Quick answer: no. Credit and permission are different things. Credit is attribution — saying who made the work. Copyright requires a license— the right to use the work. Announcing "track by [artist], all rights to the owner" while broadcasting a song you never licensed is, legally, just infringement with a bibliography.
Why the myth survives
Because it borrows logic from school: cite your sources and you're fine. Academic citation avoids plagiarism (claiming authorship). Copyright is about usage rights — a completely different system. You can be perfectly honest about who made a song and still have zero right to broadcast it.
The machines don't read your disclaimer anyway
DMCA enforcement at platform scale is automated audio matching. The fingerprint of the song triggers the claim; nothing in that pipeline parses your chat message, video description, or "no copyright intended" overlay. If anything, a disclaimer proves you knew the material was copyrighted — the opposite of helpful.
The related myths, while we're here
- "Under 30 seconds is fine" — there is no magic duration; short clips get matched daily.
- "It's fair use, I'm reacting" — fair use is a case-by-case defense, not a setting (reaction-content reality check).
- "I bought the song / pay for Premium" — personal listening rights, not broadcast rights (the Spotify question).
- "Everyone does it" — and strikes arrive in batches when a label sweeps. Survivorship isn't safety.
What actually protects your channel
Permission (stream-licensed or properly royalty-free music — full guide: DMCA-safe music for streaming) for the music you choose — and automation for the music you don't. StreamHushcatches copyrighted songs the moment they hit your audio and mutes them off the broadcast in ~2 seconds, voice untouched. Credit the artists you love in chat all you like — just don't rely on it as armor.