Bad Boy YouTube!

I repost here a post I wrote for the Saint-Clair's band I conduce and for which I post videos from our concerts on YouTube. While posting videos of our gigs on the net I was excepting the day we would have troubles with copyright (we declare to play music in live but not to publish it, even for free on the web).
This happened this fall about a video from our célébration of Adolphe Sax's bicentenary 200 ans Sax:

I discovered that a score publisher has monetized this video, claiming its intellectual property.
In fact we wrote this score all from our hands, like most of the tunes we play (to adapt it to our level and our staff). This time I started to write and Julien re-wrote it before to play it.
Whit this piece I was looking a link between several saxophone jazz styles, so either a Charlie Parker or a John Coltrane. Cherokee is a "old withe jazz" and Parker said that was working on this that he founded for the first time the sound he was searching for (a.k.a. bebop), that was kind of the recreation of jazz in my sense. So it was the perfect music.

So we wrote a score inspired by the Parker's version. I would be curious to compare it to the Shapiro Bernstein's one, but I know we didn't copied it. You just have to listen the both (in the same time like in a Boris Vian's book?) to hear they are different. Ours is inspired by their, not the same.
Then we declare the copyrights, because I like to make things good. We declare officalilly the original version as we didn't ask the rights to re-arrange it.
I admit we never declared it for any kind of public broadcast, as we didn't even knew that we could show anything from the concert. And well, I hope fair trade as we use it as a memory for ourselves, we didn't gain any money with that.

Maybe happily, as we could have paid for it (without gaining money) and the editor would have ask to gain a second time directly through YouTube? Well, I don't want to enter a silly controversy, the editor ask to monetize this video for him.
And YT allows you to appeal against, what I did, and you can argue why you disagree the monetization. And that's where the hypocrisy begins:

"After reviewing his claim, the appliant confirmed that it is valid.""
And that's all?!?

Of course, he did, he would not just retract himself!!
No argument, no evidence! So, on YouTube, you can ask to be paid for the work of anyone, just take a chance and it can happen? Hey, this video from anyone I don't know who he is seems to be good and will be played a lot of time, I'll just ask to monetize it about my copyright without prooving anything, he will refuse I will simply confirm (without any evidence) and I can gain money from HIS video?

Because that what I think it is! Yeah, Shapiro Bernstein has the rights on this music, but we paid to play it, and he ask now to gain another time on a free use?
But YT allows you to appeal against again:

... at your own risks: if your complain is re-rejected the video will be removed from the site. And you channel could be too!
But... How the case is judged? In the same way that the first: by the claimant?
No information about that on the YT website, so may it be that bad...

I do know we are not in our rights as we never paid to braodcast it, I have no confidence in the YT system, and I'm not going to risk a waring on our channel as we have less than 50 plays on our best videos (they will not gain anything with this video).

Hou, another copyright infringment!

.