays you a visit -- then it's criminal.

So, let's take this single instance: a performance of a classical
piece, that nobody cares about, composed by a dead composer, rendered
by a video, of a player piano roll manufactured somewhere in the 1920s
to '30s, by a defunct company, on a player mechanism built by a defunct
company.

Who, precisely, would sue?  Some possibilities present themselves:

1. A crank.

2. Someone related to the composer (he's dead, after all),
or someone with actionable ties to the manufacturer of the original
roll being played.  Oh, and patents on the performing mechanism ran out
years ago.  It's called "having standing."

3. A combination of the two: a crank with deep pockets.

And, can you seriously envision the FBI raiding your house to impound
the piano?

Alas.  The YouTube thing is probably a prelude to their adding an
advert onto your posting (yes, that's their pretext for doing that).

Here's a thought.  If YouTube puts an advert on the posting, without
your permission, and you have deep pockets (and feel cranky), you
can sue _YouTube_ for "conversion", i.e., using _your_ image of _your_
player piano for commercial gain without permission.  Have fun
unraveling that one in court!

George Bogatko

P.S.: Previous postings about YouTube and it's copyright complaints
led me to discover this:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/prenda-hammered-judge-sends-porn-trolling-lawyers-to-criminal-investigators/ 

Follow the link to:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139843902/Prenda-Sanctions-Order 

It's an industry.

George